Hesperia City Council
January 17, 2023

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
58 November 2022
by providing short -term and/or long -term bicycle park ing accommodations. Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access for employees would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and impacts would be less than significant.

Conflict with Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency The Project would be subject to and would comply with and exceed, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR Part 6). Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for non-residential buildings constructed in California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. As such, the Project would comply with and exceed the California code requirements for energy efficiency.

Part 11 of Title 24 sets forth voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project under CALGreen. CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential, high-rise residential, state-owned buildings, schools, and hospitals, as well as certain residential and non -residential additions and alterations. Additionally, energy consumed by the Project’s operation is calculated to be comparable to energy consumed by other industrial uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in California. On this basis, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.

Cumulative Energy Impacts
Cumulative projects that could exacerbate the Project’s impacts include any projects that could result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. However, the Pr oject would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy in part due to the short-term and temporary nature of the construction period. Similarly, operation of the Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary use of energy or conflict with an applicable plan. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact with regards to cumulative energy impacts.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on energy as it relates to inefficient or wasteful energy use, conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and cumulative energy impacts; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.6 Geology and Soils
Expose People or Structures to Fault Rupture
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act (Alquist -Priolo Act) requires the delineation of fault zones along active faults in California. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to regulate development on or near active fault traces to reduce hazards associated with fault rupture. The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are the regulatory zones that include surface traces of active faults. According to the California Department of Conservation, the Project site is not located in an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CDOC 2020). According to the City of Hesperia (City) General Plan, although several faults exist within and in proximity to the City, no faults exist beneath the Project site (City of Hesperia 2010). Thus, the potential for surface rupture is low on the Project site. Although the Project site

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
59 November 2022
could potentially be subject to strong ground shaking during an earthquake, because of the absence of an underlying fault in the Project area, there is no potential for faulting on site. Therefore, no impacts associated with fault rupture would occur.

Expose People or Structures to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Similar to other areas located in seismically active Southern California, the City is susceptible to strong ground shaking during an earthquake. However, the Project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and the site would not be affected by ground shaking more than any other area in this seismic region. Pursuant to Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the Hesperia Municipal Code, the Project would incorporate the design recommendations included in its geotechnical report, which will be subject to review and approval by City staff prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Project’s geotechnical report p rovides specific design recommendations to ensure the structural integrity of the Project in the event that seismic ground shaking is experienced at the Project site. These recommendations include performing remedial grading, over -excavating existing soils , and recompacting these soils with structured fill, among other technical design recommendations . Additionally, the Project’s structures would be designed consistent with the most recent version of the California Building Code, which includes universal standards relating to seismic load requirements. Compliance with recommendations of the Project’s geotechnical report, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

Expose People or Structures to Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a seismically induced form of ground failure that has been a major cause of earthquake damage in Southern California. Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated granular soils transform from a solid to a liquid state because of a sudden shock or str ain such as an earthquake. Due to the existing geologically young, loose, unconsolidated sediments throughout the City, liquefaction has the potential to occur within the City.

However, according to Exhibit SF -1 of the City’s General Plan Safety Element (C ity of Hesperia 2010), the Project site is not within an area of the City that has the potential for liquefaction. In addition, the Project’s geotechnical report states that based on subsurface conditions encountered at boring locations, liquefaction is no t considered to be a concern for the Project site . With implementation of the recommendations of the Project’s geotechnical report, impacts associated with potential seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.

Expose People or Structures to Landslides
According to Exhibit SF-1 of the City’s General Plan Safety Element (City of Hesperia 2010), the Project site is not located in an area identified as susceptible to slope instability. The Project site is relatively flat and is not l ocated adjacent to any potentially unstable topographical feature such as a hillside or riverbank. Therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur.

Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
The Project would involve earthwork and other construction activities that would disturb surface soils and temporarily leave exposed soil on the ground’s surface. Common causes of soil erosion from construction sites include stormwater, wind, and soil bein g tracked off site by vehicles. To help curb erosion, Project construction activities must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations for erosion control. The Project would

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
60 November 2022
be required to comply with standard regulations, including South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403, which would reduce construction erosion impacts. Rule 402 requires that dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent dust and soil erosion from creating a nuisance off site (SCAQMD 1976) . Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that is does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission sources (SCAQMD 2005).

Since Project construction activities would disturb 1 or more acres, the Project must adhere to the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as sto ckpiling and excavating. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, which would include construction features for the Project (i.e., best management practices) designed to prevent erosion and protect the quality of stormwater runoff. Sediment -control best management practices may include stabilized construction entrances, straw wattles on earthen embankments, sediment filters on existing inlets, or the equivalent. Therefore, construction impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant.

Once developed, the Project site would include buildings, paved surfaces, and other on -site improvements that would stabilize and help retain on-site soils. The remaining portions of the Project site containing pervious surfaces would primarily consist of landscape areas. These landscape areas would include a mix of trees, shrubs, plants, and groundcover that would help retain on -site soils while preventing wind and water erosion from occurring.

Therefore, operational impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant.

Expansive Soil
Expansive soils are characterized by their potential shrink/swell behavior. Shrink/swell is the change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in certain fine-grained clay sediments from the cycle of wetting and drying.

Clay materials are known to expand with changes in moisture content. The higher the percentage of expansive materials present in near-surface soils, the higher the potential for substantial expansion.

According to the City’s General Plan, the City’s soils are mostly c omprised of water-laid sand, silt, and gravel (City of Hesperia 2010). The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Web Soil Survey does not identify the Project site or surrounding area as containing clay soils, which are typically expansive. The Project site is documented as 100% Cajon sand, which does not exhibit significant shrink/swell behavior (USDA 2021). In addition, the Project’s geotechnical report notes that due to the silty sands, sandy silts, and sands that comprise the Project site’s surface and subsu rface, expansive soils are not a design concern for the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Septic Tanks
The Project would connect to the City’s municipal sewer lines. The Project would not require septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impacts associated with the adequacy of soils and septic systems would occur.

Cumulative Geological Resource or Soil Impact
Potential cumulative impacts on geology and soils result from projects that combine to create geologic hazards, including unstable geologic conditions, or substantially contribute to erosi on. Most geology and soil hazards associated with development would be site-specific and can be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. Such hazards

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
61 November 2022
include exposure of people or structures to rupture of an earthquake fault, liquefaction, landslides, unstable geologic units, and expansive soils. Individual project mitigation for these hazards would ensure that there are no residual cumulative impacts. Proper engineering design, use of standard construction practices, adherence to erosion control standards, implementation of BMPs required by the SWPPP, and implementation of the recommendations found in their respective geotechnical reports would ensure that the potential for cumulatively considerable geological impacts would be less than significant. Since geologic hazards are site-specific and not necessarily cumulative, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact. Also, as noted above, in 2015, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA generally does not require a lead agency to consider the impacts of the existing environment on the future residents or users of the project unless such projects exacerbate existing conditions, further limiting the likelihood that environmental impacts on related projects would occur.

Excavation and ground-disturbing activities during construction of the proposed project and cumulative projects could potentially leave loose soil exposed to the erosive forces of rainfall and high winds, which would increase the potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction on the project site and cumulative project sites would be temporary, and with compliance with the General Construction Permit and BMPs outlined in the SWPPP, cumulative impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Finding
The City finds t hat, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on geological resources or soils; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions. As such, the Project’s consistency with SB 32 (2017 Scoping Plan) and the City’s CAP was discussed in the Draft EIR and no inconsistencies were identified.

It should be noted that the Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan also satisfies consistency with AB 32 since the 2017 Scoping Plan is based on the overall targets established by AB 32. Consistency with the 2008 Scoping Plan is not necessary, since the target year for the 2008 Scoping Plan was 2020, and the Project’s buildout year is 2021. As such, the 2008 Scoping Plan does not apply and consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is relevant.
2017 Scoping Plan Consistency
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Ex ecutive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The Project will not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action categories.

The Project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the Project. Further, recent studies show that the state’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the state to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
62 November 2022
Consistency with the CAP
As previously stated, the CAP presents a number of strategies that will make it possible for the City to meet the recommended GHG emissions targets that are consistent with the reduction targets of the state.

The Project’s emissions without accounting for regulatory requires and PDFs would be 63,906 MT CO 2e per year.

After implementation, Project GHG emissions would be reduced to 55,599 MT CO2e per year. This yields a reduction of approximately 13%, which satisfies the Ci ty’s CAP target of a 12% reduction. As such, the Project is consistent with the City’s CAP.

The Project demonstrates consistency with the General Plan, CAP goals, measures, and emission reduction targets, and would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce GHG emissions, including Title 24, AB 32, and SB 32. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The City finds t hat, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project wou ld have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions as it relates to a conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials within One-Quarter mile of an Existing or Proposed School The nearest school to the Project site is San Joaquin V alley College ( 9331 Mariposa Road) , which is located approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the site. As such, the closest school is located well outside of a 0.25 -mile radius around the Project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with emitting or handlin g hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of a school would occur.

Cortese List
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites list (Cortese List) is a planning document providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop, at least annually, an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous materials release information for the Cortese List (CalEPA 2021). A review of Cortese List online data resources does not identify hazardous materials or waste sites on the Project site or immediately surrounding area (DTSC 2021; RWQCB 2021). Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Airport-Related Safety Hazards or Excessive Noise
The nearest operational public-use airport to the Project site is the Hesperia Airport, which is located approximately

6.2 miles to the south. The airport is located on the Mesa, west of Antelope Valley wash and south of Ranchero Road. According to the Comprehensive Land Use Pla n, the Project site is not located within a runway protection

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
63 November 2022
zone or safety zone area, which would have potential safety and noise impacts (San Bernardino County 1991).

Therefore, no impacts associated with airport hazards would occur.

Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans
According to the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (City of Hesperia 2017). The City Emergency Operations Plan provides a framework for coordinated response and recovery activities during an emergency (City of Hesperia 2017). In addition, the City’s General Plan designates all freeways and arterial roads as emergency evacuation routes. Typically, roadway facilities designated by the City’s General Plan Safet y Element as major, primary, or secondary highways, as well as other streets with regional access, are assumed to serve as evacuation routes in the event of a regional emergency. As roadways capable of supporting high traffic volumes and providing regional access to other highways, freeways, and neighboring jurisdictions, both Main Street and Highway 395 are expected to serve as emergency evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. The Project does not propose any changes to the geometry of these roadwa ys, and thus it follows that these roadways’ ability to serve as emergency evacuation routes would not be compromised. As a result, the Project would not significantly affect emergency response or evacuation activities. Therefore, impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation routes would be less than significant.

Wildland Fires
Construction of the Project would introduce potential ignition sources to the Project site, including the use of heavy machinery and the potential for sparks during welding activities or other hot work. However, the Project would be required to comply with City and state requirements for fire safety practices, to reduce the possibility of fires during construction activities. Further, vegetation would be removed from site prior to the start of construction. Adherence to City and state regulatory standards d uring Project construction would reduce the risk of wildfire ignition and spread during construction activities. Therefore, short-term construction impacts associated with exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant.

Upon completion of Project construction, with adherence to the City’s Municipal Code, the low ignitability of the proposed structures, implementation of fire -resistant, and irr igated landscaping, the Project would not facilitate wildfire spread or exacerbate wildfire risk or expose people or structures, indirectly or directly, to significant wildfire risk. Further, given that surrounding off-site fuels consist of moderately spaced vegetation, wildfires in the immediately surrounding area are not common, and it is unlikely that Project occupants would be exposed to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire or prolonged pollutant concentrations in the event of a wildfire. It is not anticipated that the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire, the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, or significant risks associated wi th wildfires. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substanti al evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials as it relates to hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing school or proposed school, the cortese list, the proximity of the project to an airport or an airport land use plan, the interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and wildland fires; therefore, no mitigation is required.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
64 November 2022

2.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction activities associated with the Project site would involve ground disturbing activities and t he use of various hazardous construction materials (e.g., fuels, oils, paint, and solvents), that are commonly used in building construction or for the purpose of heavy equipment maintenance. Earthwork activities can expose soils to the effects of wind and water erosion resulting off -site transport of sediments that could potentially adversely affect water quality of receiving waters. Inadvertent release of hazardous materials or wastes could also adversely affect water quality if not handled appropriately.

Construction of the Project would disturb more than 1 acre and therefore would be subject to NPDES permit requirements. The City of Hesperia is a co -permittee under the San Bernardino County Municipal NPDES MS4 permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit requires the City to implement a Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Program in accordance with the regional SWMP for the Mojave River Watershed (County of San Bernardino 2003).

The SWMP requires pe rmittees to implement and enforce measures to reduce pollutants from construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to 1 acre (City of Hesperia 2010a). To comply with the regulatory requirements of the SWMP, the City req uires the implementation of an ESCP for projects that include soil disturbance during construction within the City. Implementation of an ESCP would ensure that construction-related BMPs are enacted to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, construction site pollutants from leaving the site during all phases of construction. In addition to an ESCP, implementation of a WQMP in accordance with the Mojave River Watershed Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans (County of San Bernardi no 2016), would ensure that stormwater treatment and conveyance would be sufficient prior to Project build-out (Appendix G-2). Submittal, review, and approval of both the WQMP and ESCP by the City are necessary prior to the issuance of grading permits for Project development.

Under the NPDES MS4 Permit, the development of 1 acre or more of land must file a notice of intent with the SWRCB to comply with the State NPDES General Construction Permit. Implementation of this Permit would require the development of a site-specific SWPPP for construction activities. The SWPPP is required to identify BMPs that protect stormwater runoff and ensure avoidance of substantial degradation of water quality. Typical BMPs that could be incorporated into the SWPPP to protect water quality include the following:
• Diverting off-site runoff away from the construction site • Vegetating landscaped/vegetated swale areas as soon as feasible following grading activities • Placing perimeter straw wattles to prevent off-site transport of sediment • Using drop inlet protection (filters and sandbags or straw wattles), with sandbag check dams within paved areas • Regular watering of exposed soils to control dust during construction • Implementing specifications for construction waste handling and disposal • Using contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas • Maintaining erosion and sedimentation control measures throughout the construction period • Stabilizing construction entrances to avoid trucks from imprinting soil and debris onto adjoining roadways • Training, including for subcontractors, on general site housekeeping

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
65 November 2022
Incorporation of required BMPs for materials and waste storage and handling, and equipment and vehicle maintenance and fueling would reduce the potential discharge of polluted runoff from construction sites, consistent with the State NPDES General Construction Permit, the Hesperia Municipal Code, and CALGreen requirements.

Compliance with existing regulations would prevent violation of water quality standards and minimize the potential for contributing sources of polluted runoff. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface quality from con struction activities. Therefore, short -term construction impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Impacts
As previously discussed, the Project site currently consists of undeveloped land. Implementation of the Project would result in the construction of two industrial/warehouse buildings and associated improvements. The eastern building, Building 1, would be approximately 1,108,000 square feet, while the Building 2 on the western side, would be 742,000 square feet. Construction of the Project would introduce new impervious surfaces that could contribute pollutants to stormwater runoff in the long term from vehicle use in uncovered parking areas (through small fuel and/or fluid leaks), uncovered refuse storage/management areas, landscape/open space areas (if pesticides/herbicides and fertilizers are improperly applied), and general litter/debris (e.g., generated during facility loading/unloading activities). During storm events, the first few hours of moderate to heavy rainfall could wash a majority of pollutants from the paved areas where, without proper stormwater controls and BMPs, those pollutants could enter the municipal storm drain system before eventually being discharged into the Oro Grande Wash and eventually the Mojave River. Between periods of rainfall, surface pollutants tend to accumulate, and runoff from the first significant storm of the year (“first flush”) would likely have the largest concentration of pollutants.

The NPDES MS4 Permit requires the City to implement a Post-Construction Storm Water Management Program in accordance with the regional SWMP. This Program sets limits of pollutants being discharged into waterways and requires all new development to incorporate structural and non-structural BMPs to improve water quality. To meet the requirements of the SWMP, the City requires the incorporation of LID features into new development and redevelopment projects as specified in the Mojave River Watershed Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. In accordance with the NPDES permit, the City is responsible for monitoring WQMPs, which address stormwater pollution from new priva te development. Site -specific WQMPs for individual projects must incorporate the SWRCB required minimum Runoff Capture BMPs. In addition, the WQMP specifies the minimum required LID features, as well as the BMPs that must be used for a designated project.

Project design, construction, and operation would be completed in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit and the Mojave River Watershed Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans, with the goal of reducing the number of pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff. The two Project-specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plans for the proposed Project (Appendix G-2) determined that the infiltration/detention systems would be sufficient to address on-site stormwater water quality-related issues consistent with permit requirements.

Post-construction, the Project area would be designed to collect stormwater runoff by nearby catch basins and convey it to the proposed above ground and underground detention basins via a storm drain system (Figure 4.8-4, Proposed Drainage Conditions). Prior to entering the detention basins, runoff would be pretreated via filter inserts placed in the catch basins and then again further downstream by a baffle box. Runoff will then be released into the above ground basin where it will collect and infiltrate into the soil. In the northwest portion of the site, runoff would first be released into an underground corrugated metal pipe (CMP) detention system and excess runoff would be released to the above ground basin.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
66 November 2022
In accordance with the San Bernardino Cou nty Hydrology Manual, the detention basin system would be designed to treat water quality for a 2 -year, 24-hour storm event, and sized to accommodate the volumes and flow rates of a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Two at -grade stormwater detention basins wo uld be located north and northeast of Building 1, two underground corrugated metal pipe retention/infiltration system would be located north and northeast of Building 1, and an underground corrugated metal pipe retention/infiltration system would be located east of Building 2. The stormwater drainage system basins would be sized and designed to prevent flooding from a 100 -year storm while also accommodating the required retention volume for water quality purposes. The basins would be designed to capture the entire volume generated from a 100-year storm, meaning no runoff would be discharged off -site.

Non-structural BMPs would include the regular sweeping and cleaning of existing trash enclosures, docking areas, and paved areas throughout the P roject site, the training of all maintenance contractors in stormwater BMP implementation, and the monthly inspection of all catch basins during the rainy season (October through May) as well as before and after each storm to ensure efficient operation. Th e on-site catch basin inspections would be done by a qualified landscape contractor, who would inspect and clean out any accumulation of trash, litter, and sediment from the basins as well as would check for evidence of illegal dumping of waste materials i nto on-site drains.

Implementation of these LID features and BMPs would, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters, including inadvertent release of pollutants (e.g., hydraulic fluids and petroleum); improper management of hazardous materials; trash and debris; and improper management of portable restroom facilities (e.g., regular service), in accordance with all relevant local and state development standards.

With respect to groundwater quality, stormwater to be collected and treated in retention basins would be able to meet retention time requirements for water quality purposes in accordance with San Bernardino County requirements. All pervious areas that would remain at the Project site wo uld be below adjacent impervious areas to maximize natural infiltration as well as allowing for infiltration with the proposed underground retention basins.

Therefore, with adherence to NPDES MS4 permit and San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual standards, long-term operational impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Groundwater Recharge Groundwater Recharge
The Project site is underlain by the Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin. Currently, the Project site is undeveloped and pervious which allows for groundwater recharge. The development of the Project site would result in a substantial increase in impermeable surfaces, which could impede groundwater recharge. However, the Project would incorporate LID features , including infiltration/retention systems designed to retain 100% of the volume generated from up to a 100 -year storm event . Detained stormwater would infiltrate through the bottom of the infiltration basins and into the underlying soils. Because the Proj ect would meet and exceed infiltration requirements, stormwater would continue to be able to infiltrate soils and recharge the underlying Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater recharge would be less tha n significant.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
67 November 2022
Groundwater Supply
Hesperia Water District estimates that it currently (i.e., in 2020) receives approximately 88.0% of its water from groundwater, 5.5% from purchased water, and 6.5% from recycled water (Hesperia Water District 2016). Regarding the portion of the District’s water supply that originates as groundwater, the District receives water from sixteen active wells within the City, the entirety of which is located within Alto Subarea sub basin of the Moja ve River Groundwater Basin. The Mojave River Ground Water Basin is an adjudicated basin and thus has a managed groundwater extraction rate (Hesperia Water District 20 21). The Mojave Water Agency serves as the entity responsible for managing the use, replen ishment, and protection of the groundwater basin. The Mojave Water Agency and other retail water purveyors, including Hesperia Water District, use imported State Water Project water to replenish the Upper Mojave Water Basin as part of the Regional Recharge and Recovery Project (also referred to as the “R3” project). This practice further assists regional water providers in sustainable management of the Mojave Groundwater Basin.

A WSA was prepared for the Project and includes a comprehensive assessment of h istorical demands and a projection of future demands based on forecasted development of the remaining developable lands within the City’s water service area (Appendix J). The WSA concluded that, “the total projected water supplies available to Hesperia Water District during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years over the next 20 years would be sufficient to meet the projected water demands for the proposed project.” See also Section 4.11, Utilities and Service Systems.

In addition, as long-term water supply is a significant concern in California, Hesperia Water District has planned projects to meet future water demands for its service area. For example, to improve water efficiency and conserve vital potable water resources, such as groundwater, Hesperia Water District, in cooperation with Victor Valley Water Reclamation Agency plans to expand the local water recycling facility's treatment capacity as well as plans to build an additional water recycling facility. The City of Hesperia also plans to construct multiple recharge basins in cooperation with Mojave Water Agency to deliver and recharge State Water Project water into underlying groundwater basins within the Hesp eria Water District’s service area (Hesperia Water District 2016). These activities would act to further ensure continued sustainable management of the basin within Hesperia Water District’s service area. These projects, when coupled with regional groundwa ter management plans and the regulatory bindings of the groundwater basin, would ensure that the service area as a whole attains sustainable groundwater management. The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies and would not impede sust ainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater supplies would be less than significant.

Alter Existing Drainage Pattern
Erosion and Siltation
The Project site currently consists of undeveloped land. The Project would result in the construction of new paved surfaces, warehouse buildings, and landscape areas. Once developed, the Project site would include buildings, paved surfaces, and other on-site improvements that would stabilize and help retain on -site soils. The remaining portions of the Project site containing pervious surfaces would primarily consist of landscape areas. These landscape areas would include a mix of trees, shrubs, plants, and groundcover that would help retain on-site soils while preventing wind and water erosion from occurring. Moreover, the Project’s new engineered stormwater drainage system would feature structural BMPs such as retention facilities to treat and manage on-site storm water flows. The stormwater drainage system basins would be sized and designed to prevent flooding from a 100 -year

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
68 November 2022
storm while also accommodating the required retention volume for water quality purposes. The basins would be designed to capture the entire volume generated from a 100 -year storm, meaning no runoff would be discharged off-site (Appendix G-1). The design of the Project’s stormwater system (i.e., 100% retention and infiltration of the volume generated by a 100-year storm event) would substantially reduce the volume of stormwater leaving the site, and as such, would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Impacts would be less than significant.

Although internal drainage patterns would be somewhat altered as a result of Project development, the Project would maintain adequate stormwater conveyance as to not result in an increase of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on - or off-site. As previously discussed, the Project site would be divided into four DMAs.

Each DMA would be designed to convey runoff as sheet flows away from buildings, and where feasibly possibl e, through below-grade, landscaped areas prior to entering the nearest catch basin. The landscaped areas would act as the first filter for any suspended solids that could potentially clog the storm drain system. The runoff would then be routed to two, above-ground, earthen, infiltration basins, which would serve as the final destination for all runoff produced on the Project site. The infiltration basins would be outfitted with a concrete forebay or riprap, which would slow runoff prior to entering the infi ltration/retention basins, allowing any remaining suspended solids to separate out and reducing the potential for sediment clogging and erosion to occur. Stormwater within the basins would infiltrate through the bottom of the basin and into the underlying soils over a period of 72 hours.

The Project-specific Preliminary Drainage Report includes an existing and proposed condition hydrologic analysis to determine whether the post -construction runoff would have any impact on receiving waterways (i.e., Oro Gra nde Wash, Mojave River). In accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, the rational method and unit hydrograph was used to calculate the 2 -year, 10-year, and 100-year, 24-hour storm peak discharges for the existing and Project conditions.

The infiltration/retention system would be sized in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, which requires the Project site to retain at least 90% of the difference of volume produced between Post-Developed and Pre -Developed Conditions for the 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. The 100 -year storm would produce approximately 3,958,659 cubic feet of stormwater in post -development conditions, and the on -site infiltration/retention system would be sized to accommodate approximately 4,209,377 cu bic feet of stormwater (with a total volume capacity of 5,107,731 cubic feet) exceeding the minimum requirements. Any flows exceeding the design capacity of the underground infiltration basin would have an overflow pipe that directs flows to the above ground basin which will have an emergency spillway that discharges onto the street in extreme conditions.

Based on this analysis, the stormwater system would be designed to retain and infiltrate, at a minimum, the 100 - year, 24-hour storm event flows on-site, and in a manner that would not result in flooding on - or off-site. Because the Project’s drainage system would be designed to meet and exceed the stormwater requirements set forth in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual , the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site. Therefore, impacts associated with flooding on or off site would be less than significant.

Surface Runoff and Stormwater System Capacity
As discussed above, the proposed drainage system would be designed to convey runoff in compliance with the City of Hesperia and the County of San Bernardino WQMP and SWMP requirements. In addition, the Project would incorporate LID features, including down-graded vegetated landscapes, forebays designed to accumulate sediment and trash, and on-site infiltration/retention basins. Collectively, these LID features would lower the potential of the

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
69 November 2022
incidental releases of contaminants to the environment such as oil, grease, nutrients, heavy metals, and certain pesticides, including legacy pesticides. As a result, the Proj ect would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts associated with stormwater drainage systems capacity and polluted runoff sources would be less than significant.

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
The Project site is located in Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard per the FEMA FIRM panel 06071 C6490H effective August 28, 2008. This area is higher in elevation than the 0.2% annual chance flood (i.e., 500-year flood).

In addition, as previously discussed, although internal drainage patterns would be somewhat altered as a result of Project development, the Project would maintain adequate stormwater conveyance as to not result in an increase of surface runoff that would result in flooding on - or off-site associated with the 100 -year, 24-hour storm event.

Therefore, impacts associated with impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant.

Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones
The Project would not be susceptible to flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche. Seiche is generally associated with oscillation of enclosed bodies of water (e.g., reservoirs, lakes) typically caused by ground shaking associated with a seismic event; however, the Project site is not located near an enclosed body of water. Flooding from tsunami conditions is not expected because the Project site is located approximately 60 miles from the Pacific Ocean.

In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Map Service Center identifies the Project site as Zone X, which is classified as an area of minimal flood hazard, outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area and higher than the elevation of the 0.2% -annual-chance flood (FEMA 2020). As such, the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation. Therefore, impacts associated with seiche, tsunami, or floodin g would be less than significant.

Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan As previously discussed, the Project would comply with applicable water quality regulatory requirements, including implementation of a SWPPP, stormwater BMPs, and LID design, which would minimize potential off -site surface water quality impacts and contribute to a reduction in water quality impacts within the overall Mojave River Watershed. In addition, with compliance with these regulatory requirements, the Project would reduce potential water quality impairment of surface waters such that existing and potential beneficial uses of key surface water drainages throughout the jurisdiction of the Mojave River Basin Plan Amendment of the Lahontan Basin Plan would not be adversely impacted. As a result, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Lahontan Basin Plan.

With respect to groundwater management, SGMA empowers local agencie s to form GSAs to manage basins sustainably, and requires those GSAs to adopt GSPs for crucial groundwater basins in California. A GSA has not been established for the Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin, as it is not considered a medium or high priority basin. However, the basin is adjudicated, regulating the amount of groundwater extracted, reducing the potential for over-extraction. Further, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwat er recharge and would not conflict with or obstruct a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts associated with water quality control plans and sustainable groundwater management plans would be less than significant.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
70 November 2022
Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Water Quality
Water Quality
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with water quality is the encompassing Mojave River Watershed. Cumulative development in the watershed could add new sources of stormwater runoff.

Construction activities associated with the Project could temporarily increase the number of exposed surfaces that could contribute to sediments in stormwater runoff. Additionally, materials associated with construction activities could be deposited on surfaces and carried to receiving waters in stormwater runoff. However , all cumulative development in the watersheds would be subject to the existing regulatory requirements to protect water quality and minimize increases in stormwater runoff. For example, Part 1, Section I of the Municipal NPDES Permit requires the City of Hesperia to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges from within its boundaries, into that portion of the MS4 that it owns or operates. Part 2, Section 1.E of the Municipal NPDES Permit requires the City to control discharges to and from municipal se wer systems, so as to comply with the Municipal NPDES permit and to specifically prohibit certain discharges identified in the Municipal NPDES Permit.

Every two years, the Lahontan RWQCB must re-evaluate water quality within its geographic region and identify those water bodies not meeting water quality standards. For those impaired water bodies, a TMDL must be prepared and implemented to reduce pollutant loads to levels that would not contribute to a violation of water quality standards.

All developments w ithin the Mojave River Watershed are subject to the water quality standards outlined in the Mojave River Basin Plan and must comply with any established TMDLs. The continuing review process would ensure that cumulative development within the watershed would not substantially degrade water quality.

The County and cities located within San Bernardino County are co -permittees under the San Bernardino County Municipal NPDES stormwater permit. The NPDES permit sets limits on pollutants being discharged into waterways and requires that the project designer and/or contractor of all new development projects that fall under specific project categories develop a WQMP that includes LID design requirements related to water quality. The LID design requirements would address long-term effects on water quality within the San Bernardino County watersheds and ensure that BMPs and LID designs minimize potential water quality concerns to the maximum extent practicable.

Therefore, impacts associated with water quality standards and polluted runoff in the watersheds would be minimized, and the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Water Supply
The development of the Project would increase water demand compared to existing conditions. The Project would be served by Hesperia Water District for which the 2015 UWMP estimated an annual water demand in 2020 of 15,078 acre-feet and 16,298 acre-feet by 2025. The UWMP states that Hesperia Water District and other water agencies in Southern California have planned provisions for regional water for the growing population, including drought scenarios for its service area. This plan includes a new water demand forecast prepared for the major categories of demand and uses regional population, demographic projections, the dry climate, historical water use to develop these forecasts. As such, the Project would not be expected to result in increased water usage causing the need for new entitlements, resources, and/or treatment facilities that are not already being planned to accommodate regional growth forecasts.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
71 November 2022
In addition, the Project-specific WSA concluded that the total projected water supplies available to Hesperia Water District during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry water years over the next 20 years will be sufficient to meet the projected water demands for the proposed Project . These projections consider land use, water development programs and pr ojects, and water conservation. For example, Hesperia Water District, in coordination with the VVWRA, plans on expanding the Hesperia Subregional Water Recycling Facility water treatment capacity from 1.0 mgd to 2.0 mgd by 2030 as well as build a second wa ter recycling facility within the City that would be able to treat 2.6 mgd of wastewater by 2040. Additionally, the City plans to construct multiple recharge basins in cooperation with Mojave Water Agency to deliver and recharge State Water Project water i nto underlying groundwater basins within the Hesperia Water District’s service area. Collectively, these additional programs would enable water supply to exceed water demand now and into the future. Therefore, due to water planning efforts and water conser vation standards, impacts would be less than significant, and the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Stormwater Drainage
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to storm drainage is the Mojave River Watershed, which is moderately urbanized with impervious surfaces. Cumulative development within the County could potentially increase the number of impervious surfaces that could cause or contribute to storm drain system capacity exceedance, alter the existing storm drain system, and/or require the construction of new or expanded facilities. New development within the watershed would be subject to the environmental review process that would analyze potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff to the storm drain system. New development would be subject to the completion of drainage analyses to ensure that excessive on- or off-site flooding and runoff would not occur. Moreover, the Project’s stormwater system has been designed such that it would retain and infiltrate the entire volume generated from a 100-year storm event, and no stormwater runoff would be released off-site during any storm event up to the 100-year storm event. As such, the Project would significantly reduce the volume of stormwater that is discharged into surrounding water ways. Potential impacts to drainages associated with the Project would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.10 Land Use
Division of an Existing Community
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature (e.g., a major highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (e.g., a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area.

Under the existing condition, the Project site is vacant land and is not used as a connection between established communities. Instead, connectivity within the area surrounding the Project site is facilitated via local roadways. As such, the Project would not impede movement within the Project area, within an established community, or from one established community to another. Therefore, no impacts associated with division of an existing community would occur.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
72 November 2022
Conflict with Land Use Plans
City of Hesperia Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations General Plan
Pursuant to state law, specific plans establish land use regulations for those areas covered by the Specific Plan.

The General Plan designates the Specific Plan to cover all freeway frontages within the City as well as the commercial and industrial areas parallel to the freeway corridor. The goals, policies, and development standards applicable to the Project are found in the Specific Plan.

Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan
The Specific Plan establishes a framework for the Main Street and freeway corridors and is intended to facilitate and support development and improvements along these corridors. The regulations of the specific plan replace those set forth in the planning and zoning provisions of the City’s Development Code, and any other applicable ordinances.

The Project site is zoned and designated by the Specific Plan as CIBP (City of Hesperia 2020). The Project site would be developed in accordance with the provisions set forth in this land use designation. The Specific Plan lists CIBP as one of two industrial zones. The CIBP zone is meant to create consolidated areas for employment-creating uses in a business park setting. The zone is intended to provide for service commercial, light industrial, light manufacturing, and industrial support uses, mainly conducted in enclosed buildings, to minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, or waste disposal. The CIBP zone falls within three land use districts, Main Street/I- 15 District, U.S. Highway 395/I-15 District, and Industrial District. The Main Street/I-15 and U.S. Highway 395/I-15 Districts provide enhanced vehicular, truck, and rail accessibility by taking advantage of their location along the I-15 corridor with its connection to U.S. Highway 395, and its linkage to the Southern California Logistics Airport. The Project site falls within the Main Street/I -15 District. The Main Street/I -15 District takes advantage of regional freeway accessibility and visibility through high-quality development and streetscape enhancements.

Among the permitted uses in the CIBP zone, warehousing and wholesale distribution centers are permitted at 200,000 square feet or less. Warehouses and wholesale distribution centers over 200,000 square feet are conditionally permitted. The Project would include construction of a total of 3,745,429 square feet of warehousing use, which would require a Conditional Use Permit. As part of the Project approvals, the Project Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Assuming that the City’s decision makers approve the Conditional Use Permit, the Project would be an allowable use within the CIBP zone. Additionally, the Project plans would be reviewed by City staff to ensure consistency with all applicable development standards and regulations.

The Specific Plan contains several goals and policies that address land use and planning and are applicable to the Project.

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities S trategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted on September 3, 2020, and presents the land use and transportation vision for the region through the year 2045, providing a long-term investment framework for addressing the region’s challenges. The RTP/SCS establishes goals for the region and identifies transportation investments that address the region’s growing population, as well as strategies to reduce traffic congestion and GHG emissions. In addition, the RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of transportation and land us e strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emission reduction goals and

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
73 November 2022
federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support the region’s vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently (SCAG 2020).

Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS goals, below, demonstrates that the Project would not conflict with the applicable goals in the RTP/SCS adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

The Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies set forth by the Specific Plan, General Plan, and SCAG in the RTP/SCS and RCP. Therefore, impacts associated with applicable regional land use plans, policies, and regulations of SCAG would be less than significant.

Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts
As analyzed above, the proposed project would experience less than significant impacts related to all land use and planning issue areas. Considering the proposed project would not divide an established community and would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, the proposed project would not combine with cumulative projects resulting in a significant impact to land use. Therefore, impacts to land use and planning would not be cumulatively considerable.

Finding
The Initial Study for the proposed project found no potential for significant impacts to land use; therefore, land use was not addressed in the Draft EIR. No mitigation would be required and no significant, unavoidable adver se impacts would occur.

2.4.11 Mineral Resources
Mineral Resources and Recovery Sites
According to the Conse rvation Element in the City’s General Plan, mineral resources such as sand, gravel, and stone have been identified within the City (City of Hesperia 2010). Additionally, several aggregate resources such as gravelly alluvium and sandy alluvium are known to exist within the City. These resources are primarily located within wash areas and active stream channels. Although the City has known mineral resources, the Project would be located within an area that is not zoned for mineral resource extraction operatio ns, and thus, such activities cannot currently occur on the Project site. Therefore, impacts associated with mineral resources would be less than significant.

Cumulative Mineral Resource Impacts
As analyzed above, the proposed project would experience less than significant impacts related to all mineral resource issue areas. Considering the proposed project would not be located within the vicinity of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource recovery site, the proposed project would not combine with cumulative projects resulting in a significant impact to mineral resources. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources would not be cumulatively considerable.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
74 November 2022
Finding
The Initial Study for the proposed project found less than significant impacts to mineral resources; therefore, recreation was not addressed in the Draft EIR. No mitigation would be required and no significant, una voidable adverse impacts would occur.

2.4.12 Noise
Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Short-Term Construction Impacts
On-Site Construction Noise
Construction of the Project would generate noise that could expose nearby receptors (i.e., residences) to elevated noise levels that may disrupt communication and routine activities. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of the construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and interven ing structures. Noise from construction equipment generally exhibits point source acoustical characteristics. A point source sound is attenuated (or reduced) at a rate of 6 decibels per doubling of distance from the source for “hard site” conditions and at 7.5 decibels per doubling of distance for “soft site” conditions. These rules apply to the propagation of sound waves with no obstacles between source and receivers, such as topography (ridges or berms) or structures. Typical operating cycles may involve two minutes of full power, followed by three or four minutes at lower levels.

Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts with multiple pieces o f equipment operating simultaneously at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations were completed. This includes the additional noise attenuation provided by the existing intervening building structures and noise barriers located between the Project site and the nearest receiver locations.

To assess the “worst-case” construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project site boundary) to each receiver location. the noise levels from construction are predicted to range from approximately 46 dBA L eq 8-hr (during the architectural coating phase) to 59 dBA L eq 8 -hr (during the grading phase) at the nearest noise -sensitive receivers (single family residences approximately 1,250 feet from the nearest construction work) . Typical construction noise levels would be lower.

Construction noise levels at the other noise -sensitive receivers would be slightly lower as well. These noise levels would be less than measured ambient noise levels in the area and would be lower than th e 80 dBA L eq 8-hr FTA construction noise standard. Therefore, noise from Project site construction would be less than significant. No noise mitigation is necessary.

Noise levels at nearby noise -sensitive receptors would range from approximately approximately 55 dBA L eq 8 -hr (during the architectural coating phase) to 76 dBA L eq 8-hr (during the site preparation and grading phase) when construction occurs at and near the Project boundary. More typically, construction noise levels would be lower, ranging from approximately 50 dBA L eq 8-hr (during the architectural coating phase) to 69 dBA Leq 8-hr (during the grading phase) at the nearest existing land use.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
75 November 2022
The City of Hesperia exempts construction activity noise from standard exterior noise exposure limits, if conducted during specific limited daytime hours. The Noise Ordinance requires noise generating construction activities be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (City of Hesperia Municipal Code Section 16.20.125). This ensures that noise-sensitive receptors are not disturbed by early morning or late night activities.

To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short -term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA L eq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities. Therefore, short-term impacts associated with construction noise would be less than significant.

Off-Site Street and Utilities Assessment
The Project would include off-site street and utilities construction activities. Similar to the noise assessment for on- site construction work as summarized above, the resulting noise from off-site construction activities was assessed using the RCNM. The nearest noise-sensitive receivers to the off-site construction activities (and thus the receivers the most affected) would be the residences north of Main Street, during utilities installation within the Main Street alignment, specifically the residences adjacent to measurement location ST1. Noise levels at other locations would be lower because they would be further from the construction work. Utilities installation would occur during the building construction phase. The building construction scenario includes several pieces of equipment, but o nly a few pieces would be necessary for the utilities installation. Equipment that is anticipated to be used for utility installation includes a backhoe, a forklift, a generator, a crane and a welder. Because of the linear nature of the work, the amount of time that construction work would occur adjacent to any one noise -sensitive receiver would generally be relatively short (typically, one to two days for open-trench pipeline installation). As modeled, the worst- case noise level from utilities installation is estimated to be approximately 68 dBA L eq 8-hr at the nearest noise - sensitive receivers (single -family residences approximately 1 30 feet from the nearest construction work). The modeled noise levels do not include the additional noise reduction that would be provided by the existing property boundary wall at the residences represented by ST1. The wall would likely reduce the noise level from construction noise by a minimum of 5 decibels; th us, received construction noise at the nearest residences would likely be approximately 63 dBA Leq 8-hr or less.

Typically, utilities installation would take place further away (an average distance of approximately 1,200 feet from the residences to the nor th) and thus construction noise levels would be substantially lower at approximately 51 dBA Leq 8-hr. These noise levels would be lower than the 80 dBA Leq 8-hr FTA construction noise standard. Also, other off-site Project components (such as roadway const ruction) would be considerably further from noise -sensitive receivers and thus the associated noise levels would be lower than identified.

Therefore, noise impacts from off -site construction activities would be less than significant. No noise mitigation is necessary.

Project-Related Construction Vehicles (On-Road)
Based upon the construction scenario assumptions, during construction the highest average daily number of one- way worker trips would be 1,216 (i.e., 608 round trips) , occurring during the building construction phase . The highest average daily number of vendor one-way trips would be 572 (286 round trips), also occurring during building

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
76 November 2022
construction; and the highest number of average daily haul truck one -way-trips would be 546 (273 round trips)8, occurring during the grading phase. Project-related trucks would be restricted to the City -authorized truck routes, and (like the project sites) would be relatively far from residential or other noise -sensitive areas. It is anticipated that most of the construction -related trips in the Project vicinity would occur on U.S. Highway 395. Based upon Table 3.15-4 of the Hesperia General Plan Update’s Draft Environmental Impact Report transportation section (City of Hesperia 2010), U.S. Highway 395 has an average daily traffic volume of 19,446. The incremental increase in local traffic from the project would be approximately 6 %. Based upon the fundamentals of acoustics, a doubling (a 100 % increase) would be needed to result in a 3 decibel increase in noise levels, which is the level corresponding to an audible change to the typical human listener (Caltrans 2013a). The resultant traffic noise increase would be less than 1 dB, and thus would not result in an audible change on an hourly or daily basis.

Therefore, noise related to project -related construction vehicles on local roadways would not result in new significant impacts. No additional mitigation measures are required.

Long-Term Operational Noise
On-Site Operational Noise
Implementation of the Project would also result in changes to existing noise levels on the Project site by developing new stationary sources of noise, including introduction of loading docks, entry gate and truck movements, rooftop air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity. These sources may affect noise -sensitive vicinity land uses off the Project site. The following analysis evaluates noise from exterior mechanical equipment and activities.

To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the Project. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worst -case noise environment with the loading dock activity, entry gate and truck movements, rooftop air conditioning units, and trash enclosure activity all operating continuously. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.

Outdoor Mechanical Equipment
The proposed warehouse space overall would not be served by heating or air conditioning equipment. However, the floor plan includes an office space at the northern side of the building. Office space within each building would total approximately 20,000 square feet. Based on information provided by the Project Applicant, it is anticipated that the office space would be equipped with single -packaged rooftop HVAC units with air -handling capacity of 20 to 60 nominal tons. For the analysis of noise from HVAC equipment operation, a Carrier WeatherMaker A HVAC unit was used as a reference.

Noise level data provided by the manufacturer was used to determine the noise levels which would be generated by the HVAC equipment. The Carrier WeatherMaker A package HVAC unit has a sound level rating of 77 dBA at 10 feet (Carrier Corporation 2019). Based on the warehouse/office roof design provided, there will be a 6 -foot-high parapet extending along the perimeter of the office roof.

The combined noise levels from the HVAC equipment at the Project property lines, the nearest adjacent land uses, and the nearest residential uses w ere calculated. As calculated, the maximum hourly noise level (assuming the

8 Assumes 235,599 cubic yards of material hauling over a 54 working day grading period.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
77 November 2022
equipment would run continuously) for the HVAC equipment operating at each examined location would range from approximately 33 dBA Leq at the residential uses to the north to 44 dBA Leq at the Project’s western, southern, and eastern property boundaries. These levels are less than the City’s Municipal Code noise standards and are well below the measured ambient noise levels in the Project area. The results of the mechanical equipment operations noise analysis indicate that the Project would comply with the City of Hesperia Municipal Code noise ordinance.

Mechanical equipment operation would result in noise at the Project site property boun daries/nearest noise - sensitive receiver boundaries that are less than the applicable noise standards and are thus less than significant.

Parking Lot Activity
A comprehensive study of noise levels associated with surface parking lots was published in the Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management (Baltrënas et al. 2004). The study found that average noise levels during the peak period of use of the parking lot (generally in the morning with arri val of commuters, and in the evening with the departure of commuters), was 47 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) from the outside boundary of the parking lot. The parking area would function as a point source for noise, which means that noise would attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA with each doubling of distance. The nearest employee parking lot to the noise- sensitive receivers (residences to the north) is proposed to be situated on the north side of Building 1 , approximately 1,300 feet from the residential property bou ndary. At a distance of 1,300 feet, parking lot noise levels would be approximately zero (0) dBA and would not be audible .

Truck Loading Dock / Truck Yard Activity
The parking lot study (Baltrënas et al. 2004) also examined noise levels associated with ca rgo truck delivery activity. The study concluded that average noise levels from truck loading/unloading areas was 96 dBA at one meter (3.28 feet) from the boundary of the truck activity area. Truck loading docks as part of Building 1 would be located not c loser than 1,700 feet from the nearest noise -sensitive receivers (residences to the north).

Using the outdoor attenuation rate of 6 dBA with each doubling of distance, truck loading activity at residences to the north would produce noise levels of approxim ately 42 dBA L eq. However, the proposed design of Building 1 would provide a substantial amount of noise reduction by blocking the direct line -of-sight between the truck loading dock area and the residences to the north. Assuming a conservative level of noise reduction of 5 dB (the minimum reduction provided when the direct path between a noise source and receiver is blocked by a solid structure), the resulting noise level would be approximately 37 dBA L eq. Truck loading docks as part of Building 2 would be located approxi mately 3,000 feet from the nearest noise -sensitive uses, and the associated noise level would be approximately 36 dBA L eq. Thus, the loading dock noise at the nearest residences would be well below the City of Hesperia’s residential exposure limits of 60 d BA L eq daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), 55 dBA L eq nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

In summary, the Project would have operational noise levels less than the applicable noise standards.

Consequently, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
The Project has the potential to result in significant noise impacts from Project-related traffic at nearby noise - sensitive land uses. Based on information consistent with the assumptions in the EIR’s transportation analysis (Appendix I), the Project would generate 5,772 daily trips. During the AM peak-hour, implementation of the Project would result in a total of 481 passenger vehicles and 120 trucks. During the PM peak-hour, implementation of the

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
78 November 2022
Project would result in a total of 494 passenger vehicles and 113 truc ks. All truck trips would access and exit the Project site to the west, via Poplar Street to U.S. Highway 395, where the majority of the truck trips would enter and leave the Project area from and to the south via U.S. Highway 395 and the I-15 on- and off-ramps. No trucks would utilize Main Street, north of the Project site, or other local streets not designated as truck routes.

Potential noise effects from vehicular traffic were assessed using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (FHWA 2004). Information used in the model included the Existing, Existing plus Project, Year 2040, and Year 2040 plus Project traffic volumes. Noise levels were modeled at representative noise-sensitive receivers (i.e., the nearest residences and transient residences (i.e., motels) located to the north of the Project site) as well as at adjacent commercial and industrial uses for informational purposes. with the exception of modeled receiver M2, the Project would increase the traffic noise levels along the nearby arterial roadways by 0 to 1 dBA (when rounded to whole numbers). A change (either an increase or a decrease) of 1 dB or less is not an audible change in the context of community noise (i.e., outside of a controlled test environment). At modeled receiver M2, located just south of the Project site along Poplar Street, the Project is estimated to increase local traffic noise by 6 decibels; however, the nearest land use i s commercial, which is not noise sensitive, and the area surrounding Poplar Street is zoned for similar industrial/commercial land uses, so no noise sensitive uses will be constructed in the area. The Project would not cause noise levels to exceed applicable City noise standards. The Project is not anticipated to result in significant traffic noise increases or cause an exceedance of applicable traffic noise standards.

Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels During operation, no major sources of groundborne vibration are anticipated. Construction activities that might expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise could cause a potentially significant impact. Groundborne vibration information related to construction activities (including demolition) has been collected by Caltrans (Caltrans 2020). Information from Caltrans indicates that continuous vibrations with a PPV of approximately 0.1 ips begin to annoy people. The heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as bulldozers, would have PPVs of approximately 0.089 ips or less at a distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). Groundborne vibration is typically attenuated over short distances. At the distance from the nearest vibration-sensitive receivers (residences located to the north) to where construction activity would be occurring on the Project site (approximately 1 ,250 feet), and with the anticipated construction equipment, the PPV vibration level would be approximately 0.0003 ips.

At the closest sensitive receptors, vibration levels would be well below the vibration threshold of potential annoyance of 0.1 ips; therefore, impacts associated with vibration -generated annoyance would be less than significant.

The major concern with regards to construction vibration is related to building damage, which typically occurs at vibration levels of 0.5 ips or greater for buildings of reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber construction. As discussed above, the highest anticipated vibration levels at vibration -sensitive uses from with on -site Project construction would be approximately 0.0003 ips, which w ould be well below the threshold of 0.5 ips for building damage.

Therefore, impacts associated with vibration-produced damage would be less than significant.

Expose People Residing or Working in Airport Land Use Plan to Excessive Noise Levels The nearest operational public-use airport to the Project site is the Hesperia Airport, which is located approximately

6.2 miles to the south. The airport is located on the Mesa, east of Antelope Valley and south of Ranchero Road.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
79 November 2022
According to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Project site is not located within a runway protection zone or safety zone area, which could have potential safety and noise impacts (San Bernardino County 1991). Therefore, given the considerable distance between the nearest airport and the Project site no impacts would occur.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on noise as it relates to ambient noise levels (on -site construction and operational noise ), excessive groundbourne vibration or noise levels , and exposing people residing or working within an airport land use plan to excessive noise levels; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.13 Population and Housing
Inducement Population Growth
The Project would require a temporary co nstruction workforce and a permanent operational workforce, both of which could potentially induce population growth in the Project area. The temporary workforce would be needed to construct the warehouse building s and associated improvements. The number o f construction workers needed during any given period would largely depend on the specific stage of construction, but would likely range from a dozen to several dozen workers on a daily basis. These short-term positions are anticipated to be filled primarily by construction workers who reside in the Project site’s vicinity; therefore, construction of the Project would not generate a permanent increase in population within the Project area.

Because the future tenants are not known yet, the number of jobs th at the Project would generate cannot be precisely determined. Thus, for purposes of analyses, employment estimates were based on Institute of Transportation Engineers and TUMF warehouse study employee generation rates. The Project would include 1,850,000 square feet of industrial/warehouses space, excluding associated improvements . As such, the estimated number of employees required for operation would be approximately 2,309.

According to the City’s General Plan, as of January 2009, the population of the C ity was approximately 88,184 residents. Upon buildout, the City anticipates to grow to more than 243,000 residents (City of Hesperia 2010). As such, the Project-related increase of approximately 2,309 employees would represent a nominal percentage of the City’s projected future population upon General Plan buildout.9 In addition, data provided by the California Employment Development Department in August 2021 found that the unemployment rate for San Bernardino County is at 7.6%, which is above the state average (7.5%) (EDD 2021). As such, the Project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements could likely be met by the City’s existing labor force without people needing to relocate into the Project region, and the Project would not stimulate population growth or a population concentration above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans.

Therefore, impacts associated with population growth would be less than significant.

9 Note that this represents a conservative approach, as this finding assumes that all future employees will have relocated to t he City as a result of the Project from outside of the City, and that no future employees are already residents of the City.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
80 November 2022
Displacement of Existing Housing and People
The Project site is currently vacant and contains no housing or other residential uses. Given that no residential uses are located on site, it follows that the site does not support a residential population. Therefore, no impacts associated with displacement of housing or people would occur.

Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts
Cumulative impacts to population and housing would result from a combination of projects that induce population growth. Individually, the project would result in minimal population growth in the City; however, this growth projection is consistent with SCAG’s growth projections for the City. The Project’s new employees would represent a relatively small percentage of new employment projections in the City, and it is anticipated that future employees would not relocate into the area to work at the Project. The Project would not involve development of infrastructure or roadways that would indirectly lead to population growth. In conclusion, the cumulative growth induced by the Project combined with other approved and proposed projects is unlikely to result in substantial population g rowth beyond that which the City and region has planned. In combination with the Project, cumulative impacts to population growth or housing availability would not be considerable.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on population and housing; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.14 Public Services
Fire Protection Facilities
Fire protection and emergency response services for the Project site are provided by the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD). SBCFD operates three fire stations within the City, with Fire Station 305 (8331 Caliente Road) located approximately 1.9 miles south of the Project site; Fire Station 304 (15660 Eucalyptus Street) located approximately 5.7 miles northeast; and Fire Station 302 (17288 Olive Street) located approximately 6.9 miles east (SBCFD 2020).

According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the average response time within the City is approximately 7 minutes, 16 seconds (City of Hesperia 2010). If needed, fire stations from adjacent cities, such as Victorville and Apple Valley, may respond to emergency calls in Hesperia. Based on the proximity of the Project site to the existing SBCFD facilities, the average response times in the Project area, the ability for nearby cities to respond to emergency calls, and the fact that the Project site is already located within SBCFD’s service area, the Project could be adequately served by the SBCFD without the construction of new, or the expansion of existing, facilities.

In addition, as previously analyzed in Section 5.7, Population and Housing, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the City. Although the Project could potentially result in a n incremental increase in calls for service to the Project site compared to exi sting conditions, this increase is expected to be nominal (as opposed to new residential or commercial/retail land uses, which do result in greater increase in calls for service) and would not result in the need for new fire protection facilities.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
81 November 2022
Overall, it is anticipated that the Project would be adequately served by existing SBCFD facilities, equipment, and personnel. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of fire protection facilities would be less than significant.

Police Protection Facilities
Police protection and emergency response services for the Project site are provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. The sheriff’s department operates one station within the City, Hesperia Police Department (15840 Smok e Tree Street), and is located approximately 5 miles east of the Project site. Hesperia Police Department is comprised of approximately 58 law enforcement personnel, including 1 captain, 1 lieutenant, 7 sergeants, 5 detectives, and 44 deputy sheriffs (City of Hesperia 2021).

As previously addressed, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the City.

Although the Project could potentially result in a slight incremental increase in calls for service to the Project site compared to existing conditions, this increase is expected to be nominal (as opposed to new residential or commercial/retail land uses, which do result in a greater increase in calls for service) and would not result in the need for new police protection facilities.

Overall, it is anticipated that the Project would be adequately served by existing San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department facilities, equipment, and personnel. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of police protection facilities would be less than significant.

School Facilities
As previously discussed, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the City.

Although the Project would require employees to construct and operate the Project, these short-term and long-term employees would likely already reside within the broader Project area. As such, it is not anticipated that many people would relocate to the City as a result of the Project, and an increase in school-age children requiring public education is not expected to occur as a result.

Similar to other development projects in the City, the Project would be subject to Senate Bill 50, which requires payment of mandatory impact fees to offs et any impact to school services or facilities. The provisions of Senate Bill 50 are deemed to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in CEQA or other state or local laws (Government Code Section 65996). In accordance with Senate Bill 50, the Project Applicant would pay its fair share of impact fees based on the Project’s square footage per Government Code Section 65995(h). These impact fees are required of most residential, commercial, and industrial development projects in the City. Therefore, no impacts associated with construction or expansion of school facilities would occur.

Parks
The Project would construct two industrial/warehouse buildings in the City. The Project does not include any residential uses and would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the City. As such, the Project would not increase the u se of existing neighborhood parks or regional parks in the City and surrounding area.

Therefore, no impacts associated with construction or expansion of parks would occur.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
82 November 2022
Other Public Facilities
Given industrial nature of the Project and the lack of popu lation growth that would result from the Project, it is unlikely that the Project would increase the use of libraries and other public facilities. Therefore, no impacts associated with construction or expansion of other public facilities would occur.

Cumulative Public Service Impacts
The project would have a less -than-significant impact with respect to public services. A significant adverse cumulative impact related to public service s could occur if the service demands of the proposed project were to combine with those of related projects, triggering a need for new or physically altered public service facilities, the development of which could cause significant environmental impacts. A significant adverse cumulative impact could also occur if the proposed project were to make a considerable contribution to a previously existing deficit in public services in the City.

With regards to fire and police services, the proposed project alone would not have a significant effect on fire or police protection services, and the project would not cause the need for new or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable levels of service related to fire and police protection . Related projects located within the area would also require fire and police services. Because multiple fire and police stations are located within and surrounding the City, a variety of City and County facilities would be available to serve the related projects. It is assumed that the related projects would incorporate security measures, such as nighttime lighting, and fire safety measures consistent with the CFC into their building design, such as sprinklers, emergency access, and fire alarms. Further, new development would also generate revenues (in the form of property taxes, sales revenue, etc.) that could be applied toward the provision of firefighting resources and related staffing, as deemed appropriate. As the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to police and fire services it would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any cumulative police or fire services impacts, and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative impacts to schools would be offset by the payment of the developer school fee per Senate Bill 50 and per the California Education Code (Title 1, Chapter 6, Section 17620), which allows school districts to charge fees on new development within the district’s boundaries. Further, increased use of parks and o ther public facilities, such as libraries, are generally attributed to residential development, as reflected in the City’s fee schedule. As previously discussed, the project does not include residential uses. Cumulative projects in the City would be required to pay into the City’s DIF program, which allocates funds to law enforcement, fire protection, streets and bridges, traffic signals, storm drainage, general facilities, park land facilities, the community center, and the public library. Therefore, through the payment of development impact fees, which is considered an appropriate means of mitigating impacts, cumulative project impacts to public services would be less than significant.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the re cord, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on public services; therefore, no mitigation is required.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
83 November 2022

2.4.15 Recreation
Existing, Expanded, and New Recreation Facilities
The Project would construct two industrial/warehouse building and associated improvements. The Project does not include any residential uses and would not directly or indirectly result in a subs tantial and unplanned increase in population growth within the Project area. As such, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or regional parks in the City and surrounding area. In addition, as an industrial use, the Project d oes not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts associated with park and recreational facilities would occur.

Cumulative Recreational Impacts
Cumulative impacts to recreation would result from a combination of proje cts that induce a substantial and detrimental increased use of parks and recreational facilities. Individually, the project would result in a slight population growth in the City; however, as previously discussed, this growth projection is consistent with SCAG’s growth projections for the City and would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities. Related residential projects would have the most obvious growth-inducing impacts, and would also be subject to the City’s Parkland Facilities DIF for residential units, as allowed by the Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477), which is used for park and recreational facility improvements. These contributions would aid the City in creating or improving recreational facilities. The cumulative growth induced by these projects would be within the growth projections for the City. The cumulative growth induced by the project combined with other approved and proposed projects is unlikely to result in substantial impacts to recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities beyond what the City and region are already planning for. In combination with related projects, cumulative impacts to recreation would not be considerable.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on recreation; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.16 Transportation
Conflict with Circulation System Plan, Ordinance, or Policy The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, as discussed below.

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS was adopted on September 3, 2020, and presents the land use and transportation vision for the region through the year 2045, providing a long-term investment framework for addressing the region’s challenges. The RTP/SCS establishes goals for the region and identifies transportation investments that address the region’s growing population, as well as strategies to reduce traffic congestion and GHG emissions. In addition, the RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
84 November 2022
public health and roadway safety, support the region’s vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently (SCAG 2020).

Consistency with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS goals, below, demonstrates that the Project would not conflict with the applicable goals in the RTP/SCS adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies set forth by the in the RTP/SCS.

City of Hesperia General Plan Circulation Element
The General Plan Circulation Element outlines the City’s goals and implementation policies to provid e a safe and efficient transportation system strategy.

A TIA was prepared to evaluate the Project’s effects on the LOS on transportation facilities in the Project area. The detailed results are summarized later below. Based on the results of the TIA, the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies under General Plan Circulation Element. Although the City’s LOS policy was determined to no longer be applicable as a transportation impact under CEQA per SB 743, some of the intersections would not comport with Policy CI -2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 under General Plan Goal: CI -2 Develop and implement a City -wide Congestion Management Plan of the City’s General Plan, as they would operate or are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory (LOS E or F) conditions during either the AM or PM peak hours (City of Hesperia 2010a):

Policy CI-2.1 Strive to achieve and maintain a LOS D or better on all roadways and intersections:

LOS E during peak hours shall be considered acceptable through freeway interchanges and major corrid ors (Bear Valley Road, Main Street/Phelan Road, Highway 395).

Policy CI-2.2 Work with regional agencies which have authority over roadways within the City to ensure a minimum Level of Service D for roadways and a minimum Level of Service E for intersections.

Policy CI-2.3 Develop policies and regulations to ensure that future development does not reduce the Level of Service of roadways and intersections below the minimum Levels of Service goals.

Although development (as summarized below) of the Project wo uld exceed the LOS goals stated in Policy CI -2.1,

2.2 and 2.3, and improvement measures to achieve acceptable LOS have been provided in Section 2.2. 3.2, Mitigation Measures, LOS has been addressed herein for informational purposed only and can no longer be used to determine significant transportation impacts under CEQA and SB 743. The Project would not conflict with any other policy of the City’s Circulation Element, applicable Specific Plan and RTP/SCS.

Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
The Project would not conflict with any plans or policies regarding existing or proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the study area and would be consistent with the City of Hesperia General Plan non-motorized transportation plan.

Currently, there are no sidewalks along the Project frontage and the intersections adjacent to the Project site do not currently have pedestrian crosswalks. As such, it is recommended that the Project applicant work in conjunction with the City to improve pedestrian facilities and connectivity along the Project frontage by constructing sidewalks and pedestrian crossings at intersections adjacent to the Project site.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
85 November 2022
VVTA Routes 25 , 64, and 68 a re the closest transit service routes to the P roject and the closest bus stop is approximately ¼ miles to the northwest of the project site at Cataba Road and Main Street. The VVTA Routes could potentially serve the Project in the future. Transit service is reviewed and updated by VVTA periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. As such, it is recommended that the Project applicant work in conjunction with VVTA to potentially provide bus service to the site.

Based on analysis provided above, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and its impact to transportation plans and programs would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Based on analysis provided above, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and its impact to transportation plans and programs would be less than significant.

Conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) As determined from the VMT analysis, under the baseline conditions, the Project generated OD VMT for automobiles is 23.2 VMT per service population, which is less than the baseline threshold of 28.9 VMT per service population (established for automobiles only VMT from the Project specific model run) . Under cumulative conditions, the Project generated OD VMT for automobiles is 2 2.7 VMT per service population, which is also less than the cumulative threshold of 30.1 VMT per service population. The roadway (or link level boundary) VMT within the County of San Bernardino is 19.61 VMT per service population under without Project conditions which decreases to 19.57 VMT per service population under with Project conditions. Therefore, based on City’s thresholds, the Project generated VMT and the Project’s effect on VMT would have a less than significant impact. The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Inadequate Emergency Access
The Project has six access driveways (seven including the emergency access only driveway on Cataba Road), and in the event of an emerge ncy all the driveways would enable vehicles to enter/exit the Project site. All streets improvements will be designed with adequate width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City’s firefighting apparatus, and to provide alternative emergency ingress and egress. The site plan would be subject to plan review by the City’s Fire Department to ensure proper access for fire and emergency response is provided and required fire suppression features are included. Therefore, the Project’s impact due to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation as it relate s to conflicts with a circulation system plan, ordinance, or policy, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and inadequate emergency access. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
86 November 2022

2.4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Require or Result in the Construction of New Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications Facilities
As discussed in further detail below, the Project would result in less -than-significant impacts with regard to 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.

Water Facilities
The Project would involve the construction of water distribution infrastructure (i.e., pipes, valves, meters, etc.) to provide domestic water, firewater, and irrigation to the Project site. There are existing water lines within Cataba Road, Poplar Street, and Mesa Linda Street. The proposed Project would require a new water line that would run along the western boundary of Building 1, to the north, and then follow the building to the east. In addition, a second water line would be constructed to run along the southern boundary of Building 2.

The construction of the proposed water improvements described above has the potential to cause environmental effects associated with buildout of the Project as a whole. The aforementioned water pipeline improvements have been considered as part of the Project, and their disturbance footprints and construction techniques, as well as their associated impacts, have been accounted for within the Draft EIR. There are no unique impacts associated with the installation of water infrastructure to serve the Project that have not been discussed and accounted for in this document.

Therefore, impacts associated with water facilities would be less than significant.

Water Treatment Facilities
While the Project would result in an incremental increase in demand for water treatment capacity, the Project’s water demand would not result in or require new or expanded water treatment facilities beyond those facilities that are already planned as part of Hesperia Water District’s 2021 UWMP . A WSA was prepared for the Project to evaluate the Hesperia Water District’s projected supplies and demands. As concluded by the WSA:

This WSA concludes that the total projected water supplies available to Hesperia Water District during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years over the next 20 years will be sufficient to meet the projected water demands for the proposed Project.

As also concluded in the WSA, the existing water storage systems have sufficient capacity to accommodate the water that would be stored to serve the Project. As such, implementation of the Project would not result in the need to expand water treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with water treatment facilities would be less than significant.

Wastewater Conveyance Facilities
As previously discussed, within the immediate vicinity of the Project site, existing sewer lines include a gravity line starting east of Highway 395 in line with Sultana Street and another also going from east to west along Poplar Street. The Sultana Street line is proposed to be abandoned and relocated due to its location under the proposed Building 1. The relocation and construction of the proposed sewer improvements has the potential to cause

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
87 November 2022
environmental effects associated with buildout of the Project as a whole . However, t he proposed sewer improvements have been considered as part of the Project, and their disturbance fo otprints and construction techniques, as well as their associated impacts, have been accounted for within this Draft EIR. There are no unique impacts associated with the installation of sewer infrastructure to serve the Project that have not been discussed and accounted for in this document. Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater conveyance facilities would be less than significant.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Upon build-out of the Project, the Project’s wastewater would be conveyed to the Hesperia Subregional Water Recycling Facility and to the VVWRA RWWTP, which has a treatment capacity of 18.0 mgd and currently produces an average flow of 12.5 mgd, or approximately 70% of its total capacity. According to the wastewater generation rates used in the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy analyses, the Project would generate approximately

0.084868 mgd of wastewater. Projected wastewater from the Project would represent approximately 0.68% of the remaining capacity of the treatment facility. Given the remaining capacity of the VVWRA RWWTP, the VVWRA RWWTP should be able to adequately accommodate the Project’s contribution of wastewater. As such, no improvements to any of the City’s or VVWRA’s facilities would be required to ensure sewer service to the Project site. Therefore, impacts associated with new wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage Facilities
The Project site and a majority of the surrou nding area are characterized as a rural, undeveloped, vacant land comprised of pervious surfaces. Ground surface cover within the Project site is moderately vegetated with native grasses, shrubs, and trees. The predominance of pervious surfaces currently allows for the percolation of water into the underlying soils. Developed land typically has a much lower rate of percolation, increasing the amount of runoff reaching the storm drain infrastructure. However, stormwater infiltrat ion would be utilized as a low impact development (LID) feature as part of the Project.

The Project-specific preliminary drainage reports includes analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic conditions to determine whether the post -construction runoff would have any impact on the receiving storm drain system. An analysis was completed for the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year, 24-hour storm event, in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, to calculate the existing and Project conditions. The proposed stormwater drainage system basins would be sized and designed to prevent flooding from a 100 -year storm while also accommodating the required retention volume for water quality purposes. The basins would be designed to capture the entire volume generated from a 100-year storm, meaning no runoff would be discharged off-site.

The two Project-specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan s indicates that stormwater runoff from the Project site would be conveyed to two on -site aboveground infiltration/retention basins and three underground corrugated metal pipe detention systems , which would be designed to capture and infiltrate more than the difference between the existing drainage and propose drainage conditions.

The construction of the proposed storm drain improvements described above has the potential to cause environmental effects associated with buildout of the Project as a whole. The storm drain improvements have been considered as par t of the Project, and their disturbance footprints and construction techniques, as well as their associated impacts, have been accounted for within the Draft EIR. There are no unique impacts associated with the installation of storm drain improvements to serve the Project that have not been discussed and accounted for in this document. Therefore, impacts associated with stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
88 November 2022
Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Development of the Proj ect would increase demands for e lectricity and natural gas and would increase requirements for telecommunication technology infrastructure. Upgrades would be required with respect to electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities (i.e., cabl e television services), based on the change in land use (i.e., greater intensification). These utilities would be part of a dry utility package that would be installed on site and in the adjacent public roadways to provide service to the Project. Upgrades would be confined to the connections to the Project site and not any off-site centralized facilities. The existing infrastructure is located directly adjacent to the Project site within the public streets. Connection to these existing utilities would requi re limited construction, which would be temporary and limited to trenching, to the depth of the underground lines. Project construction would occur in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. These upgrades and connections have been consider ed as part of the Project, and their disturbance footprints and construction techniques, as well as their associated impacts, have been accounted for within this Draft EIR.

Electricity would be provided to the project site by SCE. SCE conducts ongoing mon itoring and electrical project development to ensures that it can provide adequate electrical service to the Project area. SoCalGas’s Projections out to 2035 continue to show available capacity that is well above the existing and future anticipated natural gas demand in the area serviced by SoCalGas (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2021). There are a number of private telecommunications service providers that provide connections to their communication systems on an as-needed basis and maintain existing infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site. Project demand for electricity, natural gas and telecommunications would be adequately served by existing infrastructure and capacity. Therefore, impacts associated with electric, natural gas, and telecommunication lateral connections would be less than significant.

Sufficient Water Supplies
Implementation of the Project would result in the construction of two industrial/warehouse buildings and associated improvements areas on an approximately 97.64-acre site.

The proposed Project is estimated to result in an increase in potable water demand of 84,868 gallons per day (gpd), which is equivalent to approximately 95 acre -feet per year (AFY). As there is currently no existing water demand for the Project site, the n et increase in water demand would be equivalent to the Project’s proposed water demand of 95 AFY.

The 2021 Hesperia Water District UWMP has planned for growth within its service area over the next 20 years.

Hesperia Water District has made an allowance for future demand estimates. Future demand services are based on historical growth rates in the service area. According to Table 7-2 in the Hesperia Water District 2021 UWMP, Hesperia Water District projects a water demand increase of 3,170 AFY from 2025 (15,250 AFY) to 2045 (18,420 AFY). The net water demand of the I-15 Industrial Park Project development would be accounted for within this growth, as the Project is consistent with the underlying City land use designations for the Project site.

As long-term water supply is a significant concern in California, Hesperia Water District, in cooperation with VVWRA, plans to increase water supply reliability throughout its service region by expanding the Hesperia Subregional Water Recycling Facility’s water treatment capacity from 1.0 mgd to 2.0 mgd by 2030 as well as build a second water recycling facility within the City that would be able to treat 2.6 mgd of wastewater by 2040. The City additionally plans to construct multiple recharge basins in cooperation with Mojave Water Agency to deliver and recharge State Water Project water into underlying groundwater basins within the Hesperia Water District’s service area (Hesperia

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
89 November 2022
Water District 2016). Collectively, these additional measures would enable water supply to meet or exceed water demand for Hesperia Water District for now and into the future. The UWMP and Project specific WSA identities a sufficient and reliable water supply for Hesperia Water District’s service area, including sufficient water supply for the Project. Therefore, impacts associated with water supply would be less than significant.

Adequate Capacity for Wastewater Treatment
As previously discussed, upon build-out of the Project, the Project’s wastewater would be conveyed to the Hesperia Subregional Water Recycling Facility and to the VVWRA RWWTP, which has a treatment capacity of 18.0 mgd and currently produces an ave rage flow of 12.5 mgd, or approximately 70% of its total capacity. According to the wastewater generation rates used in the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy analyses, the Project would generate approximately 0.084868 mgd of wastewater. Projected wastewater from the Project would represent approximately 0.68% of the remaining capacity of the treatment facility. Given the remaining capacity of the VVWRA RWWTP, the VVWRA RWWTP should be able to adequately accommodate the Project’s co ntribution of wastewater. Furthermore, as previously discussed, to accommodate an increase in population growth throughout the region, the Hesperia Water District, in cooperation with the VVWRA, plans to expand the water recycling facility to treat 2.0 mgd of wastewater by 2030 as well as build a second water recycling facility within the City that would be able to treat 2.6 mgd of wastewater by 2040.

In addition, Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the priv ilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System for increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is imposed in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental expansion of the wastewater treatment system to accommodate the Project. Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.

Generation of Solid Waste
Construction and operation of the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts with regard to the generation of 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.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction of the Project would result in the generation of solid waste such as scrap lumber, concrete, residual wastes, packing materials, plastics, and soils. Per CALGreen, at least 65% of construction and demolition waste must be diverted from landf ills. The City also has construction and demolition debris diversion requirements; however, the CALGreen standards require an equivalent level of diversion (65% diversion). Any hazardous wastes that are generated during construction activities would be man aged and disposed of in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. The remaining 35% of construction material that is not required to be recycled would either be disposed of or voluntarily recycled at a solid waste facility with availab le capacity. As previously described, there are two existing landfills within San Bernardino County that accept inert waste, the Victorville Sanitary Landfill and the Chino Valley Rock Landfill. However, as waste from the City is already transported to the Victorville Sanitary Landfill, it is assumed that waste would continue to be transported there. As of 2020, this landfill had an expected remaining capacity of 93,400,000 cubic yards and was expected to remain open for another 27 years.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
90 November 2022
The City has a fr anchise agreement with Advance Disposal, which designates them as the City’s exclusive waste hauler. Therefore, it is not an option to self-haul or use other companies to transport construction debris. However, the City currently recycles 75% or more of all solid waste produced in the City, exceeding the minimum requirement of 65% per CALGreen requirements. As such, any construction requiring disposal at an inert waste landfill would be sufficiently accommodated by existing landfills.

For the reasons stated above, Project construction would not 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.g., CALGreen standards). Therefore, short-term construction impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Impacts
Once operational, the Project would produce solid waste on a regular basis, in association with operation and maintenance activities.

As previously discussed, the City has a franchise agreement with Advance Disposal, which designates them as the City’s exclusive waste hauler. Advance Disposal owns and operates the Advance Disposal Co & Recycling Center, which recycles 75% or more of the municipal's waste prior to being transferred to the Victorville Sanitary Landfill.

This landfill has a maximum daily permitted throughput of 3,000 tons per day. Assuming solid waste is collected weekly, t he net solid waste that is anticipat ed to be produced by the Project would equate to approximately

0.0004% of the available capacity of the Victorville Landfill through its estimated closure date.

Prior to Victorville Sanitary Landfill reaching capacity, additional landfills and strategies would be identified so that disposal needs continue to be met. Landfills within San Bernardino County that exceed the expected lifespan of the Victorville Landfill include the Barstow Sanitary Landfill, which is expected to remain open another 51 years, and the Landers Landfill, which is expected to remain to open another 52 years (CalRecycle 2019). Additional strategies to accommodate solid waste generated by the Project during its lifespan include the expansion of existing landfills, the construction of new landfills, and the selection of landfills outside of the County. As such, in the event of closure of the Victorville Sanitary Landfill, other landfills in the region would be able to accommodate solid waste from the Project, and regional planning efforts would ensure continued landfill capacity into the foreseeable future.

For the reasons described above, Project operations would not 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.

Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations
As described above, solid waste from commercial uses in the City is brought to the Advance Disposal Co & Recycling Center, where waste is sorted for recyclable materials. From there, the remainder of the waste is taken to the Victorville Sanitary Landfill. This facility is regulated under federal, state, and local laws. Additionally, the City is required to comply with the solid waste reduction and diversion requirements set forth in AB 939, AB 341, AB 132, and AB 1826.

In addition, as previously described , waste diversion and reduction during Project construction and operations would be completed in accordance with CALGreen standards and City diversion standards. As a result, the Project

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
91 November 2022
would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant.

Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impact
The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to utilities and service systems, as discussed below.

Water Supply
The development of the Project would increase land-use intensities in the area, resulting in increased water usage.

The Project would be served by Hesperia Water District. As such, the development of the Project would increase the amount of water used in the Hesperia Water District’s service area. Hesperia Water District 2021 UWMP estimates the annual water demand for 2025 is projected to be 15,250 acre-feet. This equates to approximately 4.97 billion gallons a year of water or 13.6 mgd. Hesperia Water District UWMP states that Hesperia Water District and other water agenci es in Southern California have planned provisions for regional water for the growing population, including drought scenarios for its service area. This plan includes a new water demand forecast prepared for the major categories of demand and uses regional population, demographic projections, the dry climate, historical water use to develop these forecasts. As such, the Project would not be expected to result in increased water usage causing the need for new entitlements, resources, and/or treatment facilities that are not already being planned to accommodate regional growth forecasts.

In addition, the Project -specific WSA concluded that water demand and supply for water demand and supply projections for Hesperia Water District, including the Project, demonstrate that projected supplies exceed demand through the year 2045. These projections consider land use, water development programs and projects, and water conservation. For example, Hesperia Water District, in coordination with the VVWRA, plan s on expanding the Hesperia Subregional Water Recycling Facility water treatment capacity from 1.0 mgd to 2.0 mgd by 2030 as well as build a second water recycling facility within the City that would be able to treat 2.6 mgd of wastewater by 2040.

The City additionally plans to construct multiple recharge basins in cooperation with Mojave Water Agency to deliver and recharge State Water Project water into underlying groundwater basins within the Hesperia Water District’s service area. Collectively, these ad ditional programs would enable water supply to exceed water demand for the Hesperia Water District now and into the future.

Lastly, compliance with the CALGreen Building Code would be required for new development. In addition, CALGreen Building Code standards require a mandatory reduction in outdoor water use, in accordance with the CDWR Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. This would ensure that the Project does not result in wasteful or inefficient use of limited water resources and may, in fact, result in an overall decrease in water use per person.

Due to water planning efforts and water conservation standards, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Wastewater
The Project would increase the amount of wastewater that is being generated in the area. However, as previously described, with the upsizing and installation of the sewer improvements, the wastewater treatment facilities in the Project are would have the capacity to convey and treat municipal flows. Additionally, Hesperia Water Di strict addresses its long-term planning efforts through the development of a long -term capital plan, which serves as a fundamental roadmap of required water, recycled water, and water reclamation facilities needed to support the

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
92 November 2022
build out of existing jurisdictional general plans throughout its service area. Hesperia Water District’s Capital Plan relies on its Wastewater Master Plan (City of Hesperia 2008a) and Recycled Water Master Plan (City of Hesperia 2008b), which identifies the wastewater and recycled water infrastructure projects that will be necessary to accommodate future build-out in its service area. As cumulative increases in wastewater treatment demand within the service area require facility upgrades, Hesperia Water District would charge service connection fees. Such fees would ensure that capital improvements are completed sufficiently to accommodate increased wastewater inflows associated with the Project area. As such, due to Hesperia Water District’s long -term planning efforts, Hesperia Water District would have adequate capacity to serve the Project and cumulative projects’ projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments using existing entitlements and infrastructure, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Solid Waste
Development of the Project would increase land -use intensities in the area, resulting in increased solid waste generation in the service area for the Victorville Sanitary Landfill. However, per CALGreen, 65% of construction and debris waste must be diverted from landfills. Once operational, AB 939 mandates that cities divert from landfills, at a minimum, 50% of the total solid waste generated to recycling facilities. According to Advance Disposal, the exclusive waste hauler of the City of Hesperi a, the City currently recycles 75% or more of debris generated within the municipality. In addition, to reduce on-site solid waste generation, the Project would be required to implement waste reduction, diversion, and recycling during both construction and operation. Therefore, through compliance with state and local solid waste diversion requirements, Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunication
Development of the Project would add to demands fo r energy and would increase requirements for telecommunication technology infrastructure. The ISO plans and coordinates grid enhancements to ensure that electrical power is provided to California consumers. To this end, transmission owners (investor‐owned utilities such as SCE) file annual transmission expansion/modification plans to accommodate the state ’s growing electrical needs. The ISO reviews and either approves or denies the proposed additions. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, the ISO works with other areas in the western United States electrical grid to ensure that adequate power supplies are available to the state. In this manner, continuing reliable and affordable electrical power is assured to existing and new consumers throughout the state. Typically, upgrades to utility networks fall under the jurisdiction of CPUC and would be subject to environmental review as electrical projects are proposed. As a result of this process which involves ongoing mon itoring and electrical project development, SCE ensures that it can provide adequate electrical service to the Project area.

As part of the Project, natural gas and telecommunication lines would be extended onto the Project site from their existing locati ons within the vicinity of the Project site, resulting in localized less -than-significant impacts.

Given the nature of telecommunication and gas lines (which are not typically subject to the constraints of existing facilities), once telecommunication lines are extended to the Project site, no additional telecommunication or gas line construction is anticipated to be required. Additionally, cumulative development would be subject to review on a case-by-case basis. Should the applicable service provider deter mine that upgrades or extensions of infrastructure be required, any such upgrades would be included within each project’s environmental review. As a result, impacts associated with upgrades of electric, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities would b e not be cumulatively considerable.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
93 November 2022
Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on utility and service systems, as it relates to water, wastewater, electric power, natural, telecommunications, and solid waste; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.18 Wildfire
Impair an Adopted Emergency Response Plan
The Project site is not located in SRA lands or lands classified as Very High FHSZ. However, SRA lands classified as Moderate and High FHSZs are located immediately south and west of the Project site, respectively. Access to the Project site would be provided by seven driveways and one emergency access driveway. These driveways have been designed such that adequate emergency access would be provided and in accordance with emergency apparatus access requirements. Access to the Project site would be provided via seven driveways is listed below.

Building 2
• Driveway A via Poplar Street west – 30 feet wide, full access (passenger cars only) driveway with stop sign • Driveway B via Lassen Street – 45 feet wide, full access (trucks only) driveway with stop sign • Driveway via Sultana Street C – 45 feet wide, full access (trucks) driveway with stop sign Building 1
• Driveway D via Mesa Linda Street south – 40 feet wide, full access (trucks) driveway with stop sign • Driveway E via Mesa Linda Street north – 60 feet wide, full access (passenger cars only) driveway with stop sign
• Driveway F via Cataba Road north – 30 feet wide, full access (passenger cars only) driveway with stop sign • Driveway G via Cataba Road south – 50 feet wide, emergency access only The emergency access driveway would be located west of Building 1 on Cataba Road. The City of Hesperia Emergency Preparedness Program serves as a resource for residents and businesses to plan for emergencies.

Further, the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan includes resources and information to assist City residents, public and private sector organizations, and others interested in participating in planning for natural hazards (City of Hesperia 2017). The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies wildfire as one of the natural hazards faced by the City and establishes the goal to “reduce the risk of death, injury, property damage and econo mic loss due to vegetation and structure fires.” As they relate to the Project, the mitigation objectives and actions outlined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan would require that the Project be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recent CBC and CFC (and local amendments), and regular fire safety inspections would ensure that the Project is in compliance with fire inspection standards, and provides adequate fire protection and weed abatement to reduce the potential for vegetation fires (City of Hesperia 2017). The Project would comply with all City and state requirements related to fire safety, and the Project would comply with all requirements outlined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

In the event of a wildfire, the City , in cooperation with the SBCFD, would use the City’s public notification systems and provide evacuation instructions. Exhibit SF -4 of the City’s General Plan identifies potential shelters and

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
94 November 2022
emergency evacuation routes within the City. There are two potential evacuation routes nearest to the Project site:

I-15 and Phelan Road/Main Street. I -15 is located east of the Project site and serves as a major transportation corridor providing a direct connection to other major interstates and highways. Phelan Road/Main Street is a major east-to-west arterial road north of the Project site (City of Hesperia 2010). The Project would not impede access to I-15 and Phelan Road/Main Street or otherwise impact the functionality of the road to operate as a potential evacuation route. The Project would construct seven access driveways into the Project site from Mesa Linda Street, Cataba Road, Poplar Street, and Sultana Street , as well as off -site circulation improvements along Mesa Linda Street, Cataba Road, and Sultana Street that would improve operations on surrounding roads.

Further, wildfires in the City and surrounding area typically start in the mountains or foothills to the south. In the event that prevailing winds fan a fir e so that it moves north into the WUI, evacuation of the potentially affected communities may be required. In general, evacuees would take roads leading north, toward the more developed areas of the City. Several of these roads are identified on Exhibit SF-3 in the City’s General Plan, and include Summit Valley Road, Santa Fe Avenue, 11th Avenue, Maple Avenue, and the I-15 (City of Hesperia 2010). By complying with City and SBCFD requirements, the Project would not conflict with or impair implementation of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, nor would the Project impair use of potential evacuation routes in the City, and impacts would be less than significant.

Exacerbate Wildfire Risk Due to Slope, Prevailing Winds, and Other Factors The Project site is not located in SRA lands or lands classified as Very High FHSZ. The nearest Very High FHSZ in the City is located approximately 8 miles south, and the nearest Very High FHSZ in the SRA is located approximately 5 miles south. However, SRA lands classified as Moderate and High FHSZs are located immediately south and west of the Project site, respectively. The Project could exacerbate wildfire risk and expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrollable spread of a wildfire if the Project, combined with the climatic, topographic, vegetation, weather conditions, and other factors, would increase the risk of a wildfire oc curring and increase the severity of such an occurrence.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction of the Project would introduce potential ignition sources to the Project site, including the use of heavy machinery and the potential for sparks during w elding activities or other hot work. However, the Project would be required to comply with City and state requirements for fire safety practices, to reduce the possibility of fires and accidental ignitions during construction activities, as discussed above under Threshold G. Further, vegetation would be removed from site prior to the start of construction , and during construction access to the Project site for emergency vehicles would be maintained. Adherence to City and state regulatory standards during Project construction would reduce the risk of wildfire ignition and spread during construction activities. Thus, short -term construction impacts associated with exacerbating wildfire risk would be less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Impacts
Slope
The Project Site and surrounding area are relatively flat. The Project site, and the surrounding area are relatively flat. The Project site elevation ranges from 3,548 feet amsl to 3,611 feet amsl , with a slope gradient of approximately 2% downward towards the northeast. Upon Project implementation, the portions of the site that

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
95 November 2022
would be developed would be graded to a flat, level surface. The Project site and surrounding area do not contain slopes typical of exacerbating wildfire risk, and once developed, the Project would not result in steep slopes typical of exacerbating wildfire risk.

Prevailing Winds
Prevailing winds are winds that blow from a single direction over a specific area. The predominant average hourly wind speed and direction in the City varies throughout the year. From February through November, the wind primarily blows from the west, and from the north from November through February. Average wind speeds vary from approximately 6.4 mph to 7.5 mph, with wind gusts reaching up to 14 mph during the windiest time of the year (January through July) (Weather Spark 2020). High wind velocities that could exacerbate wildfire risk are generally associated with downslope, canyon, and Santa Ana winds. As discussed above, the Project site is predominantly flat and does not include topography that would create unusual weather conditions. Further , wildfires in the City and surrounding area typically start in the mountains or foothills to the south. Given that the prevailing wind direction during the summer months when fire risk is highest is from the west, it is not anticipated that prevailing winds would exacerbate wildfire risks on site.

Other Factors
Other factors such as vegetation, building materials, setbacks and proposed on -site activities can also contribute to wildfire risk.

Vegetation
The vegetation cover on site and in the surrounding area consists of Joshua tree woodland. Vegetation in the Project area is generally spaced out, and consistent with the Mojave Desert Bioregion, limiting the amount of surface fuel loads available to burn , which inhibits fire spread (City of Hesperia 2010b). Further, the Project would convert vacant land with moder ate vegetation cover into development consisting of large warehouse buildings, paved surface parking, and maintained landscape areas. Landscaping for the Project is proposed for the parking area s, portions of the buildings, and the site frontages. Landscaping would consist of a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover, which would be implemented according to Chapter 16.20 of the City’s Municipal Code, and would consist of vegetation found in the surrounding desert environment. Highly flammable vegetation would not be used in Project landscaping.

Building Materials and Setbacks
Project buildings would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code, which adopts the 2019 CFC and includes provisions for fire safety and fire-resistive construction. Further, compliance with required setbacks would allow for space between Project buildings and off-site vegetation. Studies indicate that given certain assumptions (e.g., 10 meters of low-fuel landscape, no open windows), wildfire is unlikely to spread to buildings unless the fuel and heat requirements of the building are sufficient for ignition and continued combustion (Alexander et al. 1998; Cohen 1995). Construction materials and method s can prevent or minimize ignitions. According to previous research, post-fire assessments conducted in San Diego County indicate that updated building codes have shown success in preventing structural loss (IBHS 2008). The distance between a wildfire that is consuming wildland fuel and a building is the primary factor for structure ignition (not including burning embers) (Cohen 2000). Low - ignitability buildings provide the option of reducing the wildland fire threat to structures without extensive wildland

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
96 November 2022
fuel reduction. The Project would be required to comply with construction methods outlined in the City’s Municipal Code, the CFC, and the CBC, which specify requirements for materials and construction methods for fire safety. The proposed building materials for Project structures include concrete, metal, aluminum entrance front framing, glass and other fire -resistant materials. If structures have sufficiently low ignitability, such as the Project’s structures, buildings can survive exposure to wildfire without major fire destruction.

Proposed Activities
Project activities would introduce new potential sources of ignition to the Project site. Tenants for the Project have not been identified; however, operations would likely include storage of materials within the warehouse buildings, ingressing and egressing of trucks within designated truck courts/loading areas , loading and unloading of trucks/trailers, internal and external movement of materials around the Project site via forklifts, pallet jacks, and similar equipment and passenger vehicles accessing the site. Given that the proposed use would not exacerbate fire risk, and given that vegetation on site would consist of fire-resistant and irrigated landscaping, the likelihood of a fire starting on site and spreading to off-site areas would be minimal.

Summary
With adherence to the City’s Municipal Code, the low ignitability of the proposed structures, and implementation of fire-resistant, irrigated landscaping, the Project would not facilitate wildfire spread or exacerbate wildfire risk or expose people or structures, indirectly or directly, to significant wildfire risk. Further, given that surrounding off-site fuels consist of moderately spaced vegetation, wildfires in the immediately surrounding area are not common, it is unlikely that Project occupants would be exposed to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire or prolonged pollutant concentrations in the event of a wildfire. It is not anticipated that the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire, the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, or significant risks associated with wildfires, and impacts would be less than significant.

Exacerbate Fire Risk from Installation or Maintenance of Associated Infrastructure The Project involves the development of an undeveloped site with two industrial/warehouse buildings, surface parking, and loading areas. The Project would include installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure including driveways and surface parking, and connections to service utilities (e.g., water, wastewater, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications services). The majority of the associated infrastructure and utility connections would occur on site or adjace nt to the site and would not result in off -site environmental impacts or exacerbate wildfire risk. However, the Project would also include limited off -site improvements and utility connections. In particular, the Project would include installation of new a nd upsizing of existing domestic water lines and sewer lines in the Project vicinity (collectively, the Off-Site Sewer Alignment and the Off-Site Water Alignment are referred to as the Off-Site Utilities Alignments). The Project would also include off-site frontage and pedestrian improvements along Mesa Linda Street and Cataba Road and off-site construction on Sultana Street from the northwestern corner of Building 2 to Mesa Linda Street.

Given that the Project includes connecting utilities from their current locations to the Project site and the new off- site improvements that would require ground disturbance and the use of heavy machinery associated with trenching, the installation of these utility service lines could potentially result in temporary or on going impacts to the environment and could exacerbate wildfire risk by introducing new potential sources of ignition, such as the use

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
97 November 2022
of heavy machinery, welding, or other hot work . However, as previously discussed, vegetation would be removed from the site before the start of construction , and the site would be graded to a flat, level surface, which would reduce the likelihood of fire ignition during installation and connection of utilities.

The installation and maintenance of roads, service utilities, drainage and water quality improvements, and vegetation removal are part of the Project analyzed herein. As such, any potential temporary or ongoing environmental impacts related to these components of the Project have been accounted for and analyzed in t his EIR as part of the impact assessment conducted for the entirety of the Project. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with all regulatory requirements and mitigation measures outlined within the EIR for the purposes of mitigating impacts associated with trenching, grading, site work, and the use of heavy machinery. No adverse physical effects specifically related to wildfire or beyond those already disclosed throughout the EIR would occur as a result of implementation of the Project’s associated infrastructure. Therefore, the installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risk or result in impacts to the environment beyond those already disclosed in the EIR, and impacts would be less than significant.

Expose People or Structures to Significant Risks
The Project site is located within the Mojave River Watershed. The Mojave River is the primary geologic or hydrologic feature in the watershed and is primarily fed by precipitation and snowmelt in the San Bernardino Mountains. The Mojave River is located approximately 9 miles east of the Project site. The Project site is not within areas mapped as susceptible to subsidence, landslides, or liquefaction as s hown in Exhibit SF -2 of the City’s General Plan (City of Hesperia 2010). As further discussed in Section 4.8, the Project site is located in Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA n.d.). This area is higher in elevation than the 0.2% annual chance of flood (i.e., 500-year flood). Further, the Project site and surrounding area consist of relatively flat land that is not typically susceptible to landslides or downslope or downstream flooding. Although internal drainage patterns would be somewhat altered as a result of Project development, the Project would maintain adequate stormwater conveyance and would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off-site. Further, according to available wildfire history, wildfires have not burned onto or adjacent to the Project site, precluding the risk of post- fire slope instability. Therefore, due to the proposed grading of the site, the relatively flat surrounding lands, and the fact that the site would be developed and paved, the likelihood for downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would be minimal, and impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Wildfire Impacts
The cumulative context considered for wildfire impacts is San Bernardino County, and more specifically, the Mojave River watershed, which encompasses 4,500 square miles. CAL FIRE has mapped areas of fire hazards in the state based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. As described above, the Project site is located in a moderate FHSZ but is adjacent to SRA lands designated as Moderate and High FHSZs. The Project, combined with other projects in the region, would increase the population and/or activities and potential ignition sources in the area, which may increase the potential of a wildfire and increase the number of people and structures exposed to the risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires. Individual projects located within the County would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes, which have been increasingly strengthened as a result of severe wildfires that have occurred in the last two decades. The fire and building codes include fire prevention and protection features that reduce the likelihood of a fire igniting in a specific project and spreading to off-site vegetated areas. Further, any related projects located in fire hazard areas would be required to comply with vegetation clearance requirements, as outlined in the applicable fire and building

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
98 November 2022
codes. These codes also protect projects from wildfires that may occur in the area through the implementation of brush management and fuel management zones, ensuring adequate water supply, preparation of fire protection plans, and other measures.

The Project area is relatively flat, and it is not anticipated that related projects would combine to result in significant wildfire impacts related to slope, prevailing winds, downstream flooding or landslide, slope instability, or drainage changes. Further, all related projects would be required to avoid conflict with the City’s Emergency Prepa redness Plan and potential emergency evacuation routes in the area. The applicable CFC and CBC, along with Project - specific needs assessments and fire prevention plan requirements, ensure that every project approved for construction includes adequate emergency access. Roads for all proposed projects are required to meet minimum widths, have all -weather surfaces, and be capable of supporting the imposed loads of responding emergency apparatus. The Project and all other future development projects in the service area would be subject to review by the SBCFD and would be required to comply with the County Fire Code and other relevant County Code requirements and other applicable local codes (e.g., City of Hesperia Municipal Code) and regulations re lated to fire safety, building construction, access, fire flow, and fuel modification. Therefore, because all projects are required to comply with these requirements, cumulative impacts related to increased wildfire hazards and emergency response and access would be less than significant.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on wildfire as it relates to impairing an adopted emergency response plan; exacerbating fire risk from installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure; and exposing people or structure to significant risks.

Therefore, no mitigation is required.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
99 November 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
100 November 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13087
101 November 2022
3 Findings on Project Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or to the location of the project, that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of th at project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (14 CCR 15126.6[a]). The CEQA Guidelines direct that the selection of alternatives be governed by “a rule of reason” (14 CCR 15126.6[a], [f]). CEQA directs that the scope of alternatives considered shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Project (14 CCR 15126.6[f]).

3.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated During the
Scoping/Project Planning Process
The CEQA Guidelines provide that an EIR should “identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the Lead Agency’s determination” (14 CCR 15126.6[c]). The following is a di scussion of the Project alternatives proposed during the scoping and planning process and the reasons they were not selected for detailed analysis in the EIR.

With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives to the Project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(t)(l) states, “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitatio ns, jurisdictional boundaries … and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.”
In determining an appropriate range of Project alternatives to be evaluated in th e EIR, a number of possible alternatives were initially considered and then rejected. The proposed Project alternatives were rejected because they could not accomplish the basic ob jectives of the Project, or they would not have resulted in a reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts.

Other Development Project
The City considered another development alternative that would redevelop the Project site with other land uses, consistent with the Project site’s existing and proposed CIBP zoning designation. The CIBP zone is intended to provide for service commercial, light industrial, light manufacturing and industrial support uses, mainly conducted in enclosed buildings. The Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan lists several different uses that are either permitted by right or conditionally permitted in the CIBP zone. These include commercial storage facilities/mini-warehouses (i.e., self- storage facilities), offices, manufacturing, small and large equipment sales and rental, schools, vehicle rental and sales, minor and major vehicle repair, and vehicle wash facilities.

Moreover, given the Project site’s proximity to major regional transportation routes (e.g., I-15, U.S. Highway 395, and other local truck routes), and because of the continued demand for new industrial/warehouse operations in the Project region, it is assumed that the Project constructed under Alternative 2 would consist of warehouse, distribution, logistics, or other similar type industrial (or industrial-supporting) land use of similar size as the Project. Such an alternative could take the form of a similar square-footage of industrial space, but warehouse space could be split up into many smaller buildings instead of two larger buildings.

All of the mitigation measures required for the Project would also a pply to Alternative 2, as the land use type, development intensity, and/or site coverage would be similar to the Project, and thus, construction and operation characteristics should also be relatively similar. There is the possibility under Alternative 2, however, that some

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
102 November 2022
impacts associated with air quality and GHG, and noise may be greater than those resulting from implementation of the Project, given that some of the other allowed land uses in the CIBP zone have a higher peak hour and/or daily trip generation rate.

As an industrial, commercial, office, institutional, or other permissible land use on the Project site, Alternative 2 would be expected to satisfy many of the Project objectives, including developing a jobs-producing and tax generating land use near transportation corridors within the housing-rich Victor Valley/High Desert region (Objective 1); concentrating non-residential uses near existing roadways, highways, and freeways (Objective 2); developing a fiscally sound and employment generating land use that maximizes utilization of industrial zoned areas (Objective 3); and creating a project that takes advantage of and enhances existing infrastructure, including the proximity to major regional roadways such as I-15 and U.S. Highway 395, railroad service corridors, and other similar infrastructure (Objective 4).

Depending on the use, Alternative 2 may or may not meet Objective 5, which is to fulfill the existing and growing demand for logistics and warehouse uses in the region.

Reduced Intensity
The City also considered a reduced intensity alternative that would be consistent with the existing CIBP and RC zoning and General Plan land use designation of the project site. More specifically, this assumes development of a service commercial, light industrial, light manufacturing and industrial support uses, consistent with the existing CIBP and RC zoning and General Plan land use designation of the project site, but at a reduced development intensity.

In addition, a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Zone Change would be required under this alternative.

Alternative 3 would result in incremental reductions in both construction activity, daily operational trips on Project area roadways, and a reduction in the scale of the proposed buildings. Alternative 3 result in incremental reductions in the severity of impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and noise. In the case of air quality and GHG, the reductions in Project-related trips would not be substantial enough as to reduce impacts below a significance level that is less then significant. Impacts associated with energy and noise are less than significant under both the Project and Alternative 3 scenarios, although emissions would be lessened under Alternative 3.

Impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources, geology and soils, hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems would generally be the same under Alternative 3 compared to the Project. All of the same mitigation measures required for the Project would be necessary for Alternative 3, although no new measures would be required.

Additionally, Alternative 3 would meet all Project objectives, albeit to a lesser extent as proposed under the Project because of the approximately 15% reduction in the Project’s size. In particular, because of its reduced size, Alternative 3 would produce fewer jobs (Objective 1), would generate less tax revenue (Objective 1), and would not create as much revenue- and employment generating land use as the Project (Objectives 1 and 3).

Finally, due to the decreased intensity associated with this alternative, it is not reasonably foreseeable that a future applicant will develop the project site at this scale, or that development at a reduced intensity would be economically viable for future development of the site. For each of these individually independent reasons, a reduced intensity institutional alternative was rejected from further analysis in the EIR.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
103 November 2022

3.2 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis
This section dis cusses a reasonable range of alte rnatives to the Project, including a No Project Altern ative, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). These alternatives are as follows:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
• Alternative 2: Other Development Project Alternative
• Alternative 3: Reduced Development Intensity Alternative These alternatives are evaluated for their ability to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts of the Project identified in the Final EIR, and in consideration of their ability to meet the basic objectives of the Project as described in the Final EIR.

3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of a No Project/No Build Alternative. The “purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project” (14 CCR 15126.6[e][1]). When defining the No Project/No Build Alternative, the analysis must be informed by “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (14 CCR 15126.6[e][2]).

Description
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the No Project/No Build Alternative, which reflects the “circumstances under which the project does not proceed.” Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no development would occur on the project site. Accordingly, the site characteristics of this alternate would be equivalent to the existing conditions.

Impacts
Under Alternative 1, the No Project/ No Build Alternative, all environmental impacts would be reduced further below the Project’s less- than – significant impacts.

Finding
The City rejects the No Project/No Build Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the No Project/No Build Alternative fails to meet any of the project objectives; (2) the No Project/No Build Alternative does not reduce or eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project, as the Project does not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts.

Therefore, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
104 November 2022

3.2.2 Alternative 2: Other Development Project Alternative Description
Under Alternative 2, the Project site would be redeveloped with other land uses, consistent with the Project site’s existing and proposed CIBP zoning designation. The CIBP zone is intended to provide for service commercial, light industrial, light manufacturing and industrial support uses, mainly conducted in enclosed buildings. The Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan lists several different uses that are either permitted by right or conditionally permitted in the CIBP zone. These include commercial storage facilities/mini -warehouses (i.e., self-storage facilities), offices, manufacturing, small and large equipment sales and rental, schools, vehicle rental and sales, minor and major vehicle repair, and vehicle wash facilities.

It is assumed that Alternative 2 would involve development of a land use that would be permissible either by right or by a conditional use permit, including the aforementioned land uses listed above. It is also assumed that those uses would share a similar development intensity/floor-area-ratio/site coverage as the Project. Land uses that are expressly not allowed in the CIBP zone—specifically residential—would not be considered under Alternative 2.

Due to the Project site’s proximity to major regional transportation routes (e.g., I-15, U.S. Highway 395, and other local truck routes), and because of the continued demand for new industrial/warehouse operations in the Project region, it is assumed that the Project constructed under Alternative 2 would consist of warehouse, distribution, logistics, or other similar type industrial (or industrial-supporting) land use of similar size as the Project. Such an alternative could take the form of a similar square-footage of industrial space, but warehouse space could be split up into many smaller buildings instead of two larger buildings.

Impacts
All of the mitigation measures req uired for the Project would also apply to Alternative 2, as the land use type, development intensity, and/or site coverage would be similar to the Project, and thus, construction and operation characteristics should also be relatively similar. There is the possibility under Alternative 2, however, that some impacts associated with air quality and GHG, and noise may be greater than those resulting from implementation of the Project, given that some of the other allowed land uses in the CIBP zone have a highe r peak hour and/or daily trip generation rate.

Objectives
Alternative 2 would not meet one of the project objectives.

Alternative 2 would be expected to satisfy many of the Project objectives, including developing a jobs-producing and tax generating land use near transportation corridors within the housing -rich Victor Valley/High Desert region (Objective 1); concentrating non -residential uses near existing roadways, highways, and freeways (Objective 2); developing a fiscally sound and employment generating land use that maximizes utilization of industrial zoned areas (Objective 3); and creating a project that takes advantage of and enhances existing infrastructure, including the proximity to major regional roadways such as I-15 and U.S. Highway 395, railroad service corridors, and other similar infrastructure (Objective 4). Depending on the use, Alternative 2 may or may not meet Objective 5, which is to fulfill the existing and growing demand for logistics and warehouse uses in the region.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
105 November 2022
Finding
The City rejects Alternative 2 on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) Alternative 2 fails to meet most of the Project objectives; (2) Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts to some environmental resource areas; and (3) Alternative 3 does not reduce or eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project, as the project does not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.

3.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Description
Under Al ternative 3, the Project would be constructed and operated as planned on the Project site, with the exception that the size of the proposed development would be reduced by 15%, equating to an industrial/ warehouse project consisting of approximately 1,572, 500 square feet, compared to the Project’s 1,850,000 square feet. Since the building footprint would be reduced by 277,500 square feet (approximately 12.9 acres), this extra space on the Project site would remain vacant. All other on - and off-site improvements proposed as part of the Project are assumed to still be required under Alternative 3. In addition, a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Zone Change would be required under this alternative.

Impacts
Alternative 3 would result in incremental reductions in both construction activity, daily operational trips on Project area roadways, and a reduction in the scale of the proposed buildings, Alternative 3 result in incremental reductions in the severity of impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and noise. In the case of air quality and GHG, the reductions in Project-related trips would not be substantial enough as to reduce impacts below a significance level that is less then significant. Impacts associated with energy and noise are less than significant under both the Project and Alternative 3 scenarios, although emissions would be lessened under Alternative 3.

Impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources, biologica l resources, cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources, geology and soils, hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems would generally be the same under Alternative 3 compared to the Project.

All of the same mitigation measures required for the Project would be necessary for Alternative 3, although no new measures would be required. Additionally, Alternative 3 would meet all Project objectives, albeit to a lesser extent as proposed under the Project because of the approximately 15% reduction in the Project’s size. In particular, because of its reduced size, Alternative 3 would produce fewer jobs (Objective 1), would generate less tax revenue (Objective 1), and would not create as much revenue - and employment generating land use as the Project (Objectives 1 and 3).

Objectives
Alternative 3 would meet all Project objectives, albeit to a lesser extent as proposed under the Project because of the approximately 15% reduction in the Project’s size. In particular, because of its reduced size, Alternative 3 would

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
106 November 2022
produce fewer jobs (O bjective 1), would generate less tax revenue (Objective 1), and would not create as much revenue- and employment generating land use as the Project (Objectives 1 and 3).

Finding
The City rejects the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative as undesirable as it fails to satisfy the project’s underlying purpose and to meet most project objectives, and because specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the alternative infeasible.

3.2.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR must identify an “environmentally super ior” alternative; and, where the no project alternative is environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify an alternative from among the others evaluated as environmentally superior (14 CCR 15126.6[e][2]).

Each of the three Project alternatives considered herein would lessen at least one environmental impact relative to the Project. As previously addressed, if the No Project/No Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative—which is the case in this analysis —the EIR must also identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives.

Based on a comparison of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, environmental impacts associated with air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and noise would be les s under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2. Impacts associated with biological resources, cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, transportation, and utilities and services systems would be similar under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2, and only one impact (aesthetics) would be increased under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2. Overall, based on these findings, Alternative 3 would be considered the environment ally superior alternative. As indicated above, Alternative 3 would result in fewer jobs, less tax revenue, would not create as much revenue- and employment generating land use as the proposed project.

13087
107 November 2022
4 General CEQA Findings
Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the administrative record, and as conditioned by the foregoing, the City has determined the following:

1. The plans for the Project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and the CEQA processes.

2. To the degree that any impacts described in the Draft EIR are perceived to have a significant effect on the environment, or such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment, any significant effect of such impacts has been substantially lessened or avoided by the mitigation measures set forth in the Draft and Final EIR.

3. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have been adequately addressed in the Final EIR. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures described in the Draft and Final EIR.

4.1 Findings Regarding Recirculation
The City finds that the Draft EIR does not require recirculation under CEQA (CEQA Section 21092.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires recirculation of an EIR prior to certification of the Final EIR when “significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review.” As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5:

New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it;

4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b) provides that “recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies and amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” Recirculation also is not required simply because new information is added to an EIR; indeed, new information is oftentimes added given CEQA’s public/agency comment and response process and CEQA’s post -Draft EIR circulation requirement of proposed responses to comments submitted by publ ic agencies. In short, recirculation is “intended to be an exception rather than the general rule” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1132).

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
108 November 2022
As such, the City makes the following Findings:

1. None of the public comments submitted to the City regarding the Draft EIR present any significant new information that would require the Draft EIR to be recirculated for public review.

2. No new or modified mitigation measures are proposed that would have the potential to create new significant environmental impacts.

3. The Draft EIR adequately analyzed Project alternatives and there are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project.

4. The Draft EIR was not fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature and did not preclude meaningful public review and comment.

In this legal context, the City finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR prior to certification is not required. In addition to providing responses to comments, the Final EIR includes revisions to expand upon information already presented in the Draft EIR; explain or enhance the eviden tiary basis for the Draft EIR’s findings; update information; and to make clarifications, amplifications, updates, or helpful revisions to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR’s revisions, clarifications, and/or updates do not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

In sum, the Final EIR demonstrates that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of a significant impact compared to the analysis presente d in the Draft EIR. The changes reflected in the Final EIR also do not indicate that meaningful public review of the Draft EIR was precluded in the first instance.

Accordingly, recirculation of the EIR is not required because revisions to the EIR are not s ignificant as defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

13087
109 November 2022
5 Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093(a) and (b), the decision -making agency (City of Hesperia) is required to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (14 CCR 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptabl e when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (14 CCR 15093[b]).

Courts have upheld overriding considerations that were b ased on a variety of policy considerations including, but not limited to, new jobs, stronger tax base, implementation of an agency’s economic development goals, growth management policies, redevelopment plans, the need for housing and employment, conformit y to community plan, and provision of construction jobs. See Towards Responsibility in Planning v. City Council (1988) 200 Cal App. 3d 671; Dusek v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 173 Cal App. 3d 1029; City of Poway v City of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal App. 3d 1037; Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal App.3d 656. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the County finds that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and the MMRP, when implemented, will avoid or substantially lessen virtually all of the significant effects identified in the Final EIR for the I-15 Industrial PArk Project. However, certain significant impacts of the proposed project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation me asures. These significant unavoidable impacts are to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. The Final EIR provides detailed information regarding these impacts (see also, Findings, Section 2.2, Impacts Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable).

The City finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that are within the purview of the City would be implemented with the proposed Project, and that those mitigation measures that may be within another agency’s discretion have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. As identified below, the City further finds that the remaining significant unavoidable effects are outweighed and are found to be acceptable due to the following specific overri ding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, based upon the facts set forth above, the Final EIR, and the record.

Purpose and Need
The High Desert/Victor Valley region has long been identified as an area having a low jobs -housing ratio (i.e., an area that has more potential workers living in a community than there are jobs for them),10 resulting in high numbers of residents commuting out of the region for work. The City of Hesperia has estimated that approximately 73% of workers residing in Hesperia commute out of the area to the Inland Empire cities and the broader Los Angeles region (City of Hesperia 2016). Although these conditions can be attributed to a number of factors, the most notable variable in the jobs-to-housing ratio is the l ack of jobs growth in the region. From 2010 to 2015, the region’s job growth rate was 7.0% compared to a population growth rate of 25.5%. A low jobs -to-housing ratio can result in adverse environmental and economic effects on local communities. Long distan ce commutes result in increased

10 A jobs-housing ratio is a commonly used economic metric used to determine whether or not a c ommunity-or region-provides a sufficient number of jobs for its residents. The metric is calculated by finding the relationship between where people work (“jobs”) and where they live (“housing”). As of 2016, the City had a jobs/housing ratio of 0.44, well off of regional targets ranging from

1.25-1.50 (City of Hesperia 2016).

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
110 November 2022
traffic and air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and out -of-region commuters often take a share of their purchasing power with them when they make purchases away from home.

Recognizing these trends, community leaders a nd officials have long sought to stimulate economic development within the High Desert region and provide residents with local employment opportunities. One strategy that community leaders and planners have used is to attract development of warehousing and distribution centers, which can provide hundreds of jobs per million square feet of development. Conventional and e-commerce retailers are continuing to embrace the strategy of creating and staffing large regional fulfillment centers, with the goal of quickly responding to online consumers. Because of its available land and infrastructure for large logistics facilities, many companies are locating their regional operations to the High Desert area.

Additionally, low industrial vacancy rates within the South ern California region has led to record -high demand for flexible logistics and distribution facilities. At the close of Quarter (Q) 4 in 2021, vacancy rates within the Inland Empire industrial market were as low as 0.7% (C&W 2022). These market trends are influenced by a lack of available land for the development of new facilities within the Los Angeles, Orange County, San Bernardino, and Riverside areas. Thus, given the availability of undeveloped land in the High Desert area and given that the High Desert area possesses many of the characteristics that are desired by the logistics and distribution sector, such as proximity to major cargo ports and regional transportation corridors, the High Desert area has become a prime location for the development of new logistics and distribution facilities.

As such, the Project would help meet the needs of the growing logistics sector by providing flexible industrial space proximate to regional transportation corridors while producing new jobs in a region that historically may have been considered light on jobs and heavier on housing.

Overriding Benefits Resulting from the Project
The City finds that the Project would have the economic, legal, social, technological, or other overriding benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, listed below. Each of the benefits cited below constitutes a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the Project and outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of approving the Project and thus makes the adverse environmental effects acceptable.

Therefore, even in the absence of one or more of the reasons set forth below, the City has determined that each remaining reason, or any combinations of reasons, is a sufficient basis fo r approving the Project, notwithstanding any significant and unavoidable impacts that may occur.

1. Balanced Land Use Benefits: The proposed Project would result in the development of a currently vacant site with a project that is overall consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Designation and zoning code, and the proposed land use changes would result in the development of a land use pattern that is overall similar to existing and planned land use patterns. The proposed Project would use the locational characteristics (specifically, the project’s proximity to I-15 and U.S. Highway 395) to provide needed flexible industrial space to businesses wishing to invest in the City, as well as to provide approximately 2,309 permanent jobs both directly and indirectly in the region. Moreover, the Project area is one with other proposed and approved warehouse and logistics uses that have similar land use and zoning designations to the Project site. These facilities take advantage of the area’s proximity to regional transportation corridors, facilitating the regional and national goods movement industry. Development of the proposed Project in this area and in a location that is designated and zoned for industrial uses would result in the development of a vacant site with uses that are similar to the surrounding existing uses,

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
111 November 2022
thereby assisting the City in creating a cohesive, high-quality business-park environment, as envisioned by the City’s General Plan.

Additionally, the Project would assist the City in the concentrating non-residential uses away from residential uses in the City. These two land uses can often be incompatible due to the operational characteristics of non-residential uses, which by their nature, can result in traffic congestion, air emissions, and industrial light and noise. In summary, development of the proposed industrial use within an area designated for industrial uses would assist the City in maximizing the utility of an industrially- designated vacant parcel to result in City- and region-wide economic benefits associated with job creation and the provision of needed services to local businesses; in concentrating non-residential uses away from residential areas; and in fulfilling the City’s vision for a developed, high-quality business park environment for those wishing to invest in the City.

2. Meet Market Demands for Industrial Space: The Project would provide much-needed flexible industrial space to fulfill the needs of the growing industrial sector in an area that faces a shortage of such space. At the close of Q4 in 2021, vacancy rates within the Inland Empire industrial market were as low as 0.7% (C&W 2022). The greater Southern California region is expected to continue to see strong demand for industrial facilities driven by the needs of retail and e-commerce users for facilities with modern amenities to maximize distribution efficiency, as well by as the scarcity of available facilities and land to develop such facilities in the more expensive and constrained Los Angeles, Orange County, San Bernardino and Riverside area industrial markets. The limited availability of industrial facilities can result in negative effects such as stock-outs, trade bottlenecks, and delays in the time it takes for good to reach consumers.

The Project would result in the development of three industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 1,850,000 square feet with associated office spaces, surface parking, and loading areas. The delivery of these facilities would provide industrial users with much-needed flexible industrial space at a time when market demands for such space are at historic highs. The delivery of the Project would also result in the benefit of supporting the goods movement industry in decreasing lead times for delivery of consumer products and increasing the local supply of goods for regional consumers.

3. Benefits of Employment Opportunities to Reduce Jobs:Housing Imbalance: The Project is anticipated support a number of temporary construction jobs and approximately 2,309 permanent jobs once constructed. As stated above, the High Desert/Victor Valley region has long been identified as an area having a low jobs-housing ratio, and an estimated 73% of workers residing in Hesperia commute out of the area to the Inland Empire cities and the broader Los Angeles region (City of Hesperia 2016). The trade, transportation, and utilities sector has been one of the leading drivers in decreasing the region’s unemployment rate by supplying up to 35,600 jobs between June 2020 and June 2021 (C&W 2021). Between November 2021 and December 2021, the transportation and warehousing sector recorded a job gain of 3,500 (EDD 2022). The Project would support these trends by providing approximately 2,309 jobs in an area that is typically seen as having a low jobs- housing ratio. In summary, the Project would provide approximately 2,309 permanent jobs that are well suited to the City’s workforce, which would stimulate economic growth, lower the regional unemployment rate, and reduce regional vehicle miles traveled.

4. Economic and Fiscal Benefits: The Project encourages economic growth and diversity within the City by providing flexible industrial facilities for businesses wishing to invest in the City. The Project would increase annual property tax revenues as improvements increase the assessable value of the Project site and would also generate additional revenues through the collection of certain other taxes, licenses, and fees associated with business operation. The Project applicant’s expenditures associated with constructing the Project would also supplement the City’s General Fund as sales tax revenues are

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
112 November 2022
collected during the sales of construction materials. The Project would inject funds into the local economy through construction and operations of the facility, and the Project will generate annual taxes. The Project would support temporary construction jobs and approximately 2,309 permanent jobs once constructed.

The generation of these jobs would result in indirect economic benefits as wages associated with these jobs translate to regional economic growth by way of local spending, as well as indirect fiscal benefits when wages are spent on goods and services, which generates sales tax revenues for the General Fund.

The Project would also result in the contribution of fair share costs to the City that would be directed towards capital improvements for infrastructure in the area.

Public Infrastructure Benefits: The Project would add and/or improve public infrastructure within the Project area. The Project includes street improvements along the frontage of the Project on Poplar Street, Mesa Linda Road, Cataba Road, and the Project would construct Lassen Street and Sultana Street.

Additional traffic improvements include additional on- and off-site improvements that the Project will incorporate into site design, construct prior to Project implementation, or pay its fair share cost to fund future implementation of the required improvement. The provision of these roadways and utility infrastructure would provide a benefit to the City by facilitating access within the Project area and increasing the reliability of current utility systems.

5. Benefits of Sustainable Design: The Project would stimulate regional economic growth while also incorporating a number of project design features (PDFs) and mitigation measures to promote environmental sustainability and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change (see Section 2.2.1, Air Quality, and Section 2.2.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the EIR). The Project’s two warehouse buildings have been designed to comply with and exceed Title 24 CalGreen requirements in order to conserve resources, including energy and water. Buildings would be outfitted with electric vehicle chargers, electrical conduit to facilitate future electrical truck charging capabilities, and the Project would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to facilitate increased opportunities for carpooling, bicycling and pedestrian travel for employees. The Project would also assist the City in concentrating industrial facilities in a non-residential area that is designated for such uses. The Project would also assist in the preservation of western Joshua tree woodland, a candidate species of special concern, through the permanent preservation of off-site lands containing western Joshua tree woodland. The preservation of these lands would also provide additional benefits by ensuring that wildlands are preserved for other desert native species.

Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, and the information contained within the Final EIR and other portions of the project record, the City concludes that implementation of the proposed I-15 Industrial Park Project will result in the development of a beneficial project as outlined above. The City also finds that the benefits identified above outweigh and make acceptable the significant, unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and, accordingly, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations.

13087
113 November 2022
6 Conclusion
The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the findings s et forth above, as implemented through the MMRP, will eliminate or reduce to a less -than-significant level most of the adverse environmental impacts of the project. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the project would be rendered acceptable by the specific economic and social benefits identified in Section 5, Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Taken together, the Final EIR, the mitigation measures, and the MMRP provide an adequate basis for approval of the proposed project.

Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
I-15 Industrial Park Project
NOVEMBER 2022
Prepared for:

CITY OF HESPERIA, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, California 92645
Prepared by:
3615 Main Street, Suite 103
Riverside, California 92501
Attachment 3 Exhibit B

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

13087 i NOVEMBER 2022

Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table ......................................................................................... 3 TABLE
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table ........................................................................................ 3

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK /MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 ii NOVEMBER 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13087 1 NOVEMBER 2022

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction
California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that, upon certification of an EIR, “the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.” (PRC Section 21000–21177) This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was developed in compl iance with Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 –15387 and Appendices A–L.), and includes the following information:
▪ A list of mitigation measures
▪ The timing for implementation of the mitigation measures ▪ The party responsible for implementing or monitoring the mitigation measures ▪ The date of completion of monitoring
The City of Hesperia must adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed Project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of Project approval.

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK /MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 2 NOVEMBER 2022

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 3 NOVEMBER 2022

2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
Aesthetics
MM-AES-1. Project buildings and elements shall include colors and tones that mimic the natural desert environment. The Project Applicant shall present to the City of Hesperia a materials board showing the proposed building color palette for review and approval prior to issuance of the first building permit. City staff shall review the color palette to ensure that the selected colors and tones largely conform to those colors and tones already found in the surrounding natural desert landscape. The color palette, along with the Project design as a whole, shall also be reviewed to assure conformance with the development standards of the Hesperia Municipal Code and the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan in order to promote the visual character and quality of the surrounding area.

Prior to issuance of building
permit
City of Hesperia
Air Qua lity
MM-AQ-1. The Project shall implement the following measures in order to reduce operational mobile source air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
▪ Only haul trucks meeting California Air Resources Board (CARB) model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the Project site.

Haul Trucks
During Project Operation and
subject to periodic City
inspection
Anti-Idling Signs
Prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit
Carl Moyer Program Funding
Opportunities
Prior to tenant occupancy
City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 4 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti- idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include: (1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; (2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the
transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged; (3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations; and (4) that penalties apply for violations. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the City of Hesperia shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.
▪ Prior to tenant occupancy, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Hesperia demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the Project site have been provided documentation on funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleaner-than-required engines and equipment.
▪ Ensure that site enforcement staff in charge of keeping the daily log and monitoring for excess idling will be trained/certified in diesel health effects and technologies, for example, by requiring attendance at California Air Resources Board-approved courses (such as the free, one-day Course #512).
▪ The facility operator shall be required to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements
Daily Monitoring Logs
During Project Operation and
subject to periodic City
inspection
Load Management Training
During Project Operation
Conduit/EV Charging
Infrastructure
Prior to certificate of occupancy
and by 2030
Four heavy-duty truck vehicle
charging stations
By 2030

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 5 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Prior to certificate of occupancy, install conduit and infrastructure for Level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations on-site for employees for the percentage of employee parking spaces commensurate with Title 24 requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance plus additional charging stations equal to 5% of the total employee parking spaces in the building permit, whichever is greater. By 2030 install Level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations for 25% of the employee parking spaces required. Buildings shall include electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the future.
▪ In anticipation of a transition to zero emission truck fleets during the lifetime of the Project, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall install at least four heavy-duty truck vehicle charging stations on-site by 2030. In addition, conduit shall be installed to tractor trailer parking areas in logical locations determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations.

MM-AQ-2. The Project shall implement the following measure in order to reduce operational energy source air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
▪ The Project shall include rooftop solar panels that generate sufficient power to meet at least 75% of the Project’s total operational energy requirements from within the Project’s building envelopes.
▪ Install Energy Star-rated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances.
▪ Provide information on energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy management, and existing energy incentive programs to future tenants of the Project.

Solar Panels
Prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit
Energy-start rated equipment
Prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit
Provision of Information
Prior to tenant occupancy
Outdoor Electric Outlets
City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 6 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Structures shall be equipped with outdoor electric outlets in the front and rear of the structures to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment.

Prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit
MM-AQ-3. The Project shall include the following language within tenant lease agreements in order to reduce operational air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
▪ Require tenants to use the cleanest technologies available and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles, equipment, and appliances that would be operating on site. This requirement shall apply to equipment such as forklifts, handheld landscaping equipment, yard trucks, office appliances, etc.
▪ All outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and landscaping equipment) shall be zero-emission vehicles. Each building shall include the necessary charging stations or other necessary infrastructure for cargo handling equipment. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.
▪ Require future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans, when economically feasible.
▪ Tenants shall be in, and monitor compliance with, all current air quality regulations for on-road trucks including the California Air Resources Board’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation.
▪ Cold storage operations shall be prohibited unless additional environmental review, including a Health Risk Assessment, is conducted and certified pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act.

Use of Cleanest Available
Technologies
During Project Operation and
subject to periodic City
inspection
Zero-Emission Outdoor Cargo
Equipment
During Project Operation and
subject to periodic City
inspection
Zero-Emission Light and
Medium-Duty Delivery Trucks
and Vans
During Project Operation and
subject to periodic City
inspection
Cold Storage Prohibition
During Project Operation

City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 7 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
MM-AQ-4. The Project shall implement the following measures in order to reduce construction air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:

During Project construction and
submittal of construction logs on
quarterly basis or as determined
necessary by the City of Hesperia

City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 8 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Require all generators, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower, to be zero- emissions or equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines (as set forth in Section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) or better by including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts with successful contractors. After either (1) the completion of grading or, (2) the completion of an electrical hookup at the site, whichever is first, require all generators and all diesel-fueled off- road construction equipment, to be zero-emissions or equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines (as set forth in Section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) or better by including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts with successful contractors. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City in the event that the applicant documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment.1 Before an exemption may be considered by the City, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate that at least two construction fleet
owners/operators in the San Bernadino Region were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Final or better equipment could not be located within the San
Bernardino Region. To ensure that Tier 4 Final construction equipment or better would be used during the proposed
Project’s construction, the applicant shall include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Successful contractors must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 9 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Provide infrastructure for zero-emission off-road construction equipment if the contractors selected to construct the Project plan to use zero-emission off-road construction equipment. ▪ Provide electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than diesel- fueled generators, for contractors’ electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors. In applicable bid documents and contracts with contractors selected to construct the Project, include language requiring all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers, etc.) used during Project construction to be electric.
▪ Require construction equipment to be turned off when not in use
▪ Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in
accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ On days when the hourly average wind speed for the City of Hesperia exceeds 20 miles per hour, additional dust control measures shall be implemented, such as increased surface watering. Grading and excavation shall be prohibited when sustained wind speed exceeds 30 miles per hour.
▪ Use paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings for all interior painting that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 grams per liter (g/L).

MM-AQ-5. Prior to tenant occupancy, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Hesperia demonstrating that the occupants of the Project site have been provided documentation that:

Prior to tenant occupancy City of Hesperia

1 For example, if a Tier 4 Final piece of equipment is not reasonably available at the time of construction and a lower tier eq uipment is used instead (e.g., Tier 4 interim), another piece of equipment could be upgraded from a Tier 4 Final to a higher tier (i.e., Tier 5) or replaced with an alternative-fueled (not diesel-fueled) equipment to offset the emissions associated with using a piece of equipment that does not meet Tier 4 Final standards.

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 10 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Recommends the use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters; ▪ Recommends the use of water-based or low-VOC cleaning; and ▪ For occupants with more than 250 employees, require the establishment of a transportation demand management
program to reduce employee commute vehicle emissions.

MM-AQ-6. The Project shall be designed to:
▪ Be able to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification and meet or exceed CalGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application.

Documentation shall be provided to the City of Hesperia demonstrating that the Project meets this requirement prior to the issuance of building permits.
▪ Include the application of surface treatments (such as PURETi Coat or PlusTi) on impervious ground surfaces that lessen impervious surface-related radiative forcing.
▪ Include HEPA air filtration systems within in all warehouse facilities.

Prior to issuance of building
permit; verification prior to
issuance of occupancy permit
City of Hesperia
Biological Resources
MM-BIO-1. Western Joshua Tree Lands. Mitigation for direct impacts to western Joshua trees shall be fulfilled through conservation of western Joshua trees at a 1:1 habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project. Mitigation can be through purchases of credits at a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-approved mitigation bank for western Joshua tree or through conservation lands that meet the functions and values criteria. If mitigation is not purchased through a mitigation bank and lands are conserved separately, a cost estimate will be prepared to estimate the initial start-up costs, and ongoing annual costs, of management activities for the management of the conservation easement(s) area in perpetuity. The funding source will be in the form of an endowment to help the qualified natural lands Prior to issuance of grading
permits
City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 11 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
management entity that is ultimately selected to hold the conservation easement(s). The endowment amount will be
established following the completion of a project-specific Property Analysis Record (PAR) to calculate the costs of in perpetuity land management. The PAR will take into account all of the management activities required in the Incidental Take Permit to fulfill the requirements of the conservation easement(s), which are currently in review and development.

Additionally, no take of western Joshua tree will occur without authorization from CDFW in the form of an Incidental Take Permit pursuant to Fish and Game Code 2081. The Project Applicant will adhere to measures and conditions set forth within the Incidental Take Permit.

MM-BIO-2. Relocation of Desert Native Plants. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit an application and applicable fee paid to the City of Hesperia for removal or relocation of protected native desert plants under Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter 16.24 as required and schedule a pre- construction site inspection with the Planning Division and the Building Division. The application shall include certification from a qualified Joshua tree and native desert plant expert(s) to determine that proposed removal or relocation of protected native desert plants are appropriate, supportive of a healthy environment, and in compliance with the City of Hesperia Municipal Code. Protected plants subject to Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter 16.24 may be relocated on-site, or within an area designated as an area for species to be adopted later.

The application shall include a detailed plan for removal of all protected plants on the Project site. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified Joshua tree and native desert plant expert(s). The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:

Prior to issuance of grading
permits and during ground
clearing activities
City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 12 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Salvaged plants shall be transplanted expeditiously to either their final on-site location, or to an approved off-site area. If the plants cannot be expeditiously taken to their permanent relocation area at the time of excavation, they may be
transplanted in a temporary area (stockpiled) prior to being moved to their permanent relocation site(s).
▪ Western Joshua trees shall be marked on their north facing side prior to excavation. Transplanted western Joshua trees shall be planted in the same orientation as they currently occur on the Project site, with the marking on the north side of the trees facing north at the relocation site(s).
▪ Transplanted plants shall be watered prior to and at the time of transplantation. The schedule of watering shall be determined by the qualified tree expert and desert native plant expert(s) to maintain plant health. Watering of the transplanted plants shall continue under the guidance of qualified tree expert and desert native plant expert(s) until it has been determined that the transplants have become established in the permanent
relocation site(s) and no longer require supplemental watering.

MM-BIO-3: Designated Biologist Authority. The Designated Biologist shall have authority to immediately stop any activity that does not comply with the biological resources mitigation measures and/or to order any reasonable measure to avoid the unauthorized take of an individual western Joshua tree.

During construction City of Hesperia
MM-BIO-4: Compliance Monitoring. The Designated Biologist shall be on site daily when impacts occur. The Designated Biologist shall conduct compliance inspections to minimize incidental take of western Joshua trees and impacts to other sensitive biological resources; prevent unlawful take of western Joshua trees; and ensure that signs, stakes, and fencing are intact, and that impacts are only occurring within the permitted impact footprint. Weekly written observation and inspection records that summarize oversight During construction City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 13 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
activities and compliance inspections and monitoring activities required by the Incidental Take Permit shall be prepared.

MM-BIO-5: Education Program. An education program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all persons employed or otherwise working in the Project area shall be administered before performing impacts. The WEAP shall consist of a presentation from the Designated Biologist that includes a discussion of the biology and status of western Joshua tree, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike; and other biological resources mitigation measures described in the CEQA document. Interpretation for non- English-speaking workers will be provided, and the same instruction shall be provided to any new workers before they are authorized to perform work in the Project area. Upon completion of the WEAP, employees shall sign a form stating they attended the program and understand all protection measures. This training shall be repeated at least once annually for long-term and/or permanent employees who will be conducting work in the Project area.

During construction City of Hesperia
MM-BIO-6: Construction Monitoring Notebook. The Designated Biologist shall maintain a construction-monitoring notebook on site throughout the construction period, which shall include a copy of the biological resources mitigation measures with attachments and a list of signatures of all personnel who have successfully completed the education program. The permittee shall ensure that a copy of the construction monitoring notebook is available for review at the Project site upon request by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

During construction City of Hesperia
MM-BIO-7: Delineation of Property Boundaries. Before beginning activities that would cause impacts, the contractor shall, in consultation with the Designated Biologist, clearly delineate the boundaries, consistent with the grading plan, within which the impacts will take place with fencing, stakes, or flags. All impacts within the fenced, staked, or flagged areas shall be avoided and all Prior to commencement of
ground disturbing activities
City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 14 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
fencing, stakes, and flags shall be maintained until the completion of impacts in that area.

MM-BIO-8: Hazardous Waste. The Applicant shall immediately stop work and, pursuant to pertinent state and federal statutes and regulations, arrange for repair and clean up by qualified individuals of any fuel or hazardous waste leaks or spills at the time of occurrence, or as soon as it is safe to do so.

During construction City of Hesperia
MM-BIO-9: Herbicides. The Applicant shall limit herbicide use for invasive plant species and shall use herbicides only if it has been determined that hand or mechanical efforts are infeasible. To prevent drift, the Applicant shall apply herbicides only when wind speeds are less than 7 miles per hour. All herbicide application shall be performed by a licensed applicator and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

During construction City of Hesperia
MM-BIO-10. Pre-Construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl and Avoidance. One pre‐construction burrowing owl survey shall be completed no more than 14 days before initiation of site preparation or grading activities, and a second survey shall be completed within 24 hours of the start of site preparation or grading activities. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction surveys, the Project site shall be resurveyed. Surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in accordance with protocols established in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game [now California Department of Fish and Wildlife] in 2012) or current version.

First survey
No more than 14 days before
initiation of site preparation or
grading activities
Second Survey
Within 24 hours of the start of
site preparation or grading
activities
City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 15 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ If burrowing owls are detected, the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan shall be implemented in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan shall identify procedures for both active and passive owl relocation. CDFW shall be consulted to approve any relocation activities and identify the appropriate method of relocation (i.e., active or passive relocation). As required by the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan disturbance to burrows shall be avoided during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Buffers will be established around occupied burrows in accordance with guidance provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation or current version. No Project activities shall be allowed to encroach into established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until it is determined that occupied burrows have been vacated or the nesting season has completed.
▪ Outside of the nesting season, owl relocation techniques approved by CDFW shall be implemented. Owls shall be
excluded from burrows in the immediate Project area and within a buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances.

These doors will be placed at least 48 hours prior to ground- disturbing activities. The Project area shall be monitored daily for one week to confirm owl departure from burrows prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Compensatory mitigation for permanent loss of owl habitat will be provided following the guidance in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation or current version.
▪ Where possible, burrows will be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible plastic pipe shall be inserted into the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any wildlife inside the burrow.

MM-BIO-11: Lighting. Lighting for construction activities and operations within 50 feet of the outside edge of the impact footprint During construction City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 16 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
containing habitat for special-status wildlife will be directed away from natural areas.

MM-BIO-12: Trash and Debris. The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during Project construction.

Fully covered trash receptacles that are animal-proof will be installed and used by the operator to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverage containers, and other
miscellaneous trash. Trash contained within the receptacles will be removed at least once a week from the Project site.

Construction work areas shall be kept clean of debris, such as cable, trash, and construction materials. All
construction/contractor personnel shall collect all litter, vehicle fluids, and food waste from the Project site on a daily basis.

During construction
MM-BIO-13: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance.

Construction activities shall avoid the migratory bird nesting season (typically February 1 through August 31), to reduce any potential significant impact to birds that may be nesting on the survey area. If construction activities must occur during the migratory bird nesting season, an avian nesting survey of the Project site and within 500 feet of all impact areas must be conducted to determine the presence/absence of protected migratory birds and active nests. The avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to the start of construction in accordance with the MBTA (16 USC 703–712) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If an active bird nest is found, the nest shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with an appropriate buffer established around the nest, which will be determined by the biologist based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and special-status species). The nest area shall be avoided until the nest is vacated and the juveniles have fledged. The nest area shall be demarcated in the field with flagging and stakes or If ground disturbing activities
commence between February 1
through August 31, within 72
hours prior to the start of ground
disturbing activities
City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 17 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
construction fencing. On-site construction monitoring shall also be conducted when construction occurs in close proximately to an active nest buffer. No Project activities may encroach into established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until is determined the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer considered active.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
MM-CUL-1. Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Training. All construction personnel and monitors conducting ground disturbing activities who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of construction activities. A basic presentation should be prepared and presented by a qualified archaeologist to inform all personnel working on the Project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area. The purpose of the WEAP training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction of the Project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources.

Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the on-call archaeologist and if appropriate, tribal representative. Necessity of training attendance shall be stated on all construction plans.

Prior to commencement of
ground disturbing activities
City of Hesperia
MM-CUL-2. On-Call Archaeological Construction Monitoring. In consideration of the general sensitivity of the Project site for cultural resources, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct spot monitoring as well as on-call response in the case of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources. A qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall oversee and adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to During grading phases City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 18 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
encounter cultural deposits. The archaeologist shall be responsible for maintaining monitoring logs. Following the completion of construction, the qualified archaeologist shall provide an archaeological monitoring report to the lead agency and the South– Central Coastal Information Center with the results of the archaeological monitoring program.

MM-CUL-3. Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the Project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; 14 CCR 15064.5(f); California PRC Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall determine whether additional work shall be necessary, which may include but may not be limited to preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery. If the discovery is Native American in nature, consultation with and/or monitoring by a tribal representative may be necessary, as determined by the City of Hesperia and the qualified archaeologist.

During construction City of Hesperia
MM-CUL-4. Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner During construction City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 19 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the MLD from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM-GHG-1. Water Conversation. To reduce water demands and associated energy use, subsequent development proposals within the Project site would be required to implement a Water Conservation Strategy and demonstrate a minimum 20% reduction in indoor and outdoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand without
implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy). To implement this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project, the Project applicant shall provide building plans that include the following water conservation measures:
▪ Install low-water use appliances and fixtures
▪ Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces ▪ Implement water-sensitive urban design practices in new construction
▪ Install rainwater collection systems where feasible.

Prior to the issuance of building
permits
City of Hesperia
MM-GHG-2. Solid Waste Reduction. In order to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills, the Project would implement a 75% waste diversion program. To implement this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project, the Project applicant shall provide building plans that include the following solid waste reduction measures:

Prior to the issuance of building
permits
City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 20 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste in new construction, and food waste storage, if a pick-up service is available.
▪ Evaluate the potential for onsite composting.

MM-GHG-3. GHG Mitigation Grants Program. Provided the City approves the Project, the Project Applicant shall pay a total of $300,000 (“GHG Mitigation Grants Payment”) to a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, to be used for grant funding for local GHG reduction projects (such as rooftop solar on public buildings) within the community of Hesperia.

Prior to the issuance of first
occupancy permit
City of Hesperia
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM-HAZ-1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified environmental specialist to remove and dispose of all refuse located on the Project site, included but not limited to, the illegally-dumped tires and automotive fluid containers currently found on site. The removal transport, and disposal of refuse shall be done in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal guidelines related to hazardous materials handling. Prior to the removal of refuse deposits from the site, the environmental specialist shall inspect each refuse pile for indications that the refuse may contain – or may have once contained – hazardous materials, including but not limited to, motor oil, solvents, paints, and/or other petroleum products. In addition, the environmental specialist shall inspect the soils surrounding each refuse deposit for evidence of any contamination (staining) or volatilization of contaminants (odors).

If contamination indicators are identified, work shall stop in the immediate proximity of the potential contamination. The qualified environmental specialist shall prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) which will outline characterization, screening, handling, and disposal procedures for contaminated soils. The SMP shall include health and safety and training procedures for workers who may Prior to issuance of a grading
permit and during construction
City of Hesperia

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 21 NOVEMBER 2022

Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
come in contact with contaminated soils. The health and safety procedures shall also include periodic breathing zone monitoring and monitoring for VOCs using a handheld organic vapor analyzer and include required actions to be taken if concentrations of VOCs exceed applicable screening levels for health and safety of onsite workers. Should contaminated soil be determined hazardous, it shall be removed by personnel who have been trained through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration–recommended 40- hour safety program with an approved plan for soil excavation, control of contaminant releases to the air, and off-site transport or on-site treatment. All contaminated soils will be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK / MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

13087 22 NOVEMBER 2022

ORDINANCE NO. 2023-02

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESP ERIA,

CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL GENERA L PLAN AND ZONING

MAP BY RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HEREIN

DESCRIBED WITHIN THE MAIN STREET AND FREEW AY CORRIDOR

SPECIFIC PL AN FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ( RC) TO COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK (CIBP) ON APPROXIMATELY 40 GROSS

ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA LINDA STREET,
IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I-15 FREEWAY, AND APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN STREET (SPLA21-00001)

WHEREAS, On January 5, 1998, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Resolution No. 250, thereby adopting the Hesperia Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, On September 2, 2008, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Resolution No. 2008-12, thereby adopting the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, Covington Group, Inc. (Applicant) has filed an app lication requesting approval of Specific Plan Amendment SPLA2 1-00001 described herein (hereinafter referred to as "Application"); and

WHEREAS, the Application applies to approximately 40 gross acres of a 45 gross acre site within the Regional Commercial (RC) zone of the Main Street and Freeway Corri dor Specific Plan located on the located on the east side of Mesa Linda Street, immediately west of the I-15 freeway, and approximately 1,000 feet south of Main Stre et and consists of Assessor's Parcel Number 3064-601-07; and

WHEREAS, the Application, as contemplated, proposes to change the zoning of 40 gross acres of a 45 gr oss acre site within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Speci fic Plan from the Regional Commercial (RC) zone to the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has also filed a n application requesting approval of CUP21 -00004, TPM22-00010, DA22 -00002 and CUP21-00005 to const ruct approximately 1,850,000 square feet of industria l warehouse space on approximately 97 acres of vacant land. Conditional Use Permit CUP21-00004 in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map TPM22-00010 was filed for Building 1, and CUP21-00005 was filed for Building 2. Building 1 includes the construction of an approximately 1,108,000 square foot industrial warehouse on approximately 61 gross acres and Building 2 inc ludes the construction of an approximately 742 ,000 square foot industrial warehouse on approximately 36 gross acres. In conjunction with CUP21-00004 a Specific Plan Amendment has also been filed to change approximately 45 acres of the project site fro m Regional Commercial (RC) to Commercial In dustrial Business Park (CIBP) . In addition, a Development Agreement (DA) is proposed that would among othe r things, allow both CUP applications to be effective for 8 years initially, with a provision to allow an a utomatic 2-year extension; and

WHEREAS, the subject site is vacant. Surrounding land uses primary consist of vacant land ; and

Ordinance No. 2023-02

WHEREAS, the subject property is currently within the Regional Commercial (RC) zone of the Specific Plan. The land to the north is within the Regional Commercial (RC) zone. The land to the south and west are within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone of the Specific Plan. The I-15 Freeway forms the eastern boundary of the site; and

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2022, the Planning C ommission of the City of Hes peria adopted Resolution No. PC-2022-26, recommending that the City Council adopt the environmental findings p ursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopt ing a Stateme nt of Overriding Considerations, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2019110418), and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Hesperia conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the proposed Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, on January 17, 20 23, the City Council of the City of Hesperia conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the proposed Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in this Ordinance are true and correct.

Section 2. Bas ed upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced January 17, 2023, hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, the City Council specifically finds as follows:

(a) Based on adoption of Resolution No. 2023-01, the Environmental Findings, Statement of Overriding Consider ations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting h ave been adopted and the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2019110418) has been certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project.

(b) The 40 gross acres that are proposed to be changed from Re gional Commercial (RC) to Commercial Industrial business Park (CIBP) are suitable for the land uses allowed in the CIBP zoning classification, and adequate space exists which can meet the standards for setbacks, height, lot coverage, parking and circulatio n within the proposed Specific Plan designation.

(c) The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting prop erties, or the permitted use thereof because the proposed project is consi stent with the City’s General Plan and the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. In addition, each of

Ordinance No. 2023-02

the uses envisioned under the proposed project is per mitted or conditionally permitted in the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) Zone of the Specific Plan . The project is on the fri nge of an area which is also zoned CIBP and contains truck -related uses . A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted a s part of the lan d use application, which identifies improvements needed to mitigate the additional traffic from this project. Further, the developer shall participate in the City wide industrial co mmunity facilities district (CFD) to pay for the ongo ing maintenance of public infrastructure and services. The developer is also required to pay Cit y Development Impact Fees.

(d) The proposed project is consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City of Hesperia because an objective in the City’s General Plan seeks to “…Promote industrial development within the City which will exp and its tax base and provide a range of employm ent activities, while not adversely impacting the community or environment.” The proposed project will expand employment opportunities for City residents and is estimated to provide 2,309 jobs.

(e) Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council , including writ ten and oral s taff reports, the City Council specifically finds that the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the goa ls and objectives of the adopted General Plan. The subject parcel is capable of utilizing existing supporting infrastructure and municipal s ervices, as directed by the City’s adopted General Plan.

Section 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set fo rth in this Ordinance, the City Council hereby adopts Specific Plan Amendment SPLA21-00001, to change approximately 40 gross acres of a 45 gross acre site within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan from Regional Commercial (RC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) as shown on Exhibit “A”.

Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be p osted in three (3) public places within the City of Hesperia pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 2007-101.

Ordinance No. 2023-02

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 17th day of January 2023.
_______________________________

_______________________________________
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:

_________________________________________
Melinda Sayre, City Clerk

Ordinance No. 2023-02

Exhibit “A”

ORDINANCE NO. 2023-04

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA,

APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HESPERIA AND COVINGTON GROUP, INC REGARDING THE I-15 PROJECT (OTHERWISE REFERRED TO AS CUP21-00004 AND CUP2 1-00005) LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA LINDA STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I-15 FREEWAY, AND APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN STREET (BUILDING 1) AND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET (BUILDING 2) (DA22-00002)

WHEREAS, Covington Group, Inc. (Applicant) has filed an application requesting approval of Development Agreement DA22-00002, described herein (hereinafter referred to as "Application").

DA22-00002 shall apply to Conditional Use Permit CUP21-00004 and CUP21-00005 (hereinafter referred to as the “I-15 Project” and

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865, any city, county, or city and county, may enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property as provided in this article; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.2, a development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The development agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the agreement. The agreement may provide that construction shall be commenced within a specified time and that the project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time. The agreement may also include terms and conditions relating to applica nt financing of necessary public facilities and subsequent reimbursement over time; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant also proposes to obtain approval of a development agreement, to allow the I-15 Project to be effective for 8 years initially, with a provision allowing an automatic 2-year extension. In return, the City is requiring the Developer to construct specified water and sewer infrastructure within the first 3 years from when the Development Agreement is executed. In return, the City is requiring the Developer to construct certain off -site improvements that extend beyond the limits of the project frontage ; as well as to provide a monetary contribution towards the construction of a regional detention basin that will be loc ated at the end of the Oro Grande Wash. Furthermore, the DA provides that the applicant will contribute a monetary contribution in- lieu of constructing a portion of a required screen wall; and

WHEREAS, the I -15 Industrial Project consist of the constructi on of approximately 1,850,000 square feet of industrial warehouse space on approximately 97 acres of vacant land. Conditional Use Permit CUP21-00004 in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map TPM22 -00010 was filed for Building 1, and CUP21-00005 was filed for Building 2. Building 1 includes the construction of an approximately 1,108,000 square foot industrial warehouse on approximately 61 gross acres and Building 2 includes the construction of an approximately 742,000 square foot industrial warehouse on approximately 36 gross acres. In conjunction with CUP21-00004 a Specific Plan Amendment (SPLA21-00001) has also been filed to change approximately 40 acres of the project site from Regional Commercial (RC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP).

WHEREAS, the Application applies to 97 acres of vacant property and consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 & 3064-581-01; and

Ordinance No. 2023-04

WHEREAS, in furtherance of the public purposes of the City, the Applicant and the City desire to enter into a Development Agreement; and

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Hesperia conducted a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were provided the opportunity to give testimony for or against the issue; and

WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Resolution No. 2023-01, adopt ing the environmental findings pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021060397), and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in this Ordinance are true and correct.

Section 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the C ouncil, including written and oral staff reports, the C ouncil specifically finds that the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the goals and objectives of the adopted General Plan.

Section 3 . Based on adoption of Resolution 20 23-01, the E nvironmental Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting have been adopted and the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021060397) has been certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project.

Section 4. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced January 17, 2023, hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, this C ouncil has determined that the Development Agreement is in the best interest of the City and desires to enter into an agreement with the Applicant as shown on Exhibit “A”.

Section 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in this Ordinance, this Council hereby adopts Development Agreement DA22-00002, as shown on Exhibit “A.”

Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) public places within the City of Hespe ria pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 2007-101.

Ordinance No. 2023-04

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 17th day of January 2023.

_______________________________________
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:

_________________________________________
Melinda Sayre, City Clerk

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23
01071.0006/846053.1

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345
Attention: City Clerk
APNs: (Space Above For Recorder’s Use)
Exempt from Recording Fees pursuant to Government Code Section 27383

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(I-15 Industrial Park)
between

CITY OF HESPERIA,
a California general law city and municipal corporation and Mesa Linda 68 LLC and Poplar 35 LLC
Reference dated as of __________, 2022
Attachment 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -i-
01071.0006/846053.1
RECITALS ................................................................................................................................... 1

1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS ..................................................................................... 2

1.1 Definitions............................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Exhibits ................................................................................................................. 5

2. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................... 6

2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement ................................................................................ 6

2.2 Term ...................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Extension of Term................................................................................................. 6

2.4 Assignment and Transfer ...................................................................................... 6

2.5 Voluntary Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement ......................................... 8

2.6 Termination ........................................................................................................... 8

2.7 Representations and Warranties ............................................................................ 8

2.8 Notices .................................................................................................................. 9

3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY ....................................................................... 10

3.1 Vested Right to Develop ..................................................................................... 10

3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations; Development Exactions; Development Plan; Submittal of Subsequent Development Approvals ............................................................................................................ 10

3.3 Timing of Development; Public Improvements Phasing .................................... 11

3.4 Changes and Amendments to Existing or Subsequent Development Approvals ............................................................................................................ 11

3.5 Reservations of Authority ................................................................................... 11

3.6 Subsequent Development Approvals .................................................................. 12

3.7 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law ......................................... 13

3.8 Future Use of EIR ............................................................................................... 13

3.9 Third Party Permits and Approvals and Utilities ................................................ 13

4. PUBLIC BENEFITS ....................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Development Impact Fees................................................................................... 13

4.2 Credit for Construction ....................................................................................... 14

5. PUBLIC FINANCING ................................................................................................... 14

5.1 Financing............................................................................................................. 14

6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE ..................................................................................... 14

6.1 Periodic Review .................................................................................................. 14

6.2 Procedure ............................................................................................................ 15

6.3 No Waiver ........................................................................................................... 15

6.4 Proceedings for Modification or Termination .................................................... 15

6.5 Hearing on Modification or Termination ............................................................ 16

6.6 Certificate of Agreement Compliance ................................................................ 16

Page
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -ii-
01071.0006/846053.1

6.7 No Cross-Defaults ............................................................................................... 16

7. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED ..................................................................................... 16

8. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES ........................................................................................ 16

8.1 Remedies in General ........................................................................................... 16

8.2 Specific Performance .......................................................................................... 17

8.3 Release ................................................................................................................ 17

8.4 City’s Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon Developer’s Default ............................................................................................ 17

8.5 Developer’s Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon City’s Default ............................................................................................ 18

8.6 Informal Resolution ............................................................................................ 18

9. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION ...................................................................................... 18

9.1 Defense of Third Party Litigation ....................................................................... 18

9.2 Extension of Term............................................................................................... 18

10. MORTGAGEES ............................................................................................................. 19

10.1 Mortgagee Protection .......................................................................................... 19

11. INSURANCE; INDEMNIFICATION............................................................................ 19

11.1 Insurance ............................................................................................................. 19

11.2 Indemnification ................................................................................................... 21

12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ............................................................................... 22

12.1 Recordation of Agreement .................................................................................. 22

12.2 Entire Agreement ................................................................................................ 22

12.3 Estoppel Certificates ........................................................................................... 22

12.4 Severability ......................................................................................................... 22

12.5 Interpretation and Governing Law ...................................................................... 23

12.6 Section Headings ................................................................................................ 23

12.7 Singular and Plural .............................................................................................. 23

12.8 Including ............................................................................................................. 23

12.9 Time of Essence .................................................................................................. 23

12.10 Calendar Periods ................................................................................................. 23

12.11 Waiver ................................................................................................................. 23

12.12 No Third Party Beneficiaries .............................................................................. 23

12.13 Permitted Delays ................................................................................................. 23

12.14 Successors in Interest .......................................................................................... 23

12.15 Counterparts ........................................................................................................ 24

12.16 Jurisdiction and Venue ........................................................................................ 24

12.17 Project as a Private Undertaking ......................................................................... 24

12.18 Further Actions and Instruments ......................................................................... 24

12.19 Eminent Domain ................................................................................................. 24

12.20 Attorneys’ Fees ................................................................................................... 24

Page
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -iii-
01071.0006/846053.1

12.21 Authority to Execute ........................................................................................... 24

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -1-
01071.0006/846053.1

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(I-15 Industrial Park)
This Development Agreement ( I-15 Industrial Park Building 1 and 2 ) (“Agreement”) is entered into between the CITY OF HESPERIA, a California general law city and municipal corporation (“City”); Mesa Linda 68 LLC , a Nevada limited liability company, and Poplar 35 LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (together, “Developer”). This Agreement is dated as of _____________, 2022 for reference only. This Agreement will not become effective until the “Effective Date” (defined below). City and Developer are entering into this Agreement in reliance on the facts set forth in the Recitals, below.

RECITALS
A. City is authorized under Government Code Section 65864, et seq. (“Development Agreement Law”) to enter into bindin g development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of that property.

B. Developer owns or has an equitable interest in real propert ies consisting of the approximately ninety-six and one tenth (96.1) gross acres of land and approximately sixty-seven and one tenth (67.1) gross acres of land (together, “Property”) described on the attached Exhibit A (Building 1) and Exhibit C (Building 2) and depicted on the attached Exhibit B (“Site Plan Building 1”) and Exhibit D (“Site Plan Building 2”) respectively.

C. Developer applied to City for approval and enactment of this Agreement as the primary governing instrument for the development and use of the Property. The City Planning Commission ( “Planning Commission ”) and the City Council ( “City Council”) have conducted public hearings and have found that this Agreement is consistent with City ’s General Plan (“General Plan”), including the General Plan Land Use Element.

D. On _____________, 202 2, t he City Council adopted Ordinance No. ____-__ (“Enacting Ordinance”), which approved this Agreement.

E. By adopting the Enacting Ordinance, the City Council elected to exercise its governmental powers with regard to the Development of the Property at the p resent time rather than later. This Agreement binds City and future City Councils and limits the City Council’s future exercise of its police powers. This Agreement has been found by the City Council to be fair, just and reasonable and in the best interests of City’s citizens and the health, safety and welfare of the public.

F. City has complied with all California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”) requirements with respect to the approval of this Agreement and of the Project, through the City Council’s approval and certification of the “I- 15 Industrial Park Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2021060397)” (“EIR”).

G. Developer proposes to subdivide and develop the Property with two (2) industrial/warehouse buildings and has obtained City’s approval of the following Development Approvals: General Plan Amendment (GPA ______); Specific Plan Amendment (SP LA 21-

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -2-
01071.0006/846053.1
00001); Zone Change (ZC ________); two (2) Conditional Use Permits, one each for Building 1 and Building 2 (CUP 21-000004 & CUP 21-00005); and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 20315).

H. All of City’s prior actions and approvals with regard to this Agreement complied with all applicable legal requirements related to notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters.

I. The development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to City. This Agreement eliminates uncertainty in planning and provides for the orderly development of the Property, ensures the progressive installation of necessary public improvements to serve the Project, and serves the purposes of the Development Agreement Law.

1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS.

1.1 Definitions. The following initially capitalized terms used in this Agreement have the following meanings:
“Agreement” means this Development Agreement and all attachments and exhibits thereto. “Annual Monitoring Report” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 6.1. “Backbone Infrastructure ” means th e central network system for streets, wet and dry utilities and drainage within the Project, as specifically shown in the Development Plan. “CEQA” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital F. “Certificate of Agreement Compliance ” or “Certificate” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 6.6.
“Certificate of Occupancy ” means a document issued by City ’s Building Department, certifying a building’s compliance with applicable building codes and other laws, and indicating it to be in a condition suitable for occupancy.
“City” means the City of Hesperia, a California general law city and municipal corporation, its successors and assigns, and its related or subordinate boards, commissions, and entities. “City Council” means the City Council of the City of Hesperia. “Construct and Dedicate ” means the obligation to acquire all necessary real property interests required for, to construct in accordance with City-approved plans and specifications, and to thereafter dedicate to City in accordance with City ’s standards, practices and requirements for the dedication of public improvements, the applicable public improvement to which the term “Construct and Dedicate” is made applicable by this Agreement, all at no cost or expense to City.

Developer’s obligation to Construct and Dedicate will be fulfilled only upon City’s inspection and acceptance of the dedicated improvement into City’s system of public improvements. “Developer” means Mesa Linda 68 LLC and Poplar 35 LLC , Nevada limit ed liability companies, and their successors and assigns.

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -3-
01071.0006/846053.1
“Development” means the subdivision and improvement of the Property for the purposes of constructing or reconstructing the public and private structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project, including, but not limited to: grading; the construction or reconstruction of infrastructure and public and private facilities related to the Projec t, whether located within or outside the Property; the construction or reconstruction of buildings and structures; and, the installation of landscaping. “Development” does not include the maintenance of any building, structure, improvement or facility after its construction and completion. “Development Agreement Law” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital A. “Development Approvals” mean all site -specific (meaning specifically applicable to the Property only and not generally applicable to some or all other properties within the City) plans, maps, approvals, permits and other entitlements applicable to the Development of the Property, including, but not limited to: specific plans and specific plan amendments; tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps; conditional use permits, public use permits and site plans; zoning; variances; and, grading and building permits. The term Development Approvals does not include (i) rules, regulations, policies, and other enactments of general application within the City authorized to be applicable to the Property pursuant to this Agreement, or (ii) any matter where City has reserved authority under this Agreement.
“Development Exactions ” mean any monetary or non -monetary exaction or mitigation measure, including a Development Impact Fee, imposed by City in connection with a Development Approval or in connection with the granting of any other right, privilege or approval pertaining to the Project, including requirements for land dedication or for public constructi on either within or outside the Property.
“Development Impact Fee” means a monetary payment authorized by Government Code Section 66001, et seq., whether imposed legislatively on a broad class of development projects or on an ad hoc basis to a specific development project.
“Development Plan” means the proposed plan for Development of all or a portion of the Property pursuant to the Existing Devel opment Approvals and Subsequent Development Approvals, in accord with the Existing Land Use Regulations and applicable Subsequent Land Use Regulations, subject to the Reservations of Authority.
“Effective Date” means the date which is thirty (30) days following the second reading and adoption of the Enacting Ordinance.
“EIR” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital F. “Enacting Ordinance” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital D. “Existing Development Approvals” mean all Development Approvals approved or issued by City prior to or the same day as the second reading and adoption of the Enacting Ordinance, including the Development Approvals described in Recital G. “Existing Development Approvals” do not include the EIR.

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -4-
01071.0006/846053.1
“Existing Land Use Regulations” mean all Land Use Regulations in effect as of the second reading and adoption of the Enacting Ordinance.
“General Plan” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital C. “Land Use Regulations ” mean all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regul ations and official written policies of the City and/or any subsidiary district of the City and/or any joint powers authority or council of governments of which the City is a member which affect, govern, or apply to land development and use of the Property, including those governing: the permitted use of land; the density or intensity of use; subdivision requirements; the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; development impact fees; design, improvement and construction standards applicable to the Development of the Property; and the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, all as may be modified or supplemented pursuant to this Agreement. “Land Use Regulations” do not include any ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or offic ial policy governing: the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; taxes and assessments; the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests that provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; or the exercise of the power of eminent domain. “Lot” means any legally subdivided lot of the Property which is intended for commercial or industrial uses.
“Minor Amendment” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 3.4.A. “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ” or “MMRP” means the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with required mitigation measures, which was approved by City Resolution No. ____-__, on ___________, 202 2 in conjunction with the City Council’s certification of the EIR. “Mortgagee” means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust, or any other security-device lender, and their successors and assigns. “Notice” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2.8.A. “Parties” mean City and Developer, collectively.
“Party” means either City or Developer, individually.
“Permitted Delay” means delays in a Party’s performance due to: changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations (other than changes expressly permit ted by this Development Agreement); strikes or the inability to obtain materials; delays caused by governmental agencies in issuing permits and approvals; a development moratorium (including, but not limited to, a water or sewer moratorium) or the actions of other public agencies to prohibit Development of the Property; civil commotion, fire, acts of God, war, lockouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, epidemic, quarantine, freight embargoes, and/or failure of contractors to perform; any third-party court action to set aside or modify the Existing Development Approvals; or, other circumstances beyond a Party’s reasonable control and which substantially interfere with either Party ’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement. “Permitted Delays” do not include delays attributable to

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -5-
01071.0006/846053.1
Developer’s inability to obtain funds or financing or due to changes in market conditions or demands, whether or not foreseeable as of the Effective Date.

The period of a “Permitted Delay” will not commence to run until the date of the Notice by which the Party alleging the Permitted Delay informs the other Party of the existence of the Permitted Delay and the circumstances giving rise to it. The period of the Permitted Delay will end when the circumstances giving rise to t he Permitted Delay are eliminated or mitigated. The Party alleging the Permitted Delay will exercise commercially reasonable efforts to eliminate or mitigate the circumstances giving rise to the Permitted Delay. “Person” means and refers to any association, corporation, governmental entity or agency, individual, joint venture, joint -stock company, limited liability company, partnership, trust, unincorporated organization, or other entity of any kind, including City and Developer. “Planning Commission” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital C. “Project” means the Development of the Property in accord with the Development Plan, as the Development Plan may be further defined, enhanced or modified in accordance with this Agreement.
“Property” means the real property described on Exhibit A and depicted on Exhibit B. “Reservations of Authority” mean the rights reserved to City under Section 3.5. “Site Plan” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Recital B. “Special District” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 5.1. “Subsequent Development Approvals” mean all Development Approvals approved by City subsequent to the Effective Date.
“Subsequent Land Use Regulations” mean all Land Use Regulations adopted and effective after the Effective Date.
“Term” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2.2. and includes any extension authorized by Section 2.3.
“Transfer” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2.4.A. “Transferee” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2.4.A. “Transferor” has the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 2.4.A.

Other initially capitalized terms used in this Agreement but not otherwise set forth in Paragraph A, above, will have the meaning given to those terms where they first appear in this Agreement.

1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to a part of this Agreement:

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -6-
01071.0006/846053.1
Exhibit A Legal Description of Building 1
Exhibit B Site Plan Building 1
Exhibit C Legal Description of Building 2
Exhibit D Site Plan Building 2
Exhibit E Screen Wall Exhibit

2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is made subject to this Agreement and the Development of the Property may be carried out in accordance with this Agreement. The benefits and burdens of this Agreement touch and concern the Property and bind Developer and all future owners of all or any portion of the Property.

2.2 Term. The term (“Term”) of this Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and will expire on the eighth (8th) anniversary of the Effective Date, unless terminated sooner by operation of some other provision of this Agreement or extended in accord with Section 2.3 or Section 9.2.

2.3 Extension of Term.

Upon Developer’s request made by Notice given no earlier than six (6) months, but no later than two (2) months, prior to expiration of the original Term, the Term of this Agreement will be extended for one (1) additional two- (2-) year period beyond the original Term, so long as:
a. Developer is not, as of the giving of the Notice, in material uncured breach of this Agreement and is not in the process of curing said breach, as determined by City following a special review pursuant to Article 6, so long as City undertakes the special review on its own initiative and completes the special review no later than six (6) months prior to expiration of the original Term; and
b. Commencement of Construction has occurred on at least one of the proposed buildings authorized by the Development Plan, as it may be modified by one (1) or more Subsequent Development Approvals. “Commencement of Construction” means the pouring and certification of building foundations.

Upon extension of the Term in accord with this Section 2.3, City will execute, in recordable form, any instrument which Developer may reasonably require to evidence the extension.

2.4 Assignment and Transfer . Developer may sell, lease, license, hypothecate, transfer, or assign (any or all of the foregoing, individually and collectively, “ Transfer”) the Property in whole or in part (provided that no partial Transfer may violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq .) to any Person at a ny time; provided that any Transfer shall be subject to City’s reasonable review and approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. City’s approval or disapproval must be by Notice and must be given within

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -7-
01071.0006/846053.1
ninety (90) days after the Transferor submits Notice to City describing the proposed Transfer and the Transferee. If City fails to provide Notice within the ninety (90) day period, then City’s approval will be deemed to be irrevocably given and the Transferor and the Transferee may rely on City’s deemed approval. As used in this Agreement, the term “ Transferor” means the Person (including Developer) making the Transfer and the term “ Transferee” means the Transfer recipient. No Transfer of any right or interest in this Agreement may be made unless made together with the Transfer of all or a part of the Property. City will execute (in recordable form, if necessary) and deliver those releases, consents, and other instruments as may be requested by a Transferor, a Transferee, or any Mortgagee to evidence the assignments and releases described in this Section 2.4.

2.5 Voluntary Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement . This Agreement may be voluntarily amended or cancelled in whole or in part only with the written consent of City and all Persons holding fee title to that portion of the Property to which the amendment or cancellation will apply. The amendment or cancellation process must comply with Government Code Section 65868. This Section 2.5 does not limit the operation of Government Code Section 65869.5.

2.6 Termination. This Agreement will automatically terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
i. The expiration of the Term.
ii. The entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the City Council’s adoption of the Enacting Ordinance.
iii. The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the Enacting Ordinance.
iv. The completion of the Project, as evidenced by the issuance of all required Certificates of Occupancy and the acceptance of all required public dedications. v. Upon a Party ’s election to terminate this Agreement under Section 8.4 and Section 8.5. If the terminating Party under Section 8.5 does not own the entirety of the Property, then t he termination will apply only to that portion of the Property owned by the terminating Party.

2.7 Representations and Warranties.
a. City represents and warrants to Developer, as follows:
i. City is a public body, corporate and politic. City is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65864, et seq., and the execution and delivery of this Agreement by City has been fully authorized by all requisite actions on the part of City.

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -8-
01071.0006/846053.1
ii. City’s execution and delivery of this Agreement and City ’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement will not constitute a default or a breach under any contract, agreement or order to which City is a party or by which it is bound. iii. City has not received any notice of, or knows of any basis for, any actual or pending litigation or proceeding by any Person against City with respect to the Property or this Agreement.
b. Developer represents and warrants to City, as follows:
i. Developer is comprised of two entities, both of which are duly organized corporations established within and in good standing under the laws of the State of Nevada and are authorized to do business in the State of California . The execution and delivery of this Agreement by Developer has been fully authorized by all requisite actions on the part of Developer.
ii. Developer is either the owner of fee simple title to the Property or has an equitable interest in the Property.
iii. Developer’s execution and delivery of this Agreement and Developer’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement will not constitute a default or a breach under any contract, agreement or order to which Developer is a party or by which it is bound.
iv. Developer is not the subject of bankruptcy or receivership proceedings and is not insolvent.
v. Developer has not received any notice of, or knows of any basis for, any actual or pending litigation or proceeding by any Person against Developer with respect to the Property or this Agreement.

2.8 Notices.
a. As used in this Agreement, the term “Notice” means any request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment or other required or permitted communication.
b. All Notices must be in writing and will be considered given:
i. When delivered in person to the recipient named below. ii. On the date of delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, as either registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.
iii. On the date of delivery shown in the records of a reputable delivery service (e.g. UPS or Federal Express).

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -9-
01071.0006/846053.1
c. All Notices must be addressed as follows:

If to City:

City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345-3493
Attn: City Manager
If to Developer:

Mesa Linda 68 LLC and Poplar 35 LLC.
14180 Dallas Parkway, Suite 730
Dallas, TX 75254
Attn: Mark Milakovich

with a copy to:

Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Attn: Pam K. Lee
with a copy to:

Rutan & Tucker, LLP
18575 Jamboree Road, Suite 900
Irvine, CA 92612
Attn: John A. Ramirez
d. Either Party may, by Notice given at any time, require subsequent Notices to be given to another Person or to a different address, or both. Notices given before receipt of Notice of change of address will not be invalidated by the change.

3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

3.1 Vested Right to Develop . Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Developer has the legally vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to extent of, the Development Plan, the Development Approvals, applicable Subsequent Development Approvals, applicable Subsequent Land Use Regulations, and this Agreement.

3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations; Development Exactions; Development Plan; Submittal of Subsequent Development Approvals. a. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement, including the Reservations of Authority, the rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations. In connection with any Subsequent Development Approval, City will exercise its discretion in accordance with the Development Plan and this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the Reservations of Authority.
b. The Development Plan for the Project may require the processing of Subsequent Development Approvals. The City will accept for processing, review and action all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals, and such applications will be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations. The Parties acknowledg e that City is not obligated in any manner to approve any Subsequent Development Approval, or to approve any Subsequent Development Approval with or without any particular condition, except that City ’s actions concerning Subsequent Development Approvals mu st be consistent with the Development Plan and Existing Land Use

2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -10-
01071.0006/846053.1
Regulations, subject to the Reservations of Authority. Unless otherwise requested by Developer, City may not amend or rescind any Subsequent Development Approvals applicable to the Property after those Approvals have been granted by the City. Processing of Subsequent Development Approvals or changes in the Development Approvals or Development Plan made pursuant to Developer’s application will not require an amendment to this Agreement; howev er, upon their approval by the City, all Subsequent Development Approvals or changes in the Development Approvals or Development Plan will be subject to and covered by this Agreement.

3.3 Timing of Development; Public Improvements Phasing. a. Nothing in this Agreement is a covenant to develop or construct the Project.

The Parties acknowledge that Developer cannot predict if, when, or the rate at which phases of the Project will be developed. The California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, that the failure of the litigants in that case to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the litigants ’ agreement. The Parties int end to cure that deficiency by providing that Developer has the right to develop the Project, or not development the project, in the order, at the rate, and at the times that Developer, in its sole and absolute discretion, determines to be appropriate, subject only to any Development Plan timing or phasing requirements. b. Required public improvements may be tied to certain phases of the Project.

The schedule for provision of these improvements, as they relate to a particular phase, will be governed by the Existing Development Approvals, Subsequent Development Approvals, the EIR, the MMRP, and this Agreement.

3.4 Changes and Amendments to Existing or Subsequent Development Approvals. a. The Parties acknowledge that the passage of time may demonstrate that changes to the Existing or Subsequent Development Approvals may be necessary or appropriate.

If the Parties determine that changes are necessary or appropriate, such changes may be made by mutual consent of the Parties in accord with Government Code Secti on 65868, and may be approved on behalf of City as follows:
i. By the City Manager or designee ( “City Manager”) in the case of minor changes which would qualify as a “Minor Amendment ” under Municipal Code Section 16.12.130 or 405, as determined by the City At torney, and in any other case where the City Manager is authorized by this Agreement to act.
ii. By the City Council in the case of any other changes not subject to paragraph (1), above, or if otherwise legally required. iii. The City Manager and City Attorney will determine whether a proposed change is subject to approval by the City Manager or the City Council, as the case may be.
iv. No modification, amendment or other change to this Agreement will be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in a writi ng that refers expressly to this Agreement and is signed by both Parties’ authorized representatives.