2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -11-
01071.0006/846053.1
3.5 Reservations of Authority.
a. Any contrary provision in this Agreement notwithstanding, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations will apply to the Project:
i. Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by City to cover the estimated actual costs to City of processing applications for Subsequent Development Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Subsequent Development Approvals granted or issued.
ii. Regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other procedural matter.
iii. Regulations governing construction standards and specifications, including City’s Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Fire Code and Grading Code, including fees thereunder, which are applied uniformly to all similar development projects within in City.
iv. Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan or this Agreement. To the greatest extent possible, these regulations must be applied and construed to provide Developer with all of the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement. For all purposes pursuant to this Agreement generally, and this paragraph (iv) specifically, an ordinance, resolution, initiative, referendum, moratorium or other regulation will be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and this Agreement if the ordinance, resolution, initiative, referendum, or regulation seeks to, whether as part of a specific or general enactment that applies to the Property or Project: (i) limit or reduce the density, intensity, height or size of structures or type of development on the Property; (ii) regulate the timing or sequ encing of the development of the Property in any manner; (iii) require any additional on-site or off-site improvements not required by the applicable Land Use Regulations or Development Approvals to be constructed or paid for by Developer or a subsequent o wner of the Property; or (iv) restricting the use of the Property in any manner or degree other than as set forth in the applicable Land Use Regulations and Development Approvals.
v. Regulations that conflict with the Development Plan if Developer has given its written consent to those regulations.
vi. Federal, State, County, and multi-jurisdictional laws and regulations which City is required to enforce against the Property or the Development of the Property. vii. Subsequent Land Use Regulations applicable to local or regional Development Impact Fees.
The Parties acknowledge that City is restricted in its authority to limit its police powers by contract.
This Agreement will be construed, contrary to its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to City all those police powers that cannot be restricted by contract.
3.6 Subsequent Development Approvals.
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -12-
01071.0006/846053.1
a. Upon Developer ’s request, City will accept and diligently process applications for Subsequent Development Approvals. City will exercise reasonable good faith efforts to expedite the processing of the Subsequent Development Approvals applications to ensure that those applications are promptly considered by the approving authority. City will ensure that all applications are processed and considered within the timing requirements of all applicable law, including the Permit Streamlining Act (Govt. Code § 65920, et seq.).
3.7 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law . If a State or Federal law or regulation which is enacted after the Effective Date prevents the Parties ’ compliance with any of this Agreement’s provisions, then that provision will be modified or suspended to the extent and for the time necessary to achieve compliance with the conflicting State or Federal law. This Agreement’s remaining provisions will continue una ffected. The Parties will amend this Agreement to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the benefits that would arise to the Parties under this Agreement but for the conflicting State or Federal law. Upon the repeal of the conflicting State or Feder al law or upon the occurrence of any circumstance that removes their effect upon this Agreement, this Agreement ’s provisions will be automatically restored to their full original form and any amendment that the Parties may have entered into under this Section 3.7 will terminate.
3.8 Future Use of EIR . The future use of the EIR shall comply with state and federal law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Parties understand that the EIR is intended to be used in connection with each of the Existing Development Approvals and Subsequent Development Approvals needed for the Project. City agrees to use the EIR in connection with the processing of any Subsequent Development Approval , except as may be otherwise required by the Reservations of Authority or state or federal law, including CEQA.
3.9 City Acceptance of Project Offsite Public Improvements . City agrees and acknowledges that City’s timely acceptance of the Project Offsite Public Improvements upon their completion is crucial for the rel ease of Developer’s bonds for the improvements. After the completion of the Project Offsite Public Improvements to City’s satisfaction, City shall accept the Project Offsite Public Improvements within ninety (90) days of receiving a written request from Developer for City to accept the Project Offsite Public Improvements . Developer shall submit Project Offsite Public Improvements for acceptance at one time. City shall accept Project Offsite Public Improvements upon notice from the Developer.
4. PUBLIC BENEFITS.
4.1 Development Impact Fees.
a. City has adopted a Development Impact Fee program designed to offset the costs of mitigating environmental and other impacts caused by development upon public facilities and improvements. The Development Impact Fees which will be applicable to the Project shall be those existing at the time of development. Development Impact Fees shall be paid at such time as payment of such fees are due and payable in accordance with the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of final occupancies as set forth in City fee ordinances or resolutions or policies .
Development impact fees will apply to both Buildings 1 and 2. This Section shall not preclude
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -13-
01071.0006/846053.1
City from adopting any new development impact fees in the future applicable to the Property or to other Development in the City.
b. Nothing in this Section 4.1 will limit the right of any other local, regional, state, or federal agency or district to impose upon the Project otherwise lawful fees, including non- City fees imposed by such agencies or districts and collected by City for the benefit of such agencies or district.
4.2 Fair Share Reimbursement for Offsite Improvements . The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Project Offsite Public Improvemen ts – limited to Highway 395/Poplar Stre et traffic signal improvements - exceed Developer’s fair share obligation and that will benefit other developer projects not included in this DA and future third party developers. The City shall impose a condition of approval on any and all future developments that benefit from the traffic signal improvements that will require all other area developments to either construct the signal or, if the signal has been completed by others, pay its fair share. If the signal is constructed by the developer, the City will collect fair shares at grading permits and forward collected amounts to Developer.
4.3 Financial Contributions . Developer shall make the following financial contributions prior to receiving a building permit:
a. Developer shall contribute one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000.00) to the City’s public art program in lieu of constructing a screening wall shown on the attached Exhibit E.
b. Developer shall contribute $3,000,000 towards the fu ture construction of the Oro Grande Wash detention basin – a project estimated to cost $5,100,000. The City intends to construct basin improvements in 2 phases - the first phase will include extending the existing storm drain system that ends in Cataba Roa d north of the Desert Willow RV Resort to the invert of the Oro Grande Wash in Yucca Terrace right -of-way. Phase 1 is estimated to cost 1.5 million.
The Developer shall pay 1.5 million within 60 days of execution of the Development Agreement with a certified CEQA approval with no pending litigation. The subsequent $1.5 million shall be paid within 30 days of issuance of the grading permit but not more than 5 years after execution of the Development Agreement. This financial contribution is made entirely as a public benefit as the construction of the detention basin is not required by the development of the Project.
4.4 Offsite Improvements . There are multiple developers processing project entitlement applications with the City in the area generally bounded or adjacent by Interstate 15, Main Street, Highway 395, and Muscatel Street. The City will condition each project to construct street improvements (1/2 width) along public rights -of-way frontages – frontage improvement construction will not be eligible for Development Impact Fee credits or reimbursements. The City will also condition the projects (and other projects in the area) to construct traffic signal and related improvements at the intersec tion of Highway 395 and Poplar Street (4 -way traffic signal). The final traffic signal scope of work will be as determined by Caltrans and the City during permit application processing and/or plan check and is anticipated to include traffic signals, turning lanes, added thru lanes, and related improvements. The Highway 395/Poplar Street improvements shall be constructed by the project that is constructed first and will be eligible for reimbursement from subsequent projects. Other offsite public improvements (“Project Offsite Public Improvements”)
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -14-
01071.0006/846053.1
are limited to Sultana Street between Lassen Road and Mesa Linda Street (north ½ width). All offsite improvements shall be completed prior to any occupancies.
5. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED.
6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE.
6.1 Periodic Review.
a. The City Manager will review this Agreement annually, on or before each anniversary of the Effective Date, as required by California Government Code Section 65865.1.
The purpose of the review will be to ascertain Developer ’s good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Developer will submit an annual monitoring report ( “Annual Monitoring Report”), in a form prepared and approved by the City Manager within thirty (30) days after the City Manager’s written request. The Annual Monitoring Report must be accompanied by the then- current annual review and administration fee set by the City Council, which may not exceed the City’s actual costs of reviewing Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement. b. The City Council may order a special review of Developer ’s compliance with this Agreement at any time. The City Manager will conduct the special review, which will be conducted at City’s sole expense.
6.2 Procedure.
a. During either a periodic review or a special review, Developer will be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with this Agreement. b. Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the City Manager will submit a report to the City Council setting forth the City Manager ’s conclusions concerning Developer’s good faith compliance with this Agreement.
c. If the City Council finds that Developer has complied in good faith with this Agreement, then the review will be concluded.
d. If the City Council makes a preliminary finding that Developer has not complied in good faith with this Agreement, then, following Notice and opportunity to cure as provided under Section 8.4, the City Council may modify or terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 6.4 and Section 6.5.
6.3 No Waiver. Failure of City to conduct an annual review will not constitute a waiver by City of its rights to otherwise enforce the provisions of this Agreement nor will Developer have or assert any defense to such enforcement by reason of any such failure to conduct any annual review(s).
6.4 Proceedings for Modification or Termination.
a. If Developer fails to cure, or to commence to cure, as applicable, the matters constituting the basis for the City Council ’s preliminary finding under Section 6.2.D as required
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -15-
01071.0006/846053.1
by Section 8.4, then City may proceed to modify or te rminate this Agreement following the procedures set forth in this Section 6.4 and in Section 6.5. City must hold a noticed public hearing concerning the modification or termination and provide Developer with Notice of the hearing. The Notice must include the following:
i. The time and the place of hearing, which must be no less than thirty (30) days following the date of the Notice;
ii. The specific action, whether amendment or termination, which City proposes to take; and
iii. Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the proceeding and the facts supporting City’s preliminary finding under Section 6.2.D.
6.5 Hearing on Modification or Termination . At the time and place set for the public hearing described in Section 6.4, Developer must be given an opportunity to be heard and present witnesses and evidence on its behalf. If, following the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record of the public hearing, that Developer has not complied in good faith with this Agreement, then the City Council may terminate or modify this Agreement and impose any conditions it determines as are reasonably necessary to protect City’s interests. The City Council’s decision will be administratively final and subject to judicial review under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.
6.6 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a special or periodic review, Developer is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, the n, upon Developer ’s written request, City will issue a “Certificate of Agreement Compliance ” (“Certificate”) to Developer stating that, after the most recent periodic or special review, this Agreement remains in effect and Developer is not in default of th is Agreement. The Certificate must be in recordable form, contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, state whether the Certificate is issued after a periodic or special review, and state the anticipated date of the next periodic review. Developer may record the Certificate with the San Bernardino County Recorder.
6.7 No Cross-Defaults. City acknowledges that Developer may Transfer all or portions of the Property to other Persons in accordance with Section 2.4. City further acknowledges that title to all or portions of the Property may become vested in Mortgagees or a Mortgagee’s successor as a result of foreclosure, or the acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, by a Mortgagee. City agrees that defaults under this Agreement by an owner of a portion of the Property will not be a default as to any other portion of the Property. In other words, a default by Developer with respect to its obligations pertaining to that portion of the Property retained by Developer following a Transfer will not constitute a default as to any Person other than Developer or permit City to exercise any remedy under this Agreement or otherwise with respect to any other portion of the Property other than that portion owned by Developer. Similarly, a default by a Transferee with respect to its obligations pertaining to the portion of the Property owned by t hat Transferee will not constitute Developer’s default or permit City to exercise any remedy under this Agreement or otherwise as to any portion of the Property other than the portion owned by the defaulting
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -16-
01071.0006/846053.1
Transferee. City agrees that, if more than one Person holds title to the Property, then the rights and obligations of the Persons holding title to the Property are the distinct and several obligations of each Person.
7. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED.
8. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.
8.1 Remedies in General.
a. The Parties acknowle dge that neither Party would have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable for monetary damages under this Agreement. In general, and subject to those procedural prerequisites required under the Development Agreement Law or this Agreement, each of the Parties may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of this Agreement, except that neither Party will be liable in monetary damages (other than attorneys’ fees under Section 12.20) to the other Party, or to any successor in interest of that Party, or to any other Person. Each Party covenants not to sue for monetary damages or claim any monetary damages related to any of the following:
i. Any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action that arises out of this Agreement; or
ii. Any taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest arising under this Agreement; or
iii. Any dispute regarding the application or interpretation of this Agreement.
8.2 Specific Performance.
a. The Parties acknowledge that specific performance and other non-monetary relief are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement for the following reasons:
i. Money damages are unavailable against the Parties.
ii. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once Developer has begun to implement this Agreement. After such time, Developer may be precluded from other options it may have had with regard to the Property. Moreover, Developer has invested significant time and resources in the planning and processing of the Project. Developer will be investing even more time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon this Agreement and it is not possible to determine the sum of money that would adequately compensate Developer if City were to breach its obligations.
8.3 Release. Except for the right to recover attorneys ’ fees under Section 12.20, Developer, for itself, its successors and assignees, releases City, its officials, officers, agents and employees from any and all monetary claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -17-
01071.0006/846053.1
arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, any claim or liability based upon Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance that seeks to impose any monetary liability whatsoever upon City because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement.
8.4 City’s Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon Developer’s Default. Subject to compliance with Sections 6.4 and 6.5, City may terminate or modify this Agreement upon Developer ’s failure to perform any material duty or obligation under this Agreement. City may terminate or modify this Agreement or exercise its other remedies only after providing Notice of default to Developer setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required to cure the default and only if Developer has failed to take the actions and materially cure the default within sixty (60) days after its receipt of the Notice. If a default is of a type that cannot be cured within sixty (60) days but can be cured within a longer time, then Developer must within sixty (60) days commence the actions necessary to cure the default and thereafter diligently proceed to cure the default.
8.5 Developer’s Termination of Agreement or Exercise of Other Remedies Upon City’s Default. Developer may terminate this Agreement or exercise its other remedies upon City ’s failure to perform any material duty or obligation under this Agreement. Developer may terminate this Agreement or exercise its other remedies only after providing Notice of default to City setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by City to cure the default and only if City has failed to take such actions and materially cure the default within sixty (60) days after its receipt of the Notice. If a default is of a type that cannot be cured within sixty (60) days but can be cured within a longer time, then City must within sixty (60) days commence the actions necessary to cure the default and thereafter diligently proceed to cure the default.
8.6 Informal Resolution . During the administration and implementation of t his Agreement, the Parties recognize that good faith disagreements may arise between City staff and Developer. In the event that a dispute arises, the Parties will meet and confer in a good -faith attempt to resolve the dispute.
9. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION.
9.1 Defense of Third Party Litigation. City shall promptly notify Developer in writing of any claim, action or proceeding filed and served against City to challenge, set aside, void, annul, limit or restrict the approval and continued implementation and enforcem ent of this Agreement, including but not limited to challenges of the environmental review of the Project and this Agreement conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Developer and City agree to use good faith, commercially reasonable efforts to confer and cooperate with one another with respect to such third party litigation. Developer shall defend (with legal counsel of Developer’s selection, reasonably acceptable to City), indemnify and hold harmless City, its agents, officers and employees from any such claim, action or proceeding, and shall indemnify City for all costs of defense and/or judgment obtained in any such action or proceeding; provided, however, if Developer elects, in its sole discretion, not to defend the action (pre ferring to either allow judgment to be entered or to enter into a settlement with plaintiff(s) which declares this Agreement to be void, annulled, or which limits or restricts this Agreement), Developer shall so
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -18-
01071.0006/846053.1
notify City in writing and City shall then h ave the option, in its sole discretion, of defending the action at its cost. In the event this Agreement, as a result of a third party challenge, is voided or annulled, or is limited or restricted such a manner that the intent and purposes of this Agreeme nt cannot be implemented as mutually desired by the parties hereto, this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force or effect as of the date such judgment or settlement so voids, annuls, limits, or restricts the intent and purpose of this Agreement.
9.2 Extension of Term. Anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the Term (and any extension thereof under Section 2.3) will automatically be extended by the number of days in the period commencing on the date of filing of any claim, action, or proceeding of the type described in Section 9.1 and ending on the date that the claim, action, or proceeding is either settled or fully and finally resolved in City ’s and Developer ’s favor, as evidenced by the expiration of all appeal periods with no further appeal being filed or the issuance of a full, final, and non-appealable judgment or decision. City will execute, in recordable form, any instrument which Developer may reasonably require to evidence the extension.
10. MORTGAGEES.
10.1 Mortgagee Protection.
a. This Agreement does not prevent or limit Developer, in its sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion or any improvement thereon with any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device. City acknowledges that a Mortgagee may require Agreement interpretations and modifications. City will meet with Developer and the Mortgagee ’s representatives to negotiate in good faith with regard to any requested interpretation or modification. City may not unreasonably withhold its consent to an y requested interpretation or modification. All Mortgagees will be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
i. Developer’s breach of this Agreement will not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage made in good faith and for value. ii. Upon a Mortgagee’s written request, City will provide a copy of any Notice of default given to Developer concurrently with the Notice to Developer. The Mortgagee will have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default within any remainin g cure period allowed Developer under this Agreement.
iii. Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property or any portion of it pursuant to foreclosure of the Mortgagee ’s security instrument or its acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure will take the Property or portion subject to this Agreement. Any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, no Mortgagee will have any obligation to perform any of Developer’s obligations or to guarantee their performance. However, if any of Developer’s obligations are conditions precedent to City’s obligations, then Developer’s obligations will continue to be conditions precedent to City’s performance of its obligations.
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -19-
01071.0006/846053.1
11. INSURANCE; INDEMNIFICATION.
11.1 Insurance.
a. Types of Insurance.
i. Public Liability Insurance . Prior to commencement and until completion of construction by Developer on the Property, Developer shall at its sole cost and expense keep or cause to be kept in force for the mutual benefit of City and Developer broad form commercial general public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury or death arising from the use, occupancy, disuse or condition of the Property, improvements or adjoining areas or ways, affected by such use of the Prope rty or for property damage, providing protection of a least Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, death or property damage combined for any one accident or occurrence, which limits shall be subject to reasonable increases in amount as City may reasonably require from time to time. ii. Builder’s Risk Insurance . Prior to commencement and until completion of construction by Developer on the Property, Developer shall procure and shall maintain in force, or caused to be maintained in force, “all risks” builder’s risk insurance including vandalism and malicious mischief, covering improvements in place and all material and equipment at the job site furnished under contract, but excluding contractor ’s, subcontractor ’s, and construction man ager’s tools and equipment and property owned by contractor ’s or subcontractor’s employees, with the replacement cost value of the Project, or on a project by project basis.
iii. Worker’s Compensation. Developer shall also furnish or cause to be furnished to C ity evidence reasonably satisfactory to it that any contractor with whom Developer has contracted for the performance of any work for which Developer is responsible hereunder carries workers’ compensation insurance as required by law. iv. Other Insurance . Dev eloper may procure and maintain any insurance not required by this Agreement, but all such insurance shall be subject to all of the provisions hereof pertaining to insurance and shall be for the benefit of City (to the extent applicable) and Developer.
v. Insurance Policy Form, Sufficiency, Content and Insurer . All insurance required by express provisions hereof shall be carried only by responsible insurance companies licensed and admitted to do business by California, rated “A” or better in the most recent edition of Best Rating Guide, The Key Rating Guide or in the Federal Register, and only if they are of a financial category Class VIII or better, unless waived by City. All such policies shall be nonassessable and shall contain language, to the extent obtainable, to the effect that (i) any loss shall be payable notwithstanding any act of negligence (excepting willful and intentional violations of law) of City or Developer that might otherwise result in the forfeiture of the insurance, (ii) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against City and against City’s agents and representatives; (iii) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried by City; and (iv) the policies cannot be canceled or materially changed except after thirty (30) days’ written notice by the insurer to City or City’s designated representative. Developer shall furnish City with
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -20-
01071.0006/846053.1
copies of all such policies promptly on receipt of them or with certificates evidencing the insurance. City shall be named as an additional insured or loss payee on all policies of insurance (other than Workers’ Compensation) required to be procured by the terms of this Agreement. The City’s Risk Manager acknowledges and agrees that the insurance requirements above have bee n established based on anticipated use, activities, and conditions of the Property. In the event the City’s Risk Manager reasonably determines that a new or unreasonable use, activity, or condition of the Property, improvements or adjoining areas or ways, affected by such use of the Property under this Agreement creates an increased or decreased risk of loss to the City than what the Parties hereby acknowledge to be duly satisfied by the insurance requirements above, Developer agrees that the minimum limit s of the insurance policies required by this Section 11.1 may be changed accordingly upon receipt of written notice from the City’s Risk Manager; provided that Developer shall have the right to appeal a determination of increased coverage to the City Manag er of City within twenty (20) days of receipt of notice from the City’s Risk Manager. vi. Failure to Maintain Insurance and Proof of Compliance. Developer shall deliver to City, in the manner required for notices, copies of certificates of all insurance policies required hereunder together with evidence satisfactory to City of payment required for procurement and maintenance of each policy within the following time limits:
(A) For insurance required above, within thirty (30 days) after the Effective Date.
(B) For any renewal or replacement of a policy already in existence, at least ten (10) days before the expiration or replacement of the existing policy. (C) If Developer fails or refuses to procure or maintain insurance as required hereby or fails or refuses to furnish Ci ty with required proof that that insurance has been procured and is in force and paid for, such failure or refusal shall be a default hereunder.
11.2 Indemnification.
a. General. Each Party shall indemnify the other Party and its officers, employees, and agents against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, suits, claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions, or liabilities (herein “claims or liabilities”) that may be as serted or claimed by any person, firm, or entity arising out of or in connection with the work, operations, or activities by any or all of the indemnifying Party or its agents, employees, or contractors (including subcontractors), upon the Property and relating to this Agreement; i. The indemnifying Party will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including reasonable legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith. ii. The indemnifying Party will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the indemnified Party or its officers, agents, or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with its foregoing indemnity and will save and hold the indemnified Party, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any failure to so pay any such judgment.
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -21-
01071.0006/846053.1
iii. In the event the indemnified Party, its officers, agents, or employees is made a party to the action or proceeding filed or prosecuted agai nst for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the work, operations, or activities of the indemnifying Party under this Agreement, the indemnifying Party agrees to pay the indemnified Party, its officers, agents, or employees any and all reasonable out -of-pocket costs and expenses actually incurred by the indemnified Party, its officers, agents, or employees in such action or proceeding, including by not limited to reasonable legal costs and attorneys’ fees. b. Exceptions. The indemnities and releases of this Section 11.2 shall not include claims or liabilities to the extent and degree arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of any or all of the indemnified Party and its officers, agents and employees. c. Loss and Damage. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, City shall not be liable for any damage to property of Developer or of others located on the Property, nor for the loss of or damage to any property of Developer or of others by theft or otherwise.
Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, City shall not be liable for any injury or damage to persons or property resulting from fire, explosion, steam, gas, electricity, water, rain, dampness or leaks from any part of the Property or from the pip es or plumbing, or from the street, or from any environmental or soil contamination or hazard, or from any other latent or patent defect in the soil, subsurface or physical condition of the Property, or by any other cause of whatsoever nature. d. Period of In demnification. The obligations for indemnity under this Section 11.2 shall begin upon the Effective Date and shall terminate upon termination of this Agreement, provided that indemnification shall apply to all claims or liabilities arising during that period even if asserted at any time thereafter. In all events, however, these indemnity obligations shall expire on the fifth (5th) anniversary of the termination date of this Agreement, except that the indemnities shall survive beyond that date with respect to any claims pending at the expiration date for which timely and proper submission has occurred pursuant to the applicable indemnity provisions.
e. Waiver of Subrogation. Each Party agrees that it shall not make any claim against, or seek to recover from o ther Party or its agents, servants, or employees, for any loss or damage to the Party or to any person or property, except as specifically provided hereunder and each Party shall give notice to any insurance carrier of the foregoing waiver of subrogation, and obtain from such carrier, a waiver of right to recovery against the other Party, its agents and employees.
12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
12.1 Recordation of Agreement . This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation of it will be recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder by City Clerk in accordance with Government Code Section 65868.5.
12.2 Entire Agreement . This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties. There are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements that are not contained or expressly referred to in this Agreement. Parole evidence will not be admissible to interpret this Agreement.
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -22-
01071.0006/846053.1
12.3 Estoppel Certificates. Within ten (10) days following a Party’s written request, and at no cost to the requesting Party, the other Party will certify in writing that, to its knowledge:
a. This Agreement is in full force and effect and is binding upon the certifying Party.
b. This Agreement has not been amended or modified, except as expressly described in the estoppel certificate.
c. The requesting Party is not in default of its obligations under this Agreement, and that there have been no events that with the passage of time, the giving of notice, or both, would constitute the requesting Party’s default under this Agreement, except as expressly described in the estoppel certificate.
12.4 Severability. Every provision of this Agreement is a separate and independent covenant. If any provision is, or the application of the provision in certain circumstances is, to any extent, found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of that provision to circumstances other than those to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will n ot be affected. The Parties will negotiate in good faith any amendments or operating memoranda necessary to cure any invalidity or unenforceability.
12.5 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute concerning it will be governed and interpreted in accordance with California’s procedural and substantive laws, without regard to its conflicts of laws principles. This Agreement will be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning. The rule of construction that ambig uities in a document are to be resolved against the drafting party may not be employed in interpreting this Agreement. Each Party acknowledges that it was represented by counsel in this Agreement ’s negotiation and preparation.
12.6 Section Headings. All secti on headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and do not affect this Agreement’s construction or interpretation.
12.7 Singular and Plural. The singular of any word includes the plural.
12.8 Including. Unless the context requires otherwise, the term “including” means “including, but not limited to.”
12.9 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence as to the performance of any obligation as to which time is an element.
12.10 Calendar Periods. All references to “years”, “quarters”, “months” and “days” are references to calendar years, quarters, months and days.
12.11 Waiver. A Party ’s failure on any one or more occasions to insist upon strict compliance by the other Party, or a Party ’s failure on any one or more occasions to exercise its rights upon the other Party ’s def ault, is not a waiver of that Party ’s right to demand strict compliance by the other Party on any future occasion.
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -23-
01071.0006/846053.1
12.12 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and ass igns. Except as provided in Section 9, no other person or entity has any right of action based upon this Agreement.
12.13 Permitted Delays. Neither Party will be in default of an obligation if that Party ’s inability to perform or delay in performing that obligation is caused a Permitted Delay.
12.14 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement are binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement inure to, the Parties ’ permitted successors in interest. All provisions are enforceable as equitable servit udes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act with regard to the Development of the Property:
a. Is for the benefit of and is a burden upon all portions of the Property. b. Runs with the Property and all portions.
c. Is binding upon each Party and its successors in interest during the term of that Party’s or its successors’ ownership of the Property or any portion.
12.15 Counterparts. This Agreement will be executed in three (3) counterparts, which will be cons trued together and have the same effect as if the Parties had executed the same instrument.
12.16 Jurisdiction and Venue. All legal actions and proceedings to enforce or interpret this Agreement must be filed and tried in San Bernardino County Superior Court or other legally appropriate court and venue.
12.17 Project as a Private Undertaking. The Project is a private development and neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect. Each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and Developer is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property by a private party.
12.18 Further Actions and Instruments . Each Party must cooperate with the other and provide reasonable assistance to the other in the performance of the other Party ’s obligations.
Upon a Party ’s request, the other Party must promptly execute (with notary acknowled gment if required) those instruments, and take any reasonable actions, necessary to evidence or consummate the transactions expressly described, or which are a logical extension of the transactions described, in this Agreement.
12.19 Eminent Domain . No provisio n of this Agreement expands, limits, or restricts City’s exercise of its eminent domain powers.
12.20 Attorneys’ Fees. If either Party files any action or brings any action or proceeding against the other pertaining to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, then the prevailing Party will recover as an element of its costs of suit and not as damages its costs of suit, expert fees, consultant costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as fixed by the Court.
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -24-
01071.0006/846053.1
12.21 Authority to Execute. Each natural person execu ting this Agreement on behalf of a Party represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of that Party and that he or she has the authority to bind that Party to this Agreement. [Signature pages follow]
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -25-
01071.0006/846053.1
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
“CITY”
CITY OF HESPERIA,
a California general law city and municipal
corporation
By:
Its:
Name:
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -26-
01071.0006/846053.1
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
“DEVELOPER”
Mesa Linda 68 LLC,
a Nevada Corporation
By:
Its:
Name:
Poplar 35 LLC,
a Nevada Corporation
By:
Its:
Name:
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23
EXHIBIT A
-1-
01071.0006/846053.1
EXHIBIT A
TO
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Description of Building 1
[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
1 of 2
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN: 3064−601−03 & 3064−621−01
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF HESPERIA,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF PARCEL “B” OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA-2007-13, RECORDED MARCH 07, 2008 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2008-0103328 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST,
SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT PLAT OF SAID LAND, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE SOUTH 00°52'03" EAST 661.53 FEET, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 22, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH SAID
WESTERLY LINE WITH THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 18853, FILED IN BOOK 225, PAGES 45 AND 46 OF PARCELS MAPS; THENCE NORTH 89°50'02" EAST 50.00 FEET, ALONG SAID WESTERLY EXTENSION
TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF MESA LINDA STREET PER IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1992 AS DOCUMENT NO. 92-333352 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING A LINE THAT IS 50.00 FEET EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22; THENCE NORTH 89°50'02" EAST 460.08 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY EXTENSION AND SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 18853, TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19555 FILED IN BOOK 248, PAGES 6 THROUGH 8 OF PARCELS MAPS;
THENCE SOUTH 00°52'03" EAST 387.48 FEET, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 39°47'39" EAST 481.81 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89°50'15" EAST 510.85 FEET, TO THE CENTERLINE OF CATABA
ROAD BEING THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22;
THENCE SOUTH 00°55'23" EAST 1,050.08 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO
THE INTERSECTION OF SAID EASTERLY LINE WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF INTERSTATE 15;
THENCE SOUTH 32°36'08" WEST 208.48 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL B;
2 of 2
THENCE NORTH 89°47'18" EAST 1.88 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID INTERSTATE 15;
THENCE SOUTH 32°30'03" WEST 1,570.80 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY
LINE, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22;
THENCE SOUTH 89°43'07" WEST 297.62 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, TO
THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED MESA LINDA STREET PER IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1992 AS DOCUMENT NO. 92-333352 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING A LINE THAT IS 50.00
FEET EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22; THENCE NORTH 00°51'53" WEST 1,322.11 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22;
THENCE NORTH 0°52'03" WEST 1,984.95 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF MESA LINDA STREET AS DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT NO. 92-333352, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 2,921,358 SQUARE FEET (67.065 ACRES) OF LAND MORE OR LESS.
EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED AND MADE A PART THEREOF.
PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
_____________________________November 22, 2022______
MARK A. MONROE P.L.S. #8170 DATE
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23
EXHIBIT B
-1-
01071.0006/846053.1
EXHIBIT B
TO
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Site Plan Building 1
[INSERT SITE PLAN]
SHEET OF
PROJECT No. 2020-326
1 2
P
LAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
4150 CONCOURS ST., SUITE 100
ONTARIO, CA 91764
PHONE: (909) 989-9789
FAX: (909) 989-9660
SHEET OF
PROJECT No. 2020-326
2 2
P
LAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
4150 CONCOURS ST., SUITE 100
ONTARIO, CA 91764
PHONE: (909) 989-9789
FAX: (909) 989-9660
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23
EXHIBIT C
-1-
01071.0006/846053.1
EXHIBIT C
TO
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Description of Building 2
[INSERT EXHIBIT C]
1 of 2
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN: 3064−581−01
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF HESPERIA,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND
MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF HESPERIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE NORTH 89°47'16" EAST 120.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF U.S. ROUTE 395, PER IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-333340 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING A LINE THAT IS 120.00 FEET EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 22;
THENCE NORTH 89°47'16" EAST 1,227.44 FEET, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, TO
THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22;
THENCE SOUTH 00°19'30" EAST 1,274.11 FEET, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF POPLAR STREET, 50.00 FEET HALF-WIDTH, PER SAID INSTRUMENT NO. 92-333340 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE SOUTH 89°42'09" WEST 612.92 FEET, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, TO
THE EASTERLY LINE OF BISHOP AVENUE PER IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION RECORDED FEBRUARY 25, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94095418 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE NORTH 45°17'51" WEST 38.19 FEET, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 00°17'51" WEST 189.26 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 540.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY;
THENCE NORTHERLY 155.78 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°31'43" TO A 50.00 FOOT RADIUS REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO WHICH BEARS SOUTH 73°10’27” WEST;
2 of 2
THENCE NORTHERLY 45.10 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE. THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51°40'34" TO A 66.00 FOOT REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO WHICH BEARS NORTH 55°08’59” WEST;
THENCE NORTHERLY, WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY 278.35 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 241°38'21" TO A 460.00 FOOT RADIUS
REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID BISHOP AVENUE, A RADIAL LINE TO WHICH BEARS NORTH 63°12’40” EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY 212.69 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND WESTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26°29'29" TO;
THENCE SOUTH 00°17'51" EAST, 189.27 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 44°42'09" WEST 38.18 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF POPLAR STREET;
THENCE SOUTH 89°42'09" WEST 465.26 FEET, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 45°02'32" WEST 38.35 FEET TO SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID U.S. 395;
THENCE NORTH 00°12'47" EAST 1,248.75 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 1,526,213 SQUARE FEET (35.037 ACRES) OF LAND MORE OR LESS.
EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED AND MADE A PART THEREOF.
PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
_____________________________November 22, 2022______
MARK A. MONROE P.L.S. #8170 DATE
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -2-
01071.0006/846053.1
EXHIBIT D
TO
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Site Plan of Building 2
[INSERT EXHIBIT D]
SHEET OF
PROJECT No. 2020-281
1 1
PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
4150 CONCOURS ST., SUITE 100
ONTARIO, CA 91764
PHONE: (909) 989-9789
FAX: (909) 989-9660
LEGEND
2859/035592-0017
18234224.3 a01/05/23 -3-
01071.0006/846053.1
d
EXHIBIT E
TO
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Screen Walls
[INSERT EXHIBIT E]
M E S A L I N D A S T R E E T
CATABA ROAD
I - 1 5
POPLAR ST .
SCREENWALL
ART CONTRIBUTION
IN LIEU OF SCREEN
WALL
8'H FENCE
SCREEN
WALL
SCREEN
WALL 8'H FENCE
8'H FENCE
ART CONTRIBUTION
IN LIEU OF SCREEN
WALL
SCREENWALL
8'H SCREENWALLSCREENWALL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERM IT CUP22-00004 AND CUP22-00005 TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 1,850,000, SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE SPACE ON APPROXIMATELY 97 GROSS (CUP22-00004 AND CUP22-00005)
WHEREAS, Covington Group, Inc. (Applicant) has filed an app lication requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP22-00004 and CUP22-00005 described herein (hereinafter referred to as "Application"); and
WHEREAS, the Application consist of the construction of approximately 1,850,000 square feet of industri al 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 als o been filed to change approximately 4 0 acres of the project site from Regional Commercial (RC) to Commercial Industrial B usiness 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 automatic 2-year extension; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project consists of consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 3064-351- 03, 3064-361-01, 3064-391-01, 3064-401-02; and
WHEREAS, the Application, as co ntemplated, proposes to construct 1,850,000 square feet of industrial warehouse space on approximately 97 gross acres. The proposed use is consistent with the Specific Plan, upon approval of Specific Plan Amendment SPLA2 1-00001 to chan ge approximately 40 acres of the site from Regional Commercial to Commercial Industrial Business Park. Furthermore, approval of a CUP is required to approve a distribution warehouse in excess of 200,000 square feet; and
WHEREAS, tentative Parcel Map No. 20315 (TPM22-00010) has also been filed for the Building 1 site to rearrange the two existing parcels into two new parcels that gen erally follow the alignment of the future building; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the site for Building 1 is within the Regional Commercial (RC) zone of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . The remaining porti on of the site for Building 1, as well as the entire site for Building 2, is within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone of the Specific Plan. The properties to the north of Buildin g 1 are within the Regional Commercial zone of the Specif ic Plan. T he remaining surrounding properties are all within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties are currently vacant. Land uses to the north of Build ing 1 consist of vacant land followed by the Tractor Supply store further to the north. Land uses to the east of Building 1 consist of the I-15 freeway and the High Desert Gateway shopping center on
Resolution No. 2023-02
the opposite side of Cat aba Road. L and uses to the south and west of Building 1 cons ist of vacant land. The land uses to the north, east and west of Building 2 also consist of vacant land.
To the south of Building 2 is the Stepping Stone commercial/industrial business park followed by vacant land; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 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, 2023, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Resolution No. 2023-01, adopting the environmental findings pursuant to C alifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopt ing a Stateme nt of Overriding Considerations, certif ying the Final Environmental Impact Report ( SCH #2019110418), and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in this Resolution 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, this Council specifically finds as follows:
(a) Based on adopt ion of Resol ution No. 2023-01, the Environmental Findings, St atement of Overriding Consider ations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting have been adopted and the Final Environmental Impact Report ( SCH # 22021060397) has been certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project.
(b) The sites for the proposed use s are adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed us es. Building 1 includes the construction o f an approximately 1,108,000 square f oot in dustrial 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. On-site improvements required by the Development Code can be cons tructed on the properties including the 503 conventional parking spaces and 413 truck/trailer spaces for Building 1 and the 348 conventional parking spaces and 149 truck/trailer spaces for Building 2 . Both sites can accommodate 26-foot wide drive aisles, la ndscaping, trash enclosures, buil ding setbacks, and maximum floor area ratio . The development also meets all of the San Bernar dino County Fire Department standards including fire lanes, two -points of access, fire truck turn -around, fire depart ment connection / post indicator valv e (FDC/PIV), and fire hydran t requirements . The project is also
Resolution No. 2023-02
designed with on -site retention facilities to retain the additional stormwater created by the development in a 100-year storm event.
(c) The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting prop erties, or the permitted use ther eof because the proposed project is consi stent with the City’s General Plan and the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan upon approval of Specific Plan Amendment SPLA21 -00001 to change approximately 40 gross acres from Regional Commerc ial to Comm ercial Industrial Business Park. In addition, each of the uses envisioned under the proposed project is permitted or conditi onally permitted in the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) Zone of the S pecific Plan. The project is on the fringe of an are a which is also zoned CIBP and contains truck-related uses. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted as part of the lan d use application, which identifies improvements needed to mitigate the additional traffic from this project. Further, t he developer shall participate in the City wide industrial co mmunity facilities distr ict (CFD) to pay for the ongo ing maintenance of public infrastructure and services. The developer is also required to pay City Development Impact Fees.
(d) Upon approval of Specif ic Pla n Amendment SPLA21 -00001 to change approximately 40 gross acres from Regi onal Commercial to Commercial Indust rial Busi ness Park the proposed project will be consistent with the goals, policies, s tandards and maps of t he adopted Zoning, Development Code , Ma in Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan and all applicable codes and ordinances adopted by the City of Hesperia because each of the uses envisioned under the proposed project is permitted within the CIBP Zone. The development shall be constructed purs uant to the California Building and Fire Codes as well as adopted amendments.
Further, the project shall comply with the conditions of approval for both off-site and on -site improvements. The con ditions of approval shall be met based upon specific mileston es. Some conditions shall be met prior to grading, some prior to building construction and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
(d) The site for Building 1 will have adequate access ba sed upon the site’s current access to Mesa Linda Street and Cataba Road .
Primary access to Building 1 will be provided via two driveways off Mesa Linda Street, and two driveways located along Cataba Road.
The two driveways located off Mesa L inda Street w ill be fu ll access for both passe nger cars and trucks. The no rthern driveway located off Cataba Road will be full access for passenger cars only, and the southern driveway located off Cataba Road will be for emergency access only. The site for Building 2 will have adequate access based upon the site ’s current access to U.S. Highway 3 95, Poplar Street, and Lassen Road. Primary access for Building 2 will be provided via three new driveways. A driveway will be located off of Poplar Street that will provide full access for passenger cars. In addition a driveway
Resolution No. 2023-02
located o ff of Sultana Street and another driveway located off of Lassen Road will provide full access for trucks. In addition, implementation of the project will also require the construction of certain off-site improvements including the construction of Sultan a Street (currently a dirt road) fro m the northwest corner of Building 2 to Mesa Linda Street, as well as the construction of Lassen Road (also currently a dirt road) from the northwest corner of Building 2 to Poplar Street. In additi on, the project will be r esponsible for the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 395 and Poplar Street
(e) 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 “…Pr omote industrial development within the City which will exp and its tax ba se 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.
Section 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set for th in this Resolution, the City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit CUP 21-00004 and CUP21-00005 subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in ATTACHMENT “A.”
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED on this 17th day of January 2023.
__________________________________ _______________________________ Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
Melinda Sayre, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT "A"
List of Conditions for CUP21-00004
Approval Date: January 17, 2023
Effective Date: March 10, 2023
Expiration Date: March 10, 2031
This list of conditions applies to: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit CUP21-00004 in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 20315 (TPM22-00010) and Development Agreement DA22-00002 to construct a 1,108,000 square foot warehouse distribution building on approximately 69 gross acres within the Regional Commercial (RC) and Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zones of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan located on the east side of Mesa Linda Avenue, at the intersection of Mesa Linda Avenue and Popular Street, and Specific Plan Amendment SPLA 21-00001 to change approximately 45 acres of the project site from Regional Commercial (RC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP), in conjunction with adoption of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Applicant: Covington Capitol; APNs: 3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01) The use shall not be established until all conditions of this land use approval application have been
met. This approved land use shall become null and void if all conditions have not been completed by the expiration date noted above. Extensions of time may be granted upon submittal of the required application and fee prior to the expiration date. (Note: the "COMPLETED" and "COMPLIED BY" spaces are for internal City use only).
CONDITIONS REQUIRED AS PART OF SUBMITTAL OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CONSTRUCTION PLANS. Five complete sets of construction plans
prepared and wet stamped by a California licensed Civil or Structural Engineer or Architect shall be submitted to the Building Division with the required application fees for review. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY UTILITY NON INTERFERE/QUITCLAIM DOCS. The
Developer
shall provide non interference and or quitclaim
letter(s) from any applicable utility agencies for any utility easements that affect the proposed project. All documents shall be subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department and the affected utility agencies. The
improvement plans will not be accepted without the required documents and approval from the affected agencies. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY FINAL MAP: A Final Map shall be prepared by or under the direction
of a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor based upon a survey and shall conform to all
provisions as outlined in article 66433 of the Subdivision Map Act as well as the San Bernardino County Surveyors Office Final Map Standards. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. The Developer shall provide two copies
of the soils report to substantiate all grading, building and public improvement plans. Include R value testing and pavement recommendations for public streets. (E B)
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY PLAN CHECK FEES. Plan checking fees must be paid in
NOT IN COMPLIANCE conjunction with the improvement plan submittal. All required plans, maps, requested studies, CFD annexations, etc. must be submitted as a package. The Developer shall coordinate with the City's Engineering Analyst, Bethany Hudson at (760) 947-1438 or [email protected], to obtain the fee calculation form which shall be completed and submitted, along with fee payment, at time of plan submittal. Any
outstanding fees must be paid before final inspection and the release of bonds. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY REAPPORTIONMENT. The project lies within 91-1 Assessment
District. The developer shall be required to fill out
the City's application for reapportionment and pay associated fees. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY TITLE REPORT. The Developer shall provide a complete title report 90-days or newer from the date of submittal. (E) NO
T IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CENTERLINE STUDY. A detailed Centerline Study shall be performed
to address the re-alignment and reconstruction of
the existing centerline and improvements for Mesa Linda Street. The engineer shall make recommendations for the reconstruction based upon the findings of his report. The study shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DRAINAGE STUDY. The Developer shall submit three (3) copies
of a Final Drainage Study which analyzes the
pre-project and proposed project hydrology, including flows from offsite, flows generated onsite, hydraulic properties of flows entering or exiting the project to and from natural or constructed conveyances, and capacity and function of any runoff management structures such as catch basins, inlets, outlets and detention or retention structures. The study must include all information specified in the City's hydrology study outline
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DRYWELLS. The Project may be permitted to install drywells to ensure the required drawdown time will be achieved.
A. Drywells
shall have a City-approved pretreatment
component equivalent to a 2-phase system with debris shield and filter element.
B. Drywells shall be constructed by a contractor qualified in the construction of drywells.
C. Drywells in retention basins shall include a secured grate to prevent unauthorized removal.
D. The excavation for the drywell shall penetrate a minimum of 10 continuous feet into a suitable permeable layer or when a depth of 60 feet has been reached, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
E. Drywells that cease to drain a basin or underground
system within 48 hours of the end of a storm event shall be replaced or refurbished by the owner. This requirement shall be written in the CC&Rs for all subdivisions where drywells are installed.
F. Drywell usage shall comply with all prevailing City, State, and Federal requirements, including the Underground Injection
Control Regulations for Class V Injection Wells.
G. A
Drywell Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the approval of a drywell installation at a project site.
H. The Drywell Maintenance Plan shall include the following:
1. Drywell(s) location, depth, type, installing
contractor, date of installation, owner, maintenance contractor, and emergency contact.
2. Settling chambers and interceptors to be
inspected annually;
3. Removal of sediment and debris when:
a. Sediment/debris level fills = 25% of the capacity;
b. Drywell ownership or maintenance
responsibility changes;
c. Material not resulting from stormwater/urban
runoff enters the settling chamber or interceptor
I. Submit inspection/maintenance reports to the City
(Building and Safety within 10 days of inspection/mainte
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY FINAL WQMP SUBMITTAL. Submit a final WQMP, prepared using
the applicable Mojave River Watershed Group
Regulated WQMP Template, which includes all required or proposed revisions, addresses any comments provided on the draft WQMP, provides final designs for best management
practices (BMP's), and includes calculations for BMP sizing.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY The Project shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts to downstream
properties and/or drainage facilities caused or
exacerbated by the project. The project shall demonstrate that runoff from the completed project site will not exceed 90% of the pre-project runoff discharge rates for the 24-hour design storm for the 100-year return frequency rainfall events.
A. Drawdown Time. All drainage facilities which are designed to percolate/infiltrate surface runoff (including basins, drywells, or infiltration-based low impact development features) shall not accumulate standing water for more than 48 hours. All
drainage facilities designed to provide detention storage shall recover 100 percent of their design detention volume within 48 hours.
B. Groundwater Protection. The Project shall ensure any retention/infiltration or detention facilities will not adversely impact groundwater.
C. Underground Retention/Detention Systems. The Project shall demonstrate a minimum functional life span of 50 years for materials (e.g., polymer, metal, mineral-based, or other) used in underground retention/detention systems.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN. The
Project
shall submit to the City for approval two (2) copies of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as specified in the prevailing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board.
Prepare the SWPPP using or following the format of the most recent
SWPPP Template in the Construction BMP Handbook
prepared by the California Stormwater Quality Association (requires subscription); see:
https://www.casqa.org/resources/bmp-handbooks
NPDES: The Project shall enroll under the prevailing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board and pay
applicable fees. The Project shall provide proof of such permit coverage including a copy of the Notice Of Intent Receipt Letter and the project WDID No. to the City.
Alternatively, projects from 1 to 5 acres with an approved Rainfall Erosivity Waiver authorized by U.S. EPA Phase II regulations certifying to the State Water Resources Control Board that construction activity will occur only when the Rainfall Erosivity Factor is less than 5 (R in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation), shall provide a copy of the projects Erosivity Waiver Certification and Waiver ID to the City.
NPDES-PERMIT TERMINATION: Upon completion of
construction, the Project shall ensure that all disturbed areas are stabilized and all construction waste, equipment, and unnecessary temporary BMPs are removed from the site. In addition, the Project shall file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the Lahontan Regional Water Board as required by the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, and provide
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY INDEMNIFICATION. As a further condition of approval, the Applicant
agrees to and shall indemnify, defend, and hold the
City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, and contractors harmless from and against any claim, action or proceeding (whether legal or administrative), arbitration, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution process), order, or judgment and from and against any liability, loss, damage, or costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, attorney's fees, expert fees, and court costs), which arise out of, or are in any way related to, the approval issued by the City (whether by the City Council, the Planning Commission, or other City reviewing authority), and/or any acts and omissions of the Applicant or its employees, agents, and contractors, in utilizing the approval or otherwise carrying out and performing work on Applicants project. This provision shall not apply to the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, or its officials, officers, employees, agents, and contractors.
The Applicant shall defend the City with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City. The City's election to defend itself, whether at the cost of the Applicant or at the City's own cost, shall not relieve or release the Applicant from any of its obligations under this Condition. (P)
CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. Pre-construction meetings
shall be held between the City the Developer grading
contractors and special inspectors to discuss permit
requirements monitoring and other applicable environmental mitigation measures required prior to ground disturbance and prior to development of improvements within the public
right-of-way. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY SURVEY. The Developer shall provide a legal survey of the property.
All property corners shall be staked and the property
address posted. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CFD ANNEXATION. The applicant shall annex the property into
Community Facilities District CFD 94-01 concurrent with recordation of the final map. (F)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY. A pre-construction survey for the burrowing owl shall be conducted by a City approved and licensed biologist, no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance. (P)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY PROTECTED PLANTS. Three copies of a protected plant plan shall
be submitted to the Building Division showing the present location and proposed treatment of all smoke tree, species in the Agavacea family, mesquite, large creosote bushes, Joshua Trees, and other plants protected by the State Desert Native Plant Act. The grading plan shall be consistent with the approved protected plant plan. No clearing or grading shall commence until the protected plant plan is approved and the site is inspected and approved for clearing. (P)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS. All required improvement
plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer per City standards and per the City's improvement plan checklist to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Five sets of improvement plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and Engineering Department for plan review with the required plan checking fees. All Public Works plans shall be submitted as a complete set. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DEDICATION(S). The Developer shall grant to the City an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for knuckle at Mesa Linda Street and Poplar Street, including properties beyond the project limits, along with an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Cataba Road. The right of way full width for Cataba Road shall be ninety (90') feet. The Developer shall also grant to the City an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for any part of the sidewalk Path of Travel located behind any commercial drive
approaches that encroach onto private property. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY TRAFFIC SIGNAL(S). The Developer shall design traffic signal at the intersection of US Hwy 395/Poplar Street with north- and southbound lane configurations as approved by the City and Caltrans. At a minimum, one westbound left-turn lane and two westbound right-turn lanes shall be installed on Poplar Street. Cycle lengths and phase splits are optimized for each plus Project scenario. Should the intersection be signalized and improved by others, the applicant shall pay a
fair-share towards ultimate improvements at the intersection as determined by the City of Hesperia based on the fair-share percentage established in Table 27 of the approved Project Traffic Impact Analysis. Traffic signal improvements shall exclude project driveways which shall be constructed by the proposed project. These payments shall be made to the City of Hesperia based on the latest cost estimates to be
calculated by the applicant and as approved by the City Engineer immediately prior to payment. All construction traffic shall use 3 Flags to access HWY-395 southbound. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY UTILITY NON INTERFERENCE/QUITCLAIM. The Developer shall provide non interference and / or quitclaim letter(s) from any applicable utility agencies for any utility easements that affect the proposed project. All documents shall be subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department and the affected utility agencies. Grading permits will not be issued until the required documents are reviewed and approved by all applicable agencies. Any fees associated with the required documents are the Developers responsibility. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY MESA LINDA STREET. Developer shall design half width improvements
on Mesa Linda Street across the project
frontage, based on City’s 100-foot Arterial Roadway Standard.
Existing curb shall remain in place. The design shall be based upon an acceptable centerline profile extending a minimum of three hundred (300) feet beyond the project boundaries where applicable. These improvements shall consist of:
A. 8” Curb and Gutter per City standards.
B. Sidewalk (width = 6 feet) per City standards.
C. Roadway drainage device(s).
D. Streetlights per City standards.
E. Commercial driveway approaches per City standards.
F. Pavement transitions per City Standards.
G. Design roadway sections per existing, approved street sections and per “R” value testing with a traffic index of 10 and per the soils report.
H. Cross sections every 50-feet per City standards.
I. Traffic control signs and devices as required by the traffic study and/or the City Engineer.
J. Provide a signage and striping plan per City standards.
K. Relocate existing utilities as required. The Developer shall coordinate with affected utility companies.
L. It is the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any off-site dedications for transition tapers including acceleration / deceleration tapers per City standards. It is also the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any additional
Right-of-Way dedication needed to satisfy the 26’ minimum paving requirement and returns at no cost to the City.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY GRADING PLAN. The Developer shall submit a Grading Plan with
existing contours tied to an acceptable City of Hesperia benchmark. The grading plan shall indicate building footprints and proposed development of the retention basin(s) as a minimum. Site grading and building pad preparation shall include recommendations provided per the Preliminary Soils Investigation. All proposed walls shall be indicated on the
grading plans showing top of wall (tw) and top of footing (tf) elevations along with finish grade (fg) elevations. Wall height from finish grade (fg) to top of wall (tw) shall not exceed 6.0 feet in height. Grading Plans are subject to a full review by the City of Hesperia and the City Engineer upon submittal of the Improvement Plans. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY STREET IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall design street
improvements in accordance with City standards and
these conditions. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CATABA ROAD. Developer shall design improvements consisting
of saw-cutting (2-foot min.) and matching up
asphalt pavement on Cataba Road across the project
frontage, based on existing asymmetrical 90-foot roadway.
The curb face is to be located at 19’ from the approved centerline. The design shall be based upon an acceptable centerline profile extending a minimum of three hundred (300) feet beyond the project boundaries where applicable. These improvements shall consist of:
A. 8” Curb and Gutter per City standards.
B. Sidewalk (width = 6 feet) per City standards.
C. Roadway drainage device(s).
D. Streetlights per City standards.
E. Commercial driveway approaches per City standards.
F. Pavement transitions per City Standards.
G. Design roadway sections per existing, approved street sections and per “R” value testing with a traffic index of 10 and per the soils report.
H. Cross sections every 50-feet per City standards.
I. Traffic control signs and devices as required by the traffic study and/or the City Engineer.
J. Provide a signage and striping plan per City standards.
K. Relocate existing utilities as required. The Developer shall coordinate with affected utility companies.
L. It is the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any off-site dedications for transition tapers including acceleration / deceleration tapers per City standards. It is also the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any additional
Right-of-Way dedication needed to satisfy the 26’ minimum paving requirement and returns at no cost to the City.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY UTILITY PLAN. The Developer shall design a Utility Plan for service
connections and / or private hydrant and sewer
connections. Any existing water, sewer, or storm drain
infrastructures that are affected by the proposed development shall be removed / replaced or relocated and shall be
constructed per City standards at the Developers expense. (E) A. A remote read automatic meter reader shall be added on all meter connections as approved by the City Engineer.
B. The Developer shall design a Utility Plan for service connections and / or private water and sewer connections.
Domestic and fire connections shall be made from the existing 12" ACP water line in Cataba Road, the existing 12" PVC water line in Mesa Linda Street or the proposed 12" PVC water line in Mesa Linda Street from Sultana Street to the north
property line, per City Standards.
C.
It is the Developers responsibility to connect to sewer and pay the appropriate fees. The Developer will be required to connect to the existing 8" PVC sewer main in Cataba Road or the proposed 8" PVC sewer main in Mesa Linda Street per City standards.
D. Complete V.V.W.R.A.s Wastewater Questionnaire for
Commercial / Industrial Establishments and submit to the Engineering Department. Complete the Certification Statement for Photographic and X ray Processing Facilities as required.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY WATER/SEWER IMPR. PLAN. The Developer shall design water and sewer improvements in accordance with City
standards, and as indicated below. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY WATER IMPR. PLAN. The Developer shall design and construct a 12" PVC water main in Mesa Linda Street from Sultana Street to Main Street. Design shall consist of plan and profile per City standards. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The Developer shall abandon
existing 8" PVC sewer main and easement along the
northerly property line of parcel 3064-621-01 and design and construct an 8" minimum PVC SDR 35 sewer main in Mesa
Linda Street from Poplar Street and tie into existing at Main Street. Design shall consist of plan and profile per City standards. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall design
storm drain improvements in accordance with City
standards as indicated below. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY Developer shall design and construct storm drain in Cataba Road
and tie into existing 36" RCP. Plan shall consist of plan and profile including all hydraulic information. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY SULTANA STREET OFFSITE. Developer shall design 26' minimum
in Sultana Street, north side, from Lassen Road to
Mesa Linda Street. These improvements shall consist of:
A. Roadway drainage device(s). An existing drainage course traverses across Sultana Street between Lassen Road and Mesa Linda Street. Drainage devices shall perpetuate
drainage.
B. Design roadway sections per approved Arterial street section and per “R” value testing with a traffic index of 10 and per the soils report.
C. Cross sections every 50-feet per City standards.
D. Traffic control signs and devices as required by the Traffic Impact Analysis and / or the City Engineer.
E. Provide a signage and striping plan per City standards.
F. Relocate existing utilities as required. The Developer shall coordinate with affected utility companies.
G. It is the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any off-site dedications for transition tapers including acceleration / deceleration tapers per City standards. It is also the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any additional
Right-of-W ay dedication needed to satisfy the 26’ minimum paving requirement and returns at no cost to the City.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION. All of the requirements of the City-approved
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be
implemented prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit, and shall be maintained until construction is complete and all disturbed areas are fully stabilized. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DESIGN FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS. Improvement plans
for off-site and on-site improvements shall be consistent with the plans approved as part of this site plan review application with the following revisions made to the
improvement plans: (E, P)
A. Decorative concrete pilasters shall be provided with the wrought iron fence along Mesa Linda Ave;
B. Decorative fixtures (i.e. poles) similar to the Amazon warehouse in the City of Eastvale shall be provided along the I-15 freeway frontage to provide additional screening;
C. The screenwall along the southern property line shall extend east to the I-15 freeway at which point a wrought iron fence wil be provided. This alignment is consistent with the original exhibit submitted to City staff for discussion purposes.
Should an undergound utility line restrict the construction of a block wall, an alternative form of screenwall shall be provided.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY CULTURAL RESOURCES. If cultural resources are found during
grading then grading activities shall cease and the
applicant shall contract with a City approved archaeologist or paleontologist to monitor grading prior to resuming grading. All cultural resources discovered shall be handled in accordance with state and federal law. A report of all resources discovered as well as the actions taken shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (P)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY FISH AND GAME FEE. The applicant shall submit a check to the
City in the amount of $3,589.25 payable to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County to enable the filing of a Notice of Determination. (P)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY MITIGATION MEASURES. All applicable mitigation measures identified
in the Envriomental Impact Report for the I-15
Industrial Project shall be met prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY OFFICE AREAS. As shown on the approved site plan, the o
ffice area within Building 1 shall not exceed 15,000 square feet. Approval of a revised site plan review shall be required if the office area exceeds 15,000 square feet in order to verify that sufficient parking is avaiable.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT. The applicant shall annex
into the site into the Community Facilities District
CFD-2022-1 (Non Residential Maintenance and Services).
CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY AQMD APPROVAL. The Developer shall provide evidence of acceptance
by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
District. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CONSTRUCTION WASTE. The developer or builder shall contract
with the City's franchised solid waste hauler to provide bins and haul waste from the proposed development. At any time during construction, should services be discontinued, the franchise will notify the City and all building permits will be suspended until service is reestablished. The construction site shall be maintained and all trash and debris contained in a method consistent with the requirements specified in Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter 15.12. All construction debris,
including green waste, shall be recycled at Advance Disposal and receipts for solid waste disposal shall be provided prior to final approval of any permit. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DEVELOPMENT FEES. The Developer shall pay required development fees as follows:
A. School Fees (B)
NO
T IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PERCOLATION TEST. The applicant shall provide percolation test
data which are adequate to substantiate the hydrologic
performance of all proposed basins, underground retention systems, drywells, or other features requiring percolation of surface water:
A. Projects shall provide site-specific percolation test data to substantiate the performance and effective drawdown
time of all proposed surface retention basins.
B. Projects shall provide site-specific, depth-appropriate percolation test data for the proposed subsurface
infiltration/retention system; and/or for any proposed
drywells.
C. Percolations tests shall be performed in accordance with the procedures in Appendix A of the Riverside County
Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best
Management Practices; available online at:
http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/NPDES/LIDBMP.asp x
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY LANDSCAPE PLANS. The Developer shall submit three sets of
landscape and irrigation plans including water budget
calculations, required application fees, and completed
landscape packet to the Building Division.
The landscape plans shall include robust landscape coverage, including installation of mature trees, in front of the wrought iron fence along Mesa Linda Ave and the I-15 Freeway to adequatly screen the truck parking and loading areas.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY SOLID MASONRY WALLS AND FENCES. The Developer shall
submit four sets of masonry wall/wrought iron fencing
plans to the Building Division with the required application fees for all proposed walls. (P)
CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY DEVELOPMENT FEES. The Developer shall pay required development fees as follows:
A. Development Impact Fees (B)
B. Park
Fees (Not applicable to commercial and industrial
developments (B)
C. Utility Fees (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY UTILITY CLEARANCE AND C OF O. The Building Division will
provide utility clearances on individual buildings after required permits and inspections and after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on each building. Utility meters shall be permanently labeled. Uses in existing buildings currently served by utilities shall require issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy prior to establishment of the use. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS. All on site improvements as recorded
in these conditions, and as shown on the approved
site plan shall be completed in accordance with all applicable Title 16 requirements. The building shall be designed
consistent with the design shown upon the approved materials board and color exterior building elevations identified as Exhibit A. Any exceptions shall be approved by the Director of Development Services. (P)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY AS BUILT PLANS. The Developer shall provide as built plans, Notice
of Completion, and One Year Maintenance Bonds to
the Engineering Department. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. All public improvements as recorded
in these conditions, and as shown on the approved
civil plans shall be completed by the Developer and approved by the Engineering Department. Existing public improvements determined to be unsuitable by the City Engineer shall be removed and replaced. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY OFFSITE STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT FAIR SHARE. In accordance
with the Development Agreement, the Developer
shall pay $1.5 million within 60 days of execution of the Development Agreement with a certified CEQA approval with no pending litigation. The subsequent $1.5 million shall be paid within 30 days of issuance of the grading permit but not more than 5 years after execution of the Development
Agreement. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY EXECUTED AND RECORDED WQMP MAINTENANCE
A
GREEMENT. The WQMP Maintenance Agreement:
Covenant and Agreement Regarding Water Quality
Management Plan and Stormwater Best Management
Practices Transfer, Access, and Maintenance, must be (1) prepared using the WQMP Maintenance Agreement Template
provided as Attachment A to the City of Hesperia WQMP
Templates, and (2) the complete WQMP Maintenance
Agreement, with the Property Owners notarized signature(s)
and suitable for recordation by the City, must be received before
the City will authorize the final inspection or issue a Certificate of Occupancy.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY WQMP PERMIT. The Property Owner shall apply for a City WQM
P Permit with the Building and Safety Department and
pay the applicable permit fees. The WQMP Permit shall be renewed annually. To comply with the WQMP Permit, the
Property Owner shall certify on an annual basis that all of the post-construction best management practices (BMPs)
described in the approved project WQMP have been
inspected and maintained as specified and required by the BMP Inspection and Maintenance Form and Operation and
Maintenance Plan. The Property Owner shall provide proof of the WQMP Permit before the City will issue a Certificate of Occupancy.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION. The Developer shall install the
landscaping and irrigation as required by the Planning
Division. All requried landscape areas, including the landscape areas that are intended to screen the truck parking/loading areas must be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. (P)
Others
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. These conditions are c
oncurrent with Development Agreement DA22-00002
becoming effective. The terms of the Development Agreement will determine the expiration date.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT. These conditions are concurrent
with SPLA21-00001 to change the zoning of
approximatly 40 acres from Regional Commercial (RC) to
Commercial Industrial Busisness Park (CIBP) becoming
effective.
(B) Building Division 947-1300
(E) Engineering Division 947-1476
(F) Fire Prevention Division 947-1603
(P) Planning Division 947-1200
(RPD) Hesperia Recreation and Park District 244-5488
NOTICE TO DEVELOPER: IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE REGARDING
THESE CONDITIONS, PLEASE CONACT THE
APPROPRIATE DIVISION LISTED BELOW:
ATTACHMENT "A"
List of Conditions for CUP21-00005
Approval Date: January 17, 2023
Effective Date: March 10, 2023
Expiration Date: March 10, 2031
This list of conditions applies to: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit CUP21-00005 to construct a 742,000 square foot warehouse distribution building in conjunction with Development Agreement DA22-00002 within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan on 36 gross acres located at the northeast corner of Highway 395 and Poplar Street in conjunction with adoption of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Applicant: Covington Capitol; APN: 3064-581-01)
The use shall not be established until all conditions of this land use approval application have been
met. This approved land use shall become null and void if all conditions have not been completed by the expiration date noted above. Extensions of time may be granted upon submittal of the required application and fee prior to the expiration date. (Note: the "COMPLETED" and "COMPLIED BY" spaces are for internal City use only).
CONDITIONS REQUIRED AS PART OF SUBMITTAL OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CONSTRUCTION PLANS. Five complete sets of construction plans
prepared and wet stamped by a California licensed Civil or Structural Engineer or Architect shall be submitted to the Building Division with the required application fees for review. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION. The Developer shall
submit an Offer of Dedication to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. At time of submittal the developer shall complete the City's application for document review and pay all applicable fees. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY UTILITY NON INTERFERE/QUITCLAIM DOCS. The
Developer
shall provide non interference and / or quitclaim
letter(s) from any applicable utility agencies for any utility easements that affect the proposed project. All documents shall be subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department and the affected utility agencies. The
improvement plans will not be accepted without the required documents and approval from the affected agencies. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. The Developer shall provide two copies
of the soils report to substantiate all grading building and public improvement plans. Include R value testing and pavement recommendations for public streets. (E B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY PLAN CHECK FEES. Plan checking fees must be paid in conjunction
with the improvement plan submittal. All required
plans, maps, requested studies, CFD annexations, etc. must be submitted as a package. The Developer shall coordinate with the City's Engineering Analyst, Bethany Hudson at (760) 947-1438 or [email protected], to obtain the fee
calculation form which shall be completed and submitted, along
with fee payment, at time of plan submittal. Any
outstanding fees must be paid before final inspection and the release of bonds. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY TITLE REPORT. The Developer shall provide a complete title report 90-days or newer from the date of submittal. (E) NO
T IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY VACATION. The Developer shall submit a Request for V
acation to the City's Engineering Department for acceptance.
At time of submittal the developer shall complete the City's application for document review and pay all applicable fees. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY CENTERLINE STUDY. A detailed Centerline Study shall be performed
to address existing centerline and construction
centerline improvements for Highway 395. The engineer shall make recommendations based upon the findings of their
report. The study shall be submitted to the Citys Engineering Department for review and approval. The curb and gutter along the eastern side of US Hwy 395 adjacent to the Project site is to be widened/developed and connected to the existing curb and gutter. No additional lanes along this segment on US Hwy 395 are proposed at this time and have not been
assumed in TIA. This improvement shall be subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer with Caltrans approval.
Additional lanes and pavement width may be required at the Poplar/395 signal to provide appropriate receiving lanes for the ultimate planned lane configuration of the intersection consistent with Caltrans standards.(E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DRAINAGE STUDY. The Developer shall submit three (3) copies
of a Final Drainage Study which analyzes the
pre-project and proposed project hydrology, including flows from offsite, flows generated onsite, hydraulic properties of flows entering or exiting the project to and from natural or constructed conveyances, and capacity and function of any runoff management structures such as catch basins, inlets, outlets and detention or retention structures. The study must include all information specified in the City's hydrology study outline
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DRYWELLS. The Project may be permitted to install drywells to ensure the required drawdown time will be achieved.
A. Drywells
shall have a City-approved pretreatment
component equivalent to a 2-phase system with debris shield and filter element.
B. Drywells shall be constructed by a contractor qualified in the construction of drywells.
C. Drywells in retention basins shall include a secured grate to prevent unauthorized removal.
D. The excavation for the drywell shall penetrate a minimum of 10 continuous feet into a suitable permeable layer or when a depth of 60 feet has been reached, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
E. Drywells that cease to drain a basin or underground
system within 48 hours of the end of a storm event shall be
replaced or refurbished by the owner. This requirement shall be
written in the CC&Rs for all subdivisions where drywells are installed.
F. Drywell usage shall comply with all prevailing City, State, and Federal requirements, including the Underground Injection Control Regulations for Class V Injection Wells.
G. A Drywell Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the approval of a drywell installation at a project site.
H. The Drywell Maintenance Plan shall include the following:
1. Drywell(s) location, depth, type, installing
contractor, date of installation, owner, maintenance contractor, and emergency contact.
2. Settling chambers and interceptors to be
inspected annually;
3. Removal of sediment and debris when:
a. Sediment/debris level fills = 25% of the capacity;
b. Drywell ownership or maintenance
responsibility changes;
c. Material not resulting from stormwater/urban
runoff enters the settling chamber or interceptor
I. Submit inspection/maintenance reports to the City
(Building and Safety within 10 days of inspection/mainte
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY FINAL WQMP SUBMITTAL. Submit a final WQMP, prepared using
the applicable Mojave River Watershed Group
Regulated WQMP Template, which includes all required or proposed revisions, addresses any comments provided on the draft WQMP, provides final designs for best management
practices (BMP's), and includes calculations for BMP sizing.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY The Project shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts to downstream
properties and/or drainage facilities caused or
exacerbated by the project. The project shall demonstrate that runoff from the completed project site will not exceed 90% of the pre-project runoff discharge rates for the 24-hour design storm for the 100-year return frequency rainfall events.
A. Drawdown Time. All drainage facilities which are designed to percolate/infiltrate surface runoff (including basins, drywells, or infiltration-based low impact development features) shall not accumulate standing water for more than 48 hours. All
drainage facilities designed to provide detention storage shall recover 100 percent of their design detention volume within 48 hours.
B. Groundwater Protection. The Project shall ensure any retention/infiltration or detention facilities will not adversely impact groundwater.
C. Underground Retention/Detention Systems. The Project shall demonstrate a minimum functional life span of 50 years for materials (e.g., polymer, metal, mineral-based, or other) used in underground retention/detention systems.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN. The
Project shall submit to the City for approval two (2) copies of a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as specified in the prevailing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board.
Prepare the SWPPP using or following the format of the most recent SWPPP Template in the Construction BMP Handbook
prepared by the California Stormwater Quality Association (requires subscription); see:
https://www.casqa.org/resources/bmp-handbooks
NPDES: The Project shall enroll under the prevailing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board and pay
applicable fees. The Project shall provide proof of such permit coverage including a copy of the Notice Of Intent Receipt Letter and the project WDID No. to the City.
Alternatively, projects from 1 to 5 acres with an approved Rainfall Erosivity Waiver authorized by U.S. EPA Phase II regulations certifying to the State Water Resources Control Board that construction activity will occur only when the Rainfall Erosivity Factor is less than 5 (R in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation), shall provide a copy of the projects Erosivity Waiver Certification and Waiver ID to the City.
NPDES-PERMIT TERMINATION: Upon completion of
construction, the Project shall ensure that all disturbed areas are stabilized and all construction waste, equipment, and unnecessary temporary BMPs are removed from the site. In addition, the Project shall file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the Lahontan Regional Water Board as required by the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, and provide
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY INDEMNIFICATION. As a further condition of approval, the Applicant
agrees to and shall indemnify, defend, and hold the
City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, and contractors harmless from and against any claim, action or proceeding (whether legal or administrative), arbitration, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution process), order, or judgment and from and against any liability, loss, damage, or costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, attorney's fees, expert fees, and court costs), which arise out of, or are in any way related to, the approval issued by the City (whether by the City Council, the Planning Commission, or other City reviewing authority), and/or any acts and omissions of the Applicant or its employees, agents, and contractors, in utilizing the approval or otherwise carrying out and performing work on Applicants project. This provision shall not apply to the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, or its officials, officers, employees, agents, and contractors.
The Applicant shall defend the City with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City. The City's election to defend itself, whether at the cost of the Applicant or at the City's own cost, shall not relieve or release the Applicant from any of its
obligations under this Condition. (P)
CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. Pre-construction meetings
shall be held between the City the Developer grading
contractors and special inspectors to discuss permit
requirements monitoring and other applicable environmental mitigation measures required prior to ground disturbance and prior to development of improvements within the public
right-of-way. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY SURVEY. The Developer shall provide a legal survey of the property.
All property corners shall be staked and the property
address posted. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CFD ANNEXATION. The applicant shall annex the property into
Community Facilities District CFD 94-01 concurrent with recordation of the final map. (F)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY. A pre-construction survey for the burrowing owl shall be conducted by a City approved and licensed biologist, no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance. (P)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY PROTECTED PLANTS. Three copies of a protected plant plan shall
be submitted to the Building Division showing the present location and proposed treatment of all smoke tree, species in the Agavacea family, mesquite, large creosote bushes, Joshua Trees, and other plants protected by the State Desert Native Plant Act. The grading plan shall be consistent with the approved protected plant plan. No clearing or grading shall commence until the protected plant plan is approved and the site is inspected and approved for clearing. (P)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS. All required improvement
plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer per City standards and per the City's improvement plan checklist to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Five sets of improvement plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and Engineering Department for plan review with the required plan checking fees. All Public Works plans shall be submitted as a complete set. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DEDICATION(S). The Developer shall grant to the City an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Lassen Road. The right of way full width for Lassen Road shall be one-hundred (100') feet. The Developer shall also grant to the City an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Poplar Street. The right of way full width for Poplar Street shall be one-hundred (100') feet. The Developer may also be required to grant to the City an
Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Highway 395 based upon the findings of center line study. Corner cut off right of way dedication per City standards is required at all intersections , including interior roadways. (E)
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY TRAFFIC SIGNAL(S). The Developer shall design tra ffic
NOT IN COMPLIANCE signal at the intersection of US Hwy 395/Poplar Street with north- and southbound lane configurations as approved by the City and Caltrans. At a minimum, one westbound left-turn lane and two westbound right-turn lanes shall be installed on Poplar Street. Cycle lengths and phase splits are optimized for each plus Project scenario. Should the intersection be signalized and improved by others, the applicant shall pay a fair-share towards ultimate improvements at the intersection as determined by the City of Hesperia based on the fair-share percentage established in Table 27 of the approved Project Traffic Impact Analysis. Traffic signal improvements shall exclude project driveways which shall be constructed by the proposed project. All construction traffic shall use 3 Flags to access HWY-395 southbound. These payments shall be made to the City of Hesperia based on the latest cost estimates to be calculated by the applicant and as approved by the City Engineer immediately prior to payment. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY UTILITY NON INTERFERENCE/QUITCLAIM. The Developer shall provide non interference and / or quitclaim letter(s) from any applicable utility agencies for any utility easements that affect the proposed project. All documents shall be subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department and the affected utility agencies. Grading permits will not be issued until the required documents are reviewed and approved by all applicable agencies. Any fees associated with the required documents are the Developers responsibility. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY LASSEN ROAD. Developer shall design half-width improvements
(26' minimum) on Lassen Road across the
project frontage, based on City’s 100-foot Arterial Roadway Standard. The curb face is to be located at 36’ from the approved centerline. The design shall be based upon an
acceptable centerline profile extending a minimum of three hundred (300) feet beyond the project boundaries where
applicable. These improvements shall consist of:
A. 8” Curb and Gutter per City standards.
B. Sidewalk (width = 6 feet) per City standards.
C. Roadway drainage device(s).
D. Streetlights per City standards.
E. Intersection improvements including handicapped ramps per City standards.
F. Commercial driveway approaches per City standards.
G. Pavement transitions per City Standards.
H. Design roadway sections per existing, approved street sections and per “R” value testing with a traffic index of 10 and per the soils report.
I. Cross sections every 50-feet per City standards.
J. Traffic control signs and devices as required by the traffic study and/or the City Engineer.
K. Provide a signage and striping plan per City standards.
L. It is the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any off-site dedications for transition tapers including acceleration / deceleration tapers per City standards. It is also the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any additional
Right-of-Way dedication needed to satisfy the 26’ minimum paving requirement and returns at no cost to the City.
M. Relocate existing utilities as required. The Developer shall coordinate with affected utility companies.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY GRADING PLAN. The Developer shall submit a Grading Plan with
existing contours tied to an acceptable City of Hesperia benchmark. The grading plan shall indicate building footprints and proposed development of the retention basin(s) as a minimum. Site grading and building pad preparation shall include recommendations provided per the Preliminary Soils Investigation. All proposed walls shall be indicated on the grading plans showing top of wall (tw) and top of footing (tf) elevations along with finish grade (fg) elevations. Wall height from finish grade (fg) to top of wall (tw) shall not exceed 6.0 feet in height. Grading Plans are subject to a full review by the City of Hesperia and the City Engineer upon submittal of the Improvement Plans. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY POPLAR STREET. Developer shall design improvements consisting
of saw-cutting (2-foot min.) and matching up
asphalt pavement on Poplar Street across the project
frontage, based on City’s 100-foot Arterial Roadway Standard.
The curb face is to be located at 36’ from the approved centerline. The design shall be based upon an acceptable centerline profile extending a minimum of three hundred (300) feet beyond the project boundaries where applicable. These improvements shall consist of:
A. 8” Curb and Gutter per City standards.
B. Sidewalk (width = 6 feet) per City standards.
C. Roadway drainage device(s).
D. Streetlights per City standards.
E. Intersection improvements including handicapped ramps per City standards.
F. Commercial driveway approaches per City standards.
G. Pavement transitions per City Standards.
H. Design roadway sections per existing, approved street sections and per “R” value testing with a traffic index of 10 and per the soils report.
I. Cross sections every 50-feet per City standards.
J. Traffic control signs and devices as required by the traffic study and/or the City Engineer.
K. Provide a signage and striping plan per City standards.
L. It is the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any off-site dedications for transition tapers including acceleration / deceleration tapers per City standards. It is also the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any additional
Right-of-Way dedication needed to satisfy the 26’ minimum paving requirement and returns at no cost to the City.
M. Relocate existing utilities as required. The Developer shall coordinate with affected utility companies.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY <<MM:2212011256100001>>
NO
T IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY UTILITY PLAN. The Developer shall design a Utility Plan for service
connections and / or private hydrant and sewer
connections. Any existing water, sewer, or storm drain
infrastructures that are affected by the proposed development shall
be removed / replaced or relocated and shall be
constructed per City standards at the Developer’s expense. (E)
A. A remote read automatic meter reader shall be added on all meter connections as approved by the City Engineer.
B. The Developer shall design a Utility Plan for service connections and / or private water and sewer connections.
Domestic and fire connections shall be made from the existing 12” PVC water line in Poplar Street per City Standards.
C. The Developer will be required to connect to the existing 10" PVC sewer main in Poplar Street or existing sewer along the north property line per City standards.
D. Complete V.V.W.R.A.’s “Wastewater Questionnaire for
Commercial / Industrial Establishments” and submit to the Engineering Department. Complete the “Certification
Statement for Photographic and X-ray Processing Facilities” as required.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY SULTANA STREET OFFSITE. Developer shall design and construct
26' minimum in Sultana Street from Lassen Road to
Mesa Linda Street. These improvements shall consist of:
A. Roadway drainage device(s).
B. Design roadway sections per approved street sections and per “R” value testing with a traffic index of 10 and per the soils report.
C. Cross sections every 50-feet per City standards.
D. Traffic control signs and devices as required by the traffic study and/or the City Engineer.
E. Provide a signage and striping plan per City standards.
F. Relocate existing utilities as required. The Developer shall coordinate with affected utility companies.
G. It is the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any off-site dedications for transition tapers including acceleration / deceleration tapers per City standards. It is also the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any additional
Right-of-Way dedication needed to satisfy the 26’ minimum paving requirement and returns at no cost to the City.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION. All of the requirements of the City-approved
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be
implemented prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit, and shall be maintained until construction is complete and all disturbed areas are fully stabilized. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DESIGN FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS. Improvement plans
for off-site and on-site improvements shall be consistent with the plans approved as part of this site plan review application with the following revisions made to the
improvement plans: (P)
A. An 8-foot high screen wall in place of the wrought iron fence shall be installed along Highway 395 and Lassen Road to adequately screen the truck parking areas and loading docks
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CULTURAL RESOURCES. If cultural resources are found during
grading then grading activities shall cease and the
applicant shall contract with a City approved archaeologist or paleontologist to monitor grading prior to resuming grading. All cultural resources discovered shall be handled in accordance with state and federal law. A report of all resources discovered as well as the actions taken shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (P)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT. The applicant shall annex
into the site into the Community Facilities District
CFD-2022-1 (Non Residential Maintenance and Services).
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY FISH AND GAME FEE. The applicant shall submit a check to the
City in the amount of $3,539.25 payable to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County to enable the filing of a Notice of Determination. (P)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY MITIGATION MEASURES. All applicable mitigation measures identified
within the EIR for the I-15 Industrial Project shall be met prior to issuance of a grading permit.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY OFFICE AREAS. As shown on the approved site plan, the o
ffice space within Building 2 shall not exceed 12,000 square feet. Approval of a revised site plan review shall be required if the office areas exceed 12,000 square feet in order to verify that sufficient parking is avaiable.
CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY AQMD APPROVAL. The Developer shall provide evidence of acceptance
by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
District. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY DEVELOPMENT FEES. The Developer shall pay required development fees as follows:
A. School Fees (B)
NO
T IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PERCOLATION TEST. The applicant shall provide percolation test
data which are adequate to substantiate the hydrologic
performance of all proposed basins, underground retention systems, drywells, or other features requiring percolation of surface water:
A. Projects shall provide site-specific percolation test data to substantiate the performance and effective drawdown
time of all proposed surface retention basins.
B. Projects shall provide site-specific, depth-appropriate percolation test data for the proposed subsurface
infiltration/retention system; and/or for any proposed
drywells.
C. Percolations tests shall be performed in accordance with the procedures in Appendix A of the Riverside County
Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best
Management Practices; available online at:
http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/NPDES/LIDBMP.asp x
NO
T IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CONSTRUCTION WASTE. The developer or builder shall contract
with the City's franchised solid waste hauler to provide bins and haul waste from the proposed development. At any time during construction, should services be discontinued, the franchise will notify the City and all building permits will be suspended until service is reestablished. The construction site shall be maintained and all trash and debris contained in a method consistent with the requirements specified in Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter 15.12. All construction debris,
including green waste, shall be recycled at Advance Disposal and receipts for solid waste disposal shall be provided prior to final approval of any permit. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY LANDSCAPE PLANS. The Developer shall submit three sets of
landscape and irrigation plans including water budget
calculations, required application fees, and completed
landscape packet to the Building Division.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY SOLID MASONRY WALLS AND FENCES. The Developer shall
submit four sets of masonry wall/wrought iron fencing
plans to the Building Division with the required application fees for all proposed walls. (P)
CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY DEVELOPMENT FEES. The Developer shall pay required development fees as follows:
A. Development Impact Fees (B)
B. Utility Fees (E)
NO
T IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY UTILITY CLEARANCE AND C OF O. The Building Division will
provide utility clearances on individual buildings after required permits and inspections and after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on each building. Utility meters shall be permanently labeled. Uses in existing buildings currently served by utilities shall require issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy prior to establishment of the use. (B)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY AS BUILT PLANS. The Developer shall provide as built plans, Notice
of Completion, and One Year Maintenance Bonds to
the Engineering / Water Sewer Departments. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. All public improvements as recorded
in these conditions, and as shown on the approved
civil plans shall be completed by the Developer and approved by the Engineering Department. Existing public improvements determined to be unsuitable by the City Engineer shall be removed and replaced. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY OFFSITE STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT FAIR SHARE. In accordance
with the Development Agreement, the Developer
shall pay $1.5 million within 60 days of execution of the Development Agreement with a certified CEQA approval with
no pending litigation. The subsequent $1.5 million shall be paid within 30 days of issuance of the grading permit but not more than 5 years after execution of the Development
Agreement. (E)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY EXECUTED AND RECORDED WQMP MAINTENANCE
A
GREEMENT. The WQMP Maintenance Agreement:
Covenant and Agreement Regarding Water Quality
Management Plan and Stormwater Best Management
Practices Transfer, Access, and Maintenance, must be (1) prepared using the WQMP Maintenance Agreement Template
provided as Attachment A to the City of Hesperia WQMP
Templates, and (2) the complete WQMP Maintenance
Agreement, with the Property Owners notarized signature(s) and suitable for recordation by the City, must be received before the City will authorize the final inspection or issue a Certificate of Occupancy.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY WQMP PERMIT. The Property Owner shall apply for a City WQM
P Permit with the Building and Safety Department and
pay the applicable permit fees. The WQMP Permit shall be renewed annually. To comply with the WQMP Permit, the
Property Owner shall certify on an annual basis that all of the post-construction best management practices (BMPs)
described in the approved project WQMP have been
inspected and maintained as specified and required by the BMP Inspection and Maintenance Form and Operation and
Maintenance Plan. The Property Owner shall provide proof of the WQMP Permit before the City will issue a Certificate of Occupancy.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION. The Developer shall install the
landscaping and irrigation as required by the Planning
Division. (P)
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS. All on site improvements as recorded
in these conditions, and as shown on the approved
site plan shall be completed in accordance with all applicable Title 16 requirements. The building shall be designed
consistent with the design shown upon the approved materials board and color exterior building elevations identified as Exhibit A. Any exceptions shall be approved by the Director of Development Services. (P)
Others
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. These conditions are c
oncurrent with Development Agreement DA22-00002
becoming effective. The terms of the Development Agreement will determine the expiration date of the project.
(B) Building Division 947-1300
(E) Engineering Division 947-1476
(F) Fire Prevention Division 947-1603
(P) Planning Division 947-1200
(RPD) Hesperia Recreation and Park District 244-5488
NOTICE TO DEVELOPER: IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE REGARDING
THESE CONDITIONS, PLEASE CONACT THE
APPROPRIATE DIVISION LISTED BELOW:
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESP ERIA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL M AP TO REARRANGE
TWO EXISTING PARCELS INTO TWO NEW PARCELS THAT GE NERALLY FOLLOW THE ALIGNMENT OF THE FUTURE BUILDING ON 66 GROSS
ACRES WITHIN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) AND COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK (CIBP) ZONE OF THE MAIN STREET A ND
FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPE CIFIC PLAN LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA LINDA STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I-15 FREEWAY, A ND APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN STREET (TPM22-00010)
WHEREAS, Covington Group, Inc. (Applicant) has filed an app lication requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map TPM22 -00010 described herein (hereinafter referred to as "Application") ; and
WHEREAS, the I-15 Industrial Project consist of the construction of approximately 1,850,000 square feet of industri al 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 Bui lding 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 has also been filed to change approximately 40 acres of the project site from Regional Commercial (RC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP); and;
WHEREAS, the Application, as contempl ated, proposes to rearrange four existing parcels into four new parcels that generally follow the alignment of the future buildings and which is being processed under Tentative Parcel Map No. 20257 (TPM22-00002); and
WHEREAS, the proposed project consists of consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 3064-351- 03, 3064-361-01, 3064-391-01, 3064-401-02; and
WHEREAS, the Application, as co ntemplated, proposes to construct 1,850,000 square feet of industrial warehouse space on approximately 97 gross acres. The proposed use is consistent with the Specific Plan, upon approval of Specific Plan Amendment SPLA2 1-00001 to chan ge approximately 40 acres of the site from Regional Commercial to Commercial Industrial Business Park. Furthermore, approval of a CUP is required to approve a distribution warehouse in excess of 200,000 square feet; and
WHEREAS, tentative Parcel Map No. 20315 (TPM22-00010) has also been filed for the Building 1 site to rearrange the two existing parcels into two new parcels that generally follow the alignment of the future building; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the site for Building 1 is within the Regional Commercial (RC) zone of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . The remai ning porti on of the site for Building 1, as well as the entire site for Building 2, is within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone of the Specific Plan. The properties to the north of Buildin g 1 are within the Regional Commercial zone of the Specific Plan. T he remaining surrounding properties are all within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone; and
Resolution No. 2023-03
WHEREAS, the subject properties are currently vacant. Land uses to the north of Build ing 1 consist of vacant land followed by the Tractor Supply store further to the north. Land uses to the east of Building 1 consist of the I-15 freeway and the High Desert Gateway shopping center on the opposite side of Cat aba Road. L and uses to the south and west of Building 1 cons ist of vacant land. The land uses to the north, east and west of Building 2 also consist of vacant land.
To the south of Building 2 is the Stepping Stone commercial/industrial business park followed by vacant land; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 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, 2023, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Resolution No. 2023-01, adopting the environmental findings pursuant to California Environmental Qualit y Act (CEQA), adopt ing a Stateme nt of Overriding Considerations, certif ying the Final Environmental Impact Report ( SCH #2019110418), and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution 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 Resolution are true and correct.
Section 2. Based upon substantial evidence p resented to the City Council during the above-referenced January 17, 2023, hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, this Council specifically finds as follows:
(a) Based on ado ption 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 # 22021060397) has been certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project.
(b) The proposed map is consistent with the City’s General Plan of the City of Hesperia, because the subdivision is consistent with the intent of the adopted land use element.
(c) The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan of Hesperia, as the project supports the existing land use and circulation pattern in the area.
(d) The site is physically suitab le for the type of development because there are no known physical constraints to nonresidential development and the site has adequate area to accommodate the proposed parcels.
Resolution No. 2023-03
(e) The site is physically suitable for the proposed development intensity because the parcel s are adequate in size and sha pe and all Development Code regulations for the permitted and conditional uses can be met, with approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP21-00004.
(f) The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause ser ious public health problems be cause all construct ion will require necessary permits and will confo rm to the City’s adopted building and fire codes.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for acc ess through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
Section 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 20315 (TPM22-00010), subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in ATTACHMENT “A.”
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED on this 17th day of January 2023.
__________________________________ _______________________________ Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
Melinda Sayre, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT "A"
List of Conditions for TPM22-00010
Approval Date: January 17, 2023
Effective Date: March 10, 2023
Expiration Date: March 10, 2031
This list of conditions applies to Consideration of Conditional Use Permit CUP21-00004 in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 20315 (TPM22-00010) and Development Agreement DA22-00002 to construct a 1,108,000 square foot warehouse distribution building on approximately 69 gross acres within the Regional Commercial (RC) and Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zones of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan located on the east side of Mesa Linda Avenue, at the intersection of Mesa Linda Avenue and Popular Street, and Specific Plan Amendment SPLA 21-00001 to change approximately 45 acres of the project site from Regional Commercial (RC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP), in conjunction with adoption of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Applicant: Covington Capitol; APNs: 3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01) The use shall not be established until all conditions of this land use approval application have been met.
This approved land use shall become null and void if all conditions have not been completed by the expiration date noted above. Extensions of time may be granted upon submittal of the required application and fee prior to the expiration date.
(Note: the "COMPLETED" and "COMPLIED BY" spaces are for internal City use only).
CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
TITLE
REPORT. The Developer shall provide a complete title
report 90 days or newer from the date of submittal. (E)
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
AL
L EASEMENTS OF RECORD. It shall be the responsibility
of the Developer to provide all Easements of Record per recent title report. (E)
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
IRREVOCABLE
OFFERS OF DED. AND EASEMENT. The
Developer shall show all Offers of Dedication(s) and
Easement(s) on the Map as outlined below: (E)
A. Dedication on Mesa Linda Street for knuckle at Poplar Street.
B. Dedication on Cataba Road.
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
P
ARCEL MAP (RES). A Parcel Map shall be prepared by or
under the direction of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, based upon a survey, and shall conform to all provisions as outlined in article 66433 of the Subdivision Map Act as well as the San Bernardino County Surveyors Office Map Standards. (E)
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
PLAN
CHECK FEES. Plan checking fees must be paid in
conjunction with the improvement plan submittal. All required plans, maps, requested studies, CFD annexations, etc. must be submitted as a package. The Developer shall coordinate with the City's Engineering Analyst, Bethany Hudson at (760) 947-1438 or [email protected], to obtain the fee
calculation form which shall be completed and submitted, along
with fee payment, at time of plan submittal. Any
outstanding fees must be paid before final inspection and the release of bonds. (E)
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
CONDITIONA
L USE PERMIT. These conditions are concurrent
with CUP21-00004 and Development Agreement DA22-00001
becoming effective. Approval of the Development Agreement will determine the expiration date of the project.
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
FISH
AND GAME FEE. The applicant shall submit a check to
the City in the amount of $3,589.25 payable to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County to enable the filing of a Notice of Determination. (P)
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
INDEMNIFIC
ATION. As a further condition of approval, the
Applicant agrees to and shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, servants, and contractors harmless from and against any claim, action or proceeding (whether legal or administrative), arbitration, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution process), order, or judgment and from and against any liability, loss, damage, or costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, attorney's fees, expert fees, and court costs), which arise out of, or are in any way related to, the approval issued by the City (whether by the City Council, the Planning Commission, or other City reviewing authority), and/or any acts and omissions of the Applicant or its employees, agents, and contractors, in utilizing the approval or otherwise carrying out and performing work on Applicants project. This provision shall not apply to the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, or its officials, officers, employees, agents, and contractors.
The Applicant shall defend the City with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City. The City's election to defend itself, whether at the cost of the Applicant or at the City's own cost, shall not relieve or release the Applicant from any of its obligations under this Condition. (P)
CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL OF THE PARCEL MAP
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
RECORD
ATION OF MAP. Map shall be recorded with the San
Bernardino County Recorders Office. (E)
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
UTILITIES.
Each parcel shall be served by a separate water
meter, service line, and sewer lateral connection where available. An automatic meter reader to be included on all meter connections. (E)
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
UTILIT
Y RELOCATION. If the developer is required to install
water, sewer, or construct street improvements or when utilities shall be placed underground, it shall be the developer's responsibility to relocate any existing utilities at their own expense. Relocation of utilities shall be identified upon submittal of construction plans. (P, E)
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMMUNIT
Y FACILITIES DISTRICT. The applicant shall
annex into the site into the Community Facilities District CFD-2022-1 (Non Residential Maintenance and Services).
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
CFD
ANNEXATION. The applicant shall annex the property into Community Facilities District CFD 94-01 concurrent with recordation of the final map. (F)
CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITY
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
APPRO
VAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS. All improvement
plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer per City standards and shall be approved and signed by the City
Engineer. (E)
CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OF ANY UNIT
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS. All public improvements shall be
completed by the Developer and approved by the Engineering Department. Existing public improvements determined to be unsuitable by the City Engineer shall be removed and replaced. (E)
NOTICE TO DEVELOPER: THIS CONCLUDES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP.
IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE REGARDING THESE CONDITIONS, PLEASE CONACT THE APPROPRIATE DIVISION LISTED BELOW:
(B) Building Division 947-1300
(E) Engineering Division 947-1476
(F) Fire Prevention Division 947-1603
(P) Planning Division 947-1200
(RPD) Hesperia Recreation and Park District 244-5488
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 8, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Rachel Molina, Assistant City Manager
BY: Ryan Leonard, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21 -00005 (Covington Group, Inc.; APNs: 3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 & 3064-581-01)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC -2022-26, recommending that the City Council make the environmental determination pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and adopting a statement of overriding considerations and ad opt Resolution Nos. PC - 2022-27, PC-2022-28, and PC-2022-29 recommending that the Ci ty Council approve CUP 21- 00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 and CUP21-00005.
BACKGROUND
Proposal: Two Conditional Use Permits (CUP) have been filed to construct 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 (the eastern building), and CUP21 -00005 was filed for Building 2 (the western building). 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 s quare foot industrial warehouse on approximately 36 gross acres (Attachment 1) . An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared that analyzed both buildings concurrently as a single “project”. In addition, a development agreement is proposed that also includes both buildings under a single document. Therefore, for the purposes of this staff report, a description of both entitlement applications is described below.
In conjunction with only CUP21-00004 a Specific Plan Amendment has also been filed to change approximately 4 0 acres of the project site from Regional Commercial (RC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP). In addition, a tentative parcel map has been filed to rearrange two existing parcels into two new parcels. The parcel map generally follows the alignment of the proposed Building 1. In conjunction with both CUP21-00004 and CUP21-00005, a Development Agreement (DA) is proposed that would allow both entitlements 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 certain off-site improvements that extend beyond the limits of the project frontage. In addition, the developer will be r equired to provide a monetary contribution towards the construction of a regional detention basin that will be located at the end of the Or o Grande Wash. Finally, the DA provides that the applicant may contribute a monetary contribution in-lieu of constructing a portion of a required screen wall (described in more detail below).
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005 December 8, 2022
Location: Building 1 is 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. The site for Building 1 is located on two parcels that total approximately 66 gross acres, however an approximately 5 acre portion of the site at the northern end of Building 1 would not be included as part of the project. The sites for Building 1 and Building 2 are not contiguous and are separated by Mesa Linda Street and an undeveloped property. Building 2 is located on the northeast corner of Highway 395 and Poplar Street.
Current General, Plan, Zoning and Land Uses: A portion of the site for Building 1 is within the Regional Commercial (RC) zone of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The remaining portion of the site for Building 1, as well as the entire site for Building 2 , is within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone of the Specific Plan. The surrounding land is designated as noted on Attachment 2. The site s for both buildings are entirely vacant.
Land uses to the north of Building 1 consist of vacant land followed by the Tractor Supply store further to the north. Land uses to the east of Building 1 consist of the I -15 freeway and the High Desert Gateway shopping center on the opposite side of Cataba Road . Land uses to t he south and west of Building 1 consist of vacant land. The land uses to the north, east and west of Building 2 also consist of vacant land. To the south of Building 2 is the Stepping Stone commercial/industrial business park followed by vacant land (Attachment 3).
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Building 1 consists of approximately 1,108,000 square feet of gross building area on approximately 61 gross acres and Building 2 consists of approximately 742,000 square feet of gross building area on approximately 36 gross acres. Office space within Building 1 would total up to 15,000 square feet while the office space within Building 2 would total up to 12,000 square feet. Depending on the number of future tenants, office areas could be distributed among two individual office spaces or may be concentrated within one office in each building. Regardless of how the office spaces are distributed within the individual buildings, a maximum of 15,000 square feet of office area would be allowed for Building 1 and a maximum of 12,000 square feet would be allowed for Building 2 since it generates a higher parking demand than traditional warehouse area.
Parking: The proposed development complies with all site development regulations, including the minimum building requirements, landscaping, and number of parking spaces. The parking regulations require a minimum of 503 parking spaces for Building 1 and 348 parking spaces for Building 2, based upon the requirements listed in Table 1. As proposed the project satisfies the minimum parking requirements.
TABLE 1-PARKING REQUIREMENTS
BUILDING 1
Proposed
Building Square
Footage
Parking Formula Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
Warehouse 1,093,000 20 spaces + 0.40/1,000 sq. ft. of
building over 10,000 sq. ft
453
Office 15,000 SF 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. gross
floor area
50 TOTAL 1,108,000 SF 503 511
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005 December 8, 2022
BUILDING 2
Warehouse 730,000 20 spaces + 0.40/1,000 sq. ft. of
building over 10,000 sq. ft
308
Office 12,000 SF 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. gross
floor area
40 TOTAL 742,000 SF 348 352
For Building 1 the conventional parking spaces are proposed along the northern and southern sides of the building. For Building 2 the conventional parking spaces would be provided along the southern and western sides of the building. Building 1 includes 213 loading docks that are planned to be located along the east, west, and south sides of the building. Building 2 includes 124 loading docks that are planned to be located along the east and west sides of the building. In addition, Building 1 would provide 413 truck/trailer parking spaces and Building 2 would provide 149 truck/trailer parking spaces . The truck/trailer parking would be provided to the east, west and south of Building 1, and to the east and west of Building 2 . A gated entry is proposed for each building that will allow access to the truck courts.
Screening: Building 1 is proposed to be setback 200 feet from Mesa Linda Street. Within the 200- foot setback, the front of the building would consist of 100 truck loading docks followed by a single row of approximately 124 oversized parking stalls for trucks/trailers. The truck/trailer parking stalls would be setback 15 feet from Mesa Linda Street and would be separated by a landscape planter.
As proposed, an 8’ high screen wall would be constructed along Mesa Linda Street from the northern portion of the building, approximately 800 feet south to the midpoint of the building. From the midpoint of the building, extending approximately 800 feet south to the end of the building the applicant is proposing an 8 -foot high wrought iron fence in -lieu of a screen wall (Attachment 6).
While a screen wall would otherwise be required, the Development Agreement provides that the applicant will contribute a monetary contribution in -lieu of constructing the required screen wall.
The monetary contribution will be due prior to the issuance of a building permit and will be used to fund public beautification projects throughout the City, including at freeway interchanges and key focal points in the City. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to provide robust landscape coverage including providing mature trees in front of the wrought iron fence to adequately screen the truck parking and loading docks . In addition, the project is conditioned to provide decorative concrete pilasters with the wrought iron fence along Mesa Linda Ave.
Building 1 is also proposed to be setback 85 feet from the I -15 right-of-way at the southern end of the property. The southern façade of the building contains 32 truck loading docks that would be viewable from the freeway and the eastern façade of the building, which would also be viewable from the I-15 freeway, contains 81 truck loading docks. Approximately 101 parking stalls for truck trailers would be located to the south of the building and approximately 191 parking stalls for trucks/trailers would be located to the east of the building. The truck/trailer parking stalls would be setback 85 feet from the freeway at the closest point, however a majority of the truck/trailer stalls are located more than a 100 feet away from the freeway. As currently proposed, a 38-foot wide landscape buffer would be provided immediately adjacent to the freeway along with an 8 - foot high wrought iron fence. As previously mentioned, the Development Agreement provides that the applicant will contribute a mone tary contribution in -lieu of constructing the required screen wall. However, as a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to install robust landscape coverage including mature pine trees along the freeway to screen truck parking and loading docks. In addition, the applicant is also proposing to install decorative fixtures similar to the Amazon warehouse in the City of Eastvale to provide additional screening.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005 December 8, 2022
Building 2 is proposed to be setback 232 feet from Highway 395, approximately 95 fe et from Poplar Street, and 270 feet from Lassen Road. The eastern and western sides of the building each contain 62 truck loading docks. Approximately 50 parking stalls for trucks/trailers would be located to the west of the building fronting Highway 395, and approximately 100 parking stalls for trucks/trailers would be located to the east of the building fronting Lassen Road. The truck/trailer spaces would be setback approximately 50 feet from Highway 395 and 32 feet from Lassen Road.
The applicant has proposed an 8-foot high wrought iron fence to be constructed along the eastern and western property lines. In addition, a 50-foot wide landscape planter would be installed in front of the truck parking areas along Highway 395 and a 32-foot wide planter would be installed in front of the truck parking areas along Lassen Road. However, as a condition of approval staff is requiring an 8-foot high screen wall in place of the wrought iron fence along Highway 395 and Lassen Road to adequately screen the truck parking areas and loading docks.
Access/Roadway Improvements: Primary access to Building 1 will be provided via two driveways off Mesa Linda Street, and two driveways located along Cataba Road. The two driveways located off Mesa Linda Street will be full access for both passenger cars and trucks. The northern driveway located off Cataba Road will be full access for passenger cars onl y, and the southern driveway located off Cataba Road will be for emergency access only.
Primary access for Building 2 will be provided via three new driveways. A driveway will be located off of Poplar Street that will provide full access for passenger ca rs. In addition two driveways located off of Lassen Road will provide full access for trucks.
The overall project will be responsible for the construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project frontages of each individual building, including alo ng Mesa Linda Street, Cataba Road, Poplar Street, Lassen Road, and Highway 395. Implementation of the project will also require the construction of certain off -site improvements including the construction of Sultana Street (currently a dirt road) from the northwest corner of Building 2 to Mesa Linda Street, as well as the construction of Lassen Road (also currently a dirt road) from the northwest corner of Building 2 to Poplar Street. In addition, the project will be responsible for the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 395 and Poplar Street (Attachment 7).
Water and Sewer : Existing water lines include 12 -inch water lines within Main Street, Cataba Road, Poplar Street, Mesa Linda Street (only from Poplar Street to Sultana Street), Lassen Road and Sultana Street. The project will construct a new 12 -inch water line along Mesa Linda Street from Sultana Street to Main Street. Building 1 would connect to the existing water line located at the intersection of Sultana Street and Mesa Linda Street. Building 2 would connect to the existing water line located within Poplar Street.
Existing sewer lines include 10-inch sewer lines within Main Street, Poplar Street, Cataba Road, and Sultana Street, and within a line that runs east -west through the Building 1 site. Building 1 would connect to the existing sewer line within Cataba Road. Building 2 would connect to the existing sewer line within Sultana Street. The existing sewer line that runs across the Building 1 site would be removed. A new sewer line would be constructed within Mesa Linda Street from Main Street to Sultana Street. This sewer line would provide continuity of service fo r flows that currently use the sewer line that runs across the Building 1 site.
Drainage: A new engineered stormwater drainage system would be constructed to collect and treat on -site stormwater. Post -development, stormwater flows would be captured on si te and treated within a series of aboveground and underground infiltration facilities. Two at -grade
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005 December 8, 2022
stormwater detention basins would 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. Stormwater flows would be conveyed via sheet flows away from buildings and where possible, to landscaped areas prior to entering the nearest catch basin and subsequently being conveyed to the infiltration and retention facilities. The project’s retention/infiltration systems would retain flows during storm events. During extreme flows, stormwater would be discharged off-site into the adjacent streets via emergency spillway/parkway drains/overflow pipes.
Architecture: The architecture of the proposed warehouse buildings complies with the architectural requirements of the Specific Plan (Attachments 4 & 5). The large concrete tilt -up buildings within the project exhibit a clean, corporate look, exhibiting several exterior building colors and multiple expansion joints. The buildings have been designed to incorporate a prominent glass entry way at the corners o f each building. In addition, the sides of the building which are adjacent to the right-of-way feature prominent tower elements, copper accent panels, sand blasted concrete accent walls and decorative windows. The buildings also feature painted bands, reveals, and decorative panels on all four sides of the building. Building height will be approximately 48 feet.
The project also satisfies the minimum landscaping requirements. The minimum required landscape coverage is 10% of the developed site; Building 1 provides 385,000 square feet (14.4%) of total landscape coverage, a majority of which will be located in front of the site and/or adjacent to the freeway. Building 2 provides 230,000 square feet (15.1%) of landscape coverage, a majority of which will also be viewable from the right-of-way.
Development Agreement :. Construction of both buildings will likely take several years. The Development Code only provides an initial three -year effective period. Consequently, the developer has negotiated a Development Agreement (DA) to allow both entitlement applications 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 contribute towards the future construction of the Oro Grande Wash detention basin-a project that is estimated to cost $5,100,000. Ultimately the City intends to construct the basin in two phases - the first phase will include extending the existing storm drain system that ends in Cataba Road north of the Desert Willow RV Resort to the invert of the Or o Grande Wash in Yucca Terrace right -of-way. Phase 1 is estimated to cost approximately 1.5 million dollars. The applicant is required to pay their contribution to the City within 30 days from project approval, and the remaining portion will be due upon issuance of a building permit, but not more than 5 years after project approval. In addition, the applicant will also contribute a monetary contribution in -lieu of constructing a portion of the required screen walls. That monetary contribution will be used to fund various City beautification projects throughout the City. Finally, the applicant is also required to construct off-site street improvements that extend beyond the limits of the project frontage. The off -site street improvements that are described earlier in this staff report will be required to be completed prior to occupancy of the first building. Taken together the financial contributions along with the extension of road improvements are a public benefit. Furthermore, the construction of the detention basin is not required for the development and implementation of project.
TPM22-00010 (Parcel Map No. 20315): A tentative parcel map has also been filed for the Building 1 site to rearrange the two existing parcels into two new parcels. The parcel map generally follows the alignment of the future building. Building 1 will be located on a 61.3 acre parcel and a 5 acre
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005 December 8, 2022
parcel located on the northern boundary of the Building 1 site will remain vacant. The five acre parcel is proposed to remain zoned as Regional Commercial (RC) and is not included as a part of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment to change the zone to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP). The tentative parcel map is consistent with the site design and is in accordance with the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act.
Specific Plan Amendment: In conjunction with Building 1, a Specific Plan Amendment has been filed to change approximately 4 acres of the project site from Regional Commercial (RC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) . An approximately 5 acre portion of the site at the northern end of Building 1 would not be included as part of the zone change. Although the City originally planned for the subject parcels to be developed with commercial uses, very little interest has ever been expresse d from commercial developers. Furthermore, within the past few years the retail industry has undergone a major shift as traditional brick and mortar retail uses face stiffening competition from online-only stores.
The proposed CIBP zoning designation would be located approximately 1,000 feet to the south of Main Street. In addition, the proposed industrial uses would be separated by a 5 acre portion of the site that would remain as Regional Commercial (Figure 1). Staff believes that the 1,000- foot separation from Main Street, in conjunction with the 5 acre parcel that will remain as Regional Commercial, will provide an adequate buffer from the proposed industrial uses. For these reasons staff supports the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Given the size and regional importance of this project, CEQA requires that the environmental impact of the project be analyzed. An initial study was prepared, which determined that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. As a result, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for public review for a period of 30 days from June 17, 2021 thru July 16, 2021 and the Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public period from July 21, 20 22 thru September 6, 202 2. The public review period was subsequently extended until October 13, 2022 The environmental document was circulated to local, state and federal agencies and organizations as well as surrounding property owners. Eight comment letters were received during the Initial Study/NOP comment period ; 2 comments were received during the EIR Scoping Meeting; and 3 comment letters were received during the Draft EIR comment period. The letters, as well as the responses to them are included in the Final EIR.
The Draft and Final EIR are available for review on the City website and have been provided to the Commission under separate cover.
The Draft EIR identified potentially signific ant impacts of the project and discussed numerous mitigation measures proposed to address potential impacts of the project. Mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, which is attached as Attachment 8 and also incorporated by reference in the conditions of approval (Attachments 9 & 10 ). The mitigation measures for the project will reduce potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, the EIR concluded that in spite of mitigation measures, the project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation. C onsequently, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations must be made in order to approve the project. The following is a summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts as a result of the project:
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005 December 8, 2022
Air Quality: The Project site is located within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan and is designated for Commercial/Industrial Business Park (CIBP) uses. The CIBP designation is intended to provide for service commercial, light industrial, light manufacturing, and industrial support uses. The Project proposes land uses that are consistent with development anticipated under the site’s existing General Plan designation. The Project would therefore conform to local land use plans.
However, the long-term project operation will create vehicular emissions that would exceed the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District’s (MDAQMD) daily emission thresholds . The project’s impacts related to volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitric oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10) emissions will individually and cumulatively result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. In addition, the project would result in cumul atively considerable impacts related to the potential to conflict with the MDAQMD’s thresholds, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (VOC, NOx, and PM10), and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentr ations (VOC, NOx, and PM10). Additionally, it should be noted that the majority of the Project’s NOX and PM10 emissions are derived from vehicle usage. Although mitigation measures would reduce operational emissions from on-road vehicles to the extent feas ible, due to the size and type of the project, it is not feasible to implement mitigation measures to reduce the operational mobile source emissions. Therefore, the project’s impacts related to the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the MDAQMD’s regional thresholds and the project operational VOC, NOx, and PM10 emissions would remain significant. In addition, the project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to the potential to conflict with the MDAQMD regional thresholds, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (VOC, NOx, and PM10), and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (VOC, NOx, and PM10). The EIR concludes that there are significant unavoidable impacts to air quality and a finding of overriding considerations is included in the resolution certifying the EIR.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Long-term operations of the Project would result in greenhouse gas emissions through mobile sources and on-site equipment, area sources (landscape maintenance equipment); energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the Project); generation of electricity associated with wastewater treatment and with water supply, treatment, and distribution; and solid waste disposal. Annual greenhouse gas emissions from these sources were estimated in the EIR.
With applicable regulatory requirements and project design features, the Project would result in approximately 32,920 MT CO2e per year, which would exceed the GHG threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and this would represent a cumulatively potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures would be required that would reduce project- generated construction and operationa l GHG emissions. The EIR determined that the effectiveness of the required mitigation measures cannot be accurately quantified. Therefore, project-generated greenhouse gas emissions would still exceed the applied threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. The EI R concludes that there are significant unavoidable impacts upon greenhouse gas emissions and a finding of overriding considerations is included in the resolution certifying the EIR for this project.
Traffic/Circulation: Beginning on July 1, 2020, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is used to determine the significance of transportation impacts. The San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) is an accepted program to estimate VMT as it considers interaction between different
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005 December 8, 2022
land uses based on socio-economic data such as population, households, and employment. The EIR determined that the project would exceed the current threshold s for VMT, resulting in a project-specific VMT impact that is significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures are proposed in the EIR to reduce impacts. However, the effectiveness of some of the mitigation strategies that have potential to reduce the project VMT are dependent on unknown building tenant(s). In addition, the EIR determined that the project may increase a hazardous condition due to queuing impacts at various intersections that the City does not have jurisdiction over, therefore, these improvements cannot be assumed to be in place prior to project’s occupancy. The EIR determined that the project’s impact to increase hazardous conditions (i.e. queuing) would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential transportation impacts, however, since implementation of the roadway improvements cannot be guaranteed by project opening or project build-out, mitigation and improvements are rendered infeasible. The significance determinations are based on a conservative worst -case scenario whereby it is assumed that mitigation for all significant impacts outside the control of the City are infea sible and therefore, the impacts are significant and unavoidable. A finding of overriding considerations is included in the resolution certifying the EIR for this project.
Overriding Considerations: Pursuant to CEQA, the City must balance the benefits of the project against any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. If the benefits of the Project outweigh these environmental impacts, those impacts are considered “acceptable.” Since the impact upon Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation are considered significant and unavoidable, findings for a S tatement of Overriding Considerations must be made. The project’s benefits include strengthening the local economy by providing new employment opportunities for local residents and generating tax revenues to maintain adequate infrastructure facilities. Further, the project will help satisfy the City's deficiency of high quality local jobs, as most residents must currently travel outside the City to obtain higher paying jobs . The proposed project would use the locational characteristics (specifically, the project’s proximity to the 15 freeway and Highway 395) to provide needed flexible industrial space to businesses wishing to invest in the City, as well as to provide approxima tely 2,309 permanent jobs both directly and indirectly in the region. The project’s social and economic benefits render these significant and unavoidable impacts acceptable.
Conclusion: In summary, because the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, most of the project’s impacts, whether less than significant, mitigable, or significant and unavoidable were known and acknowledged by the City when the General Plan EIR was adopted in 2010.
Prior to acting on the project , the Planning Commission must recommend that the City Council make the environmental determination, certifying that the Final EIR is complete; that it has been prepared in compliance with CEQA; that it reflects the City’s independent judgment; and that al l impacts from carrying out the project have been identified and disclosed to the public. Resolution PC-2022-26 has been prepared to document this determination. Once that has occurred, the Planning Commission can consider both conditional use permits and the tentative parcel map. If recommended for approval, the mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be administered with the project approval.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005 December 8, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The development will be subject to payment of development impact fees and will be required to annex into the City Industrial CFD to pay for the ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure and services.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Overall Site plan
a. Building 1 Site Plan
b. Building 2 Site Plan
2. General Plan / Zoning Map
3. Aerial photo
4. Color Elevation-Builiding 1
a. Color Elevation Building 2
5. View Rendering-Building 1
a. View Rendering-Building 2
6. Building 1-Screen Wall
7. Traffic and Offsite Improvements
8. Resolution No. PC-2022-26 (Environmental findings to recommend adoption of the EIR including the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and MMRP)
9. Resolution No. PC-2022-27 (SPLA21-00001)
10. Resolution No. PC-2022-28, with list of conditions (CUP22-00004 & CUP22-00005)
11. Resolution No. PC-2022-29, with list of conditions (TPM22-00010/PM-20315)
12. Draft EIR (provided under separate cover)
13. Final EIR (provided under separate cover)
14. Development Agreeement (provided under separate cover)
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001,
TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 &
CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FREEWAY, AN D APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN STREET; BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 &
3064-581-01
PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP21-00004 AND CUP2 1-00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
OVERALL SITE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 1
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001,
TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 &
CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FREEWAY, AN D APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN STREET; BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 &
3064-581-01
PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP21-00004 AND CUP2 1-00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
BUILDING 1 SITE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 1-A
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001,
TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 &
CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FREEWAY, AN D APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN STREET; BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 &
3064-581-01
PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP21-00004 AND CUP2 1-00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
BUILDING 2 SITE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 1-B
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-
00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA
STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FRE EWAY, AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN S TREET;
BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNE R OF
HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 & 3064-581-
01 PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 21-00004 AND CUP21 -00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP
ATTACHMENT 2
SITE
SITE
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-
00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA
STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FRE EWAY, AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN S TREET;
BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNE R OF
HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 & 3064-581-
01 PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 21-00004 AND CUP21 -00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PRE PARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
AERIAL
ATTACHMENT 3
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-
00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA
STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FRE EWAY, AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN S TREET;
BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNE R OF
HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 & 3064-581-
01 PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 21-00004 AND CUP21 -00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PRE PARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
COLOR ELEVATION-BUILDING 1
ATTACHMENT 4
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-
00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA
STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FRE EWAY, AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN S TREET;
BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNE R OF
HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 & 3064-581-
01 PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 21-00004 AND CUP21 -00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PRE PARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
COLOR ELEVATION-BUILDING 2
ATTACHMENT 4A
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001,
TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 &
CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FREEWAY, AN D APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN STREET; BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 &
3064-581-01
PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP21-00004 AND CUP2 1-00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
VIEW RENDERING-BUILDING 1
ATTACHMENT 5
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001,
TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 &
CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FREEWAY, AN D APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN STREET; BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 &
3064-581-01
PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP21-00004 AND CUP2 1-00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
VIEW RENDERING-BUILDING 2
ATTACHMENT 5-A
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-
00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA
STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FRE EWAY, AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN S TREET;
BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNE R OF
HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 & 3064-581-
01 PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 21-00004 AND CUP21 -00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PRE PARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
BUILDING 1-SCREEN WALL
ATTACHMENT 6
APPLICANT(S):
COVINGTON GROUP, INC.
FILE NO(S):
CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001, TPM22-
00010, DA22-00002 & CUP21-00005
LOCATION:
BUILDING 1 IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MESA L INDA
STREET, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE I -15 FRE EWAY, AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF MAIN S TREET;
BUILDING 2 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNE R OF
HIGHWAY 395 AND POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 & 3064-581-
01 PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CUP 21-00004 AND CUP21 -00005 TO CONSTRUCT 1,850,000 SQUARE FEE T OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHO USE SPACE ON APPROXI MATELY 97 ACRES OF V ACANT LAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT . THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PRE PARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N
TRAFFIC AND OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS
ATTACHMENT 7
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO T HE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2021060397), ADOPT T HE STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the I-15 Industrial Project consist of the construction of approximately 1,850,000 square feet of industri al 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 Bui lding 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 has also been filed to change approximately 40 acres of the project site from Regional Commercial (RC) to Commercial Industrial 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 automatic 2-year extension.
WHEREAS, the Project would be accessible to US Highway 395 and ultimately Interstate 15 and would promote the City's econ omic development by creating approximately 2,309 jobs for the citizens of Hesperia and surrounding communities, would increase the City's tax base, would fulfill the growing demand for distribution and light industrial uses in the region, and would develop the land to the highest and best allowable use that is compatible with the City's General Plan, and Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code $ 21000 et. seq,) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR $ 15 000 et. seq.), the City of Hesperia is the lead agency for the Project as the public agency with general governmental powers; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hesperia, as lead agency, prepared an initial study, from which it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR') should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all adverse environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ( NOP") and the Initial Study identifyi ng the scope of environmental issues were distribute d to numerous state, federal, and local agencies and organizations from June 17, 2021 thru July 16, 2021, for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375. Eight comment letters were received during the Initial Study/NOP comment period and were incorporated into the Draft EIR ("DEIR"); and
WHEREAS, a pu blic scoping meeting for the EIR was held at Hes peria City Hall on July 16, 2021; and
ATTACHMENT 8
Resolution No. PC-2022-26
WHEREAS, the City completed the DEIR and circulated it with the Notice of Availability ('NOA") to affected public agencies and interested members of the public for a 45-day public period from July 21, 20 22 thru September 6, 202 2. The public review period was subsequently extend ed until October 13, 2022; 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, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR for the project reflects the City’s independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgm ent in accordance with Public Resourc es Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying s tudies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City for the purpo ses of making decisions on the merits of the project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the significant environmental effects of the project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or subs tantially lessen the project's enviro nmental impacts and a range of fe asible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines.
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HESPERIA PLANNING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in this Resolution are true and correct.
Section 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced December 8, 2022, hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, this Commission specifically finds as follows:
a) The Planning Commi ssion has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Final EIR and a ll written documentation and public comments prior to making recommendations on the proposed project; and
b) The Final EIR was prepared and completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines; and
Resolution No. PC-2022-26
c) The information and analysis contained in the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment as to the environmental consequences of the proposed Project; and
d) The documents and other materials, including without limitation, staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, and minutes of all relevant meetin gs, which constitute the administrative record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based are located at the City of Hesperia, Planning Division, 9700 Seventh Avenue, Hesperia, C A 92345. The custodian of the records is the Planning Division.
Section 3. That on the basis of the evidence contained in the administrat ive record of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission finds based on the information submitted , following the conclusion of the public comment period on the Draft EIR , and following the consultant's responses thereto, there is no significant new information concerning the project's environmental effects, feasible mitigation measures, or feasible project alternatives; therefore there is no need or requirement to recirculate the EIR for additional public comment
Section 4. That the Planning Commission of the City of Hesperia hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR.
Section 5. Exhibit A (Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations) and Exhibit B (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) of this Resolution provide findings required under Section 15091 o f the State CEQA Guidelines for significant effects of the Project. Exhibit A of this Resolution provides the findings required under Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the acceptable adverse impac ts of the project due to overriding considerations. The City has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project against the unavoidable environmental risks that may result, and finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and recommends the Council require the Project to comply with the m itigation measures contained therein. The Planning Commission finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable on the Project and s hall be binding upon the City and affected parties.
Section 7. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Resolution No. PC-2022-26
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 8th day of December 2022.
_______________________________
_______________________________________
Roger Abreo, Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Maricruz Montes, Secretary, Planning Commission
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations I-15 Industrial Park Project
Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2021060397
Prepared for:
City of Hesperia, Planning Department
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, California 92645
Prepared by:
38 North Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
NOVEMBER 2022
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
13087
i November 2022
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1
1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Custodian and Location of Records ......................................................................................... 2
1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2.1 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.2 Discretionary Action .................................................................................................................. 3 2 CEQA FINDINGS OF INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT ................................ ................................ ........................ 5
2.1 Independent Review and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Impacts Determined to Be Significant and Unavoidable ..................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 17
2.2.3 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 20
2.3 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation .................................................... 21
2.3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 21
2.3.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 25
2.3.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 39
2.3.5 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 41
2.3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 43
2.3.7 Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 48
2.4 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant ............................................................................. 49
2.4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 50
2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................................................... 51
2.4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 52
2.4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 54
2.4.5 Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 56
2.4.6 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 58
2.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 61
2.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 62
2.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 64
2.4.10 Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 71
2.4.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................. 73
2.4.12 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 74
2.4.13 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................ 79
2.4.14 Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 80
2.4.15 Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 83
2.4.16 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 83
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
ii November 2022
2.4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................ 86
2.4.18 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................... 93 3 FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 101
3.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated During the Scoping/Project Planning Process .............. 101
3.2 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis ....................................................................................... 103
3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative ................................................................... 103
3.2.2 Alternative 2: Other Development Project Alternative ....................................................... 104
3.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Development Intensity Alternative ............................................... 105
3.2.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................................. 106 4 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 107
4.1 Findings Regarding Recirculation ..................................................................................................... 107 5 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 109 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 113
13087
1 November 2022
1 Introduction
These Findings of Fact (Findings) for The Industrial Park Project (Project) are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), specifically PRC Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), specifically Sectio ns 15091 and 15093. The Final EIR examines the full range of potential effects of construction and operation of the Project, identifies standard mitigation practices that could be employed to reduce, minimize, or avoid those potential effects, and evaluate s alternatives to the Project. The Final EIR is incorporated into these Findings by reference.
1.1 Purpose
PRC Section 21081, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the lead agency, in this case the City of Hesperia (City), prepare written findings for identified significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states, in part, that:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infea sible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
In accordance with PRC Section 21081, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the decision‐making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, t he adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.” In that case, the decision-making agency may prepare and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact.
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:
a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
2 November 2022
adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The stat ement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.
This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
The Final EIR for the Project identified potentially significant effects that could result from the Project. The City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of the approval of the Project would reduce these effects to less-than‐significant levels.
The City also finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, which is incorporated by reference and made part of these Findings, meets the requirements of PRC Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the Project.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that th ese Findings reflect the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the Project.
1.1.1 Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the Record of Proceedings for the City’s actions related to the Project are located at the City of Hesperia, 9700 Seventh Avenue, Hesperia, California 92345. The City is the custodian of the Record of Proceedings for the Project.
1.2 Project Description
The Project would include the construction of two industrial/warehouse buildings and associated improvements on 96.1 acres of vacant land. Building 1 (the easternmost building) would be approximately 1,108,000 square feet and Building 2 (t he westernmost building) wou ld be approximately 742,000 square feet. In total, the Project would provide 1,850,000 square feet of industrial/warehouse space. Associated improvements would include loading docks, tractor-trailer stalls, passenger vehicle parking spaces, stormwater dete ntion basins, and landscape area.
Additionally, the Project would include off -site construction of Sultana Street from the northwestern corner of the Building 2 site to Poplar Street.
The Project would involve a General Plan Amendment to modify a portion of the Project site’s General Plan Land Use designation from Regional Commercial to Commercial/Industrial Business Park, a Specific Plan Amendment to modify the Project site’s MSFCSP land use designation from Regional Commercial to Commercial/Industrial Business Park, and a Zone Change to modify the Project site’s zoning designation from Regional Commercial to Commercial/Industrial Business Park.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
3 November 2022
1.2.1 Project Objectives
The following are the objectives of the Project:
1. Develop a jobs-producing and tax generating land use near transportation corridors within the housing-rich Victor Valley/High Desert region that is constructed to high standards of quality and provides diverse economic opportunities for those residing and wishing to invest within the City of Hesperia.
2. Concentrate nonresidential uses near existing roadways, highways, and freeways in an effort to isolate and reduce any potential environmental impacts related to truck traffic congestion, air emissions, industrial noise, and biological resources to the greatest extent feasible.
3. Develop a fiscally sound and employment -generating land use that maximizes use of industrial zoned areas.
4. Create a project that takes advantage of and enhances existing infrastructure, including the proximity to major regional roadways such as Interstate 15 and U.S. Highway 395, railroad service corridors, and other similar infrastructure that will help promote the site and its use as an industrial business park.
5. Fulfill the existing and growing demand for logistics and warehouse uses in the region.
1.2.2 Discretionary Action
A discretionary action is an action taken by an agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project. The Project would require consideration of the following discretionary actions by the City:
• An administrative review by the Development Review Committee is held in order to review the Project. Such review will yield a recommendation and/or ruling by City administrative staff. • A review by the P lanning Commission is held in order to review the Project, including all requested entitlements. Such review will yield a recommendation to the City Council. • The Planning Commission will review the EIR and make a recommendation to the City Council to certify or reject this EIR, along with appropriate CEQA Findings and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. • Project implementation would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit for each building (CUP21-00004 for Building 1 and CUP21-00005 for Building 2). The MSFCSP requires review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for warehousing and wholesale distribution centers over 200,000 square feet located in the Main Street/I-15 District and the Highway 395/I-15 District of the Specific Plan. Each building includes more than 200,000 square feet of total building area, and thus, a CUP would be required. • Project implementation would require approval of General Plan Amendment to modify a portion of the Project Site’s General Plan land use desig nation from Regional Commercial to Commercial/Industrial Business Park.
• Project implementation would require approval of Specific Plan Amendment to modify a portion of the Project Site’s MSFCSP land use designation from Regional Commercial to Commercial/ Industrial Business Park.
• Project implementation would require approval of a zone change to change a portion of the Project Site’s zoning from Regional Commercial to Commercial/Industrial Business Park.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
4 November 2022
• Project implementation would require processing of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 20315), to adjust existing property lines and easements within the Building 2 site to accommodate the proposed building and to facilitate necessary right-of-way dedications.
• The City Council will certify or reject this EIR, along with appropriate CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. • The City Council will approve a proposed Development Agreement between the City and the Project Applicant pursuant to Section 16.12.085 of the Hesperia Municipal Code. The Development Agreement would provide sufficient time for the development of the Project by locking in development standards and extending applicable vesting periods for the Project’s entitlements and to establish a mechanism whereby the Project Applicant would be partially reimbursed for costs associated with public improvements constructed that would be used by future developments. Reimbursements would be funded by developers of these future developments. The Development Agreement does not contemplate any additional physical improvements, other than those already identified in the Project description, analysis, and proposed mitigation for the Project.
13087
5 November 2022
2 CEQA Findings of
Independent Judgement
2.1 Independent Review and Analysis
Under CEQA, the lead agency must (1) independently review and analyze the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); (2) circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment; (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, find that the EIR or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and (4) submit copies of the documents to the State Clearinghouse if there is state agency involvement or if the project is of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance (PRC Section 21082.1[c]).
These Findings reflects the City’s independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with CEQA Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant in the preparation of the EIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing, and revising material prepared by the consultant.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the informa tion in the EIR, as well as any and all other information in the record, the City hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with CEQA Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6.
2.2 Impacts Determined to Be Significant and
Unavoidable
This section identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued by the City, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, if the Project is approved. Based on the analysis contained in the EIR, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. These impacts are discussed in further detail below. • Air Quality. The Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District for emissions of volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen , and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns. As such, the Project would potentially result in health effects associated with those pollutants. Although mitigation measures have been recommended to minimize operational-related air quality impacts (MM-AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM- AQ-3), no feasible mitigation measures or Project design features beyond those already identified exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, even with the incorporation of mitigation, long -term impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non -attainment would be significant and unavoidable , as would their potential health effects. Additionally, the Project would require a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Zone Change that could lead to an increase in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled and the Project operational-source emissions have the potential to increase the frequency or severity of a violation in the federal or state ambient air q uality standards. On this basis, the Project is considered to potentially conflict with the Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan for the Mojave Desert Air Basin.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
6 November 2022
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Construction and operation of the Pr oject would result in the generation of approximately 33,720 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent, which would exceed the numerical greenhouse gas threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District of 3,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. While the Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District , because the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s thresholds are more stringent and are backed by substantial evidence from an expert agency, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s recommended thresholds have been utilized for determining the significance of the Project’s greenhouse gas emission impacts. Implementation of mitigation measures MM -AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM -AQ-3 would also reduce operation -related GHG emissions. However, the effectiveness of the mitigation and the associated emiss ion reductions cannot be accurately quantified at this time and GHG emissions impacts are inherently cumulative in nature. As such, impacts on the project -level and cumulatively would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Transportation. Several intersections in the vicinity of the Project site currently experience periodic queuing issues during peak hours, which can lead to potential safety concern if a significant speed differential exists between queue vehicles and vehicles proceeding beyond the queue. The Project would result in additional traffic that would exacerbate these conditions under the Existing Plus Project Conditions, Opening Year (2024) Plus Project Conditions, and Horizon Year (2040) Plus Project Conditions (queueing issues would continue to occur without Project -generated traffic for many intersections regardless of the Project ).
Improvement measures have been identified for which the Project would be required to either construct or contribute fair-share costs to address these conditions. However, some of these intersections are not within the City’s jurisdiction, but rather within the jurisdiction of other agencies, such as the California Department of Transportation. Since the City does not have jurisdiction over these facilities, these improvements cannot be assumed to be in place prior to Project’s occupancy, and these impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
2.2.1 Air Quality
2.2.1.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Air Quality
Applicable Air Quality Plan
The Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan f or the Mojave Desert set forth a comprehensive set of programs that will lead the MDAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards.
The control measures and related emission reduction estimates within the Federal Particulate Matter Attainm ent Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. A project is non -conforming with an air quality plan if it conflicts with or delays implementation of any applicable attainment or maintenance plan. A project is conforming if it complies with all applicable MDAQMD rules and regulations, complies with all proposed control measures that are not yet adopted from the applicable plan(s), and is consistent with the growth forecasts in the applicable plan(s) (or is directly included in the applicable plan). Zoning changes, specific plans, general plan amendments and similar land use plan changes wh ich do not increase dwelling unit density, do not increase vehicle trips, and do not increase vehicle miles traveled are also deemed to comply with the applicable air quality plan (MDAQMD 2016).
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
7 November 2022
The Project would be required to comply with all applicable MDAQMD Rules and Regulations, including, but not limited to Rules 401 (Visibile Emissions), 402 (Nuisance), and 403 (Fugitive Dust). The Project site is located within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, and a majority of the site is designated for Commercial/Industrial Business Park uses. The Commercial/Industrial Business Park designation is intended to provide for service commercial, light industrial, light manufacturing, and industrial support uses. A portion of the Project sit e is designated as Regional Commercial. The Regional Commercial designation is intended for regional-serving commercial and services uses that are designed to serve the region as a whole. The portion of the Project site designated Regional Commercial would require a land use change to Commercial/Industrial Business Park. Therefore, the Project would require a land use change and General Plan Amendment to modify a portion of the Project site’s land use designation, and the change in land use could lead to an increase in vehicle trips to the Project site and VMT.
As discussed below, Project construction -source emissions would not exceed applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds after implementation of Mit igation Measure (MM) AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, MM-AQ-3, MM-AQ-4, MM-AQ-5, and MM-AQ-6. However, Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would result in exceedances of regional thresholds for emissions of NOx, and PM10, even after implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6. As such, NOx and PM 10 emissions are considered significant and unavoidable and the Project would have the potential to increase the frequency or severity of a violation in the federal or state ambient air quality for on -going Project operations.
Based on the preceding considerations, the Project would conform to local land use plans and would comply with all applicable all MDAQMD Rules and Regulations. However, Project operational -source emissions have the potential to increase the frequency or severity of a violation in the f ederal or state ambient air quality standards.
On this basis, the Project is considered to potentially conflict with the Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan for the MDAB. Therefore, impacts associated with the conflicting w ith the MDAQMD would be significant and unavoidable.
Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants Construction and operation of the Project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants from mobile, area, and/or stati onary sources, which may cause exceedances of federal and state AAQS or contribute to existing nonattainment of AAQS. The following discussion identifies potential short -term construction and long -term operational impacts that would result from implementation of the Project.
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the MDAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of AAQS. Although the area of the MDAB where the P roject is located is currently designated a nonattainment area for federal and state O3 standards and federal and state PM 10 standards, the MDAB has experienced a substantial reduction in maximum 8-hour concentrations of O3 over the past 30 years, as well as reductions in PM10 over time, as described in the respective MDAQMD O 3 and PM10 attainment plans. CEQA thresholds are established at levels that the air basin can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS . Based on these considerati ons, Project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
8 November 2022
Long-Term Operational Impacts
Operation of the Project would generate VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources, including passenger vehicle and truck trips; area sources, including the use of consumer products, architectural coatings for repainting, and landscape maintenance equipment; energy sources, including combustion of fuels used for space and water heating; and on-site equipment. CalEEMod utilizes summer and winter EMFAC2017 emission factors in order to derive vehicle emissions associated with on-road vehicle activities, which vary by season.
The Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the MDAQMD for emissions of NOX and PM10. This impact would be potentially significant without mitigation.
Mitigation measures are required to minimize operational-related air quality impacts (MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6).
The majority of the Project’s NOX and PM10 emissions are derived from vehicle usage, which n either the Project Applicant nor the City can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile source emissions beyond what is already required. Nonetheless, MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would be implemented to reduce emissions of NOX and PM10. While MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce Project-generated operational criteria air pollutant emissions, the associated emission reductions cannot be accurately quantified at this time; therefore, em issions of NOX and PM10 would still exceed the MDAQMD thresholds with implementation of mitigation. Furthermore, no feasible mitigation measures or project design features beyond those already identified exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, even with the incorporation of mitigation, long - term impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non-attainment would be significant and unavoidable.
Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction of the Project would result in emissions that would not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Operation of the Project, however, would result in emissions that would exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants including NOx and PM10, even after implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6.
Under the heading Pollutants and Effects, health effects associated with O 3 include respiratory symptoms, worsening of lung disease leading to premature death, and damage to lung tissue (CARB 2019a). NOx is a precursor to O3, for which the MDAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The contribution of NOx to regional ambient O 3 concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increases in O 3 concentrations in the MDAB due to O 3 precursor emissions tend to be found downwind of the source location because of the time required for the photochemical reactions to occur. Further, the potential for exacerbating excessive O3 concentrations would also depend on the time of year that the VOC emissions would occur, because exceedances of the O3 NAAQS and CAAQS tend to occur between April and October when solar radiation is highest.
Due to the lack of quantitative methods to assess this complex photochemistry, the holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O3 precursors is speculative. That being said, because the Project would exceed the MDAQMD NOx thresholds during Project operations, the Project could contribute to health effects associated with O3.
Health effects associated with NOx and NO2 include lung irritation and enhanced allergic responses (CARB 2019b).
Although Project-related NOx emissions would exceed the MDAQMD construction mass daily thresholds, because the MDAB is a designated attainment area for NO 2 (and NO 2 is a constituent of NO x) and the existing NO 2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards, 1 it is not anticipated that the Project
1 Ambient concentrations of NO2 at the Victorville monitoring station have not exceeded the NAAQS or CAAQS between 2016 and 2018.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
9 November 2022
would cause an exceedance of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2 or result in potential health effects associated with NO2 and NO x. Nonetheless, because the Project would excee d the MDAQMD NO x threshold during Project operations, the Project could contribute to health effects associated with NOx and NO2.
Health effects associated with CO include chest pain in patients with heart disease, headache, light -headedness, and reduced mental alertness (CARB 2019 c). CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. The potential for CO hotspots is discussed under the subsequent impact criterion below and determined to be less than significant. Thus, the Project’s CO emissions would not contribute to significant health effects associated with CO.
Health effects associated with PM10 include premature death and hospitalization, primarily for worsening of respiratory disease (CARB 2017). Operation of the Project would exceed the MDAQMD threshold for PM10. As such, the Project would potentially contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for particulate matter and obstruct the MDAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants. Because the Project has the potential to contribute substantial particulate matter during operation, the Project could result in associated health effects.
The California Supreme Court’s Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502 decision (referred to herein as the Friant Ranch decision) (issued on December 24, 2018), addresses the need to correlate mass emission values for criteria air pollutants to specific health consequences, and contains the following direction from the California Supreme Court: “The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must provide an adequate analysis to inform the public how its bare numbers translate to create potential adverse impacts or it must explain what the agency does know and why, given existing scientific constraints, it cannot translate potential health impacts further” (Italics original). Currently, MDAQMD, CARB, and EPA have not approved a quantitative method to reliably, meaningfully, and consistently translate the mass emissi on estimates for the criteria air pollutants resulting from the Project to specific health effects. In addition, there are numerous scientific and technological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days.
In connection with the judicial proceedings culminating in issuance of the Friant Ranch decision, the SCAQMD and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) filed amicus briefs attesting to the extreme difficulty of correlating an individual project’s criteria air pollutant emissions to specific health impacts. Both the SJVAPCD and the SCAQMD have among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capabilities of the air districts in the state. The key, relevant points from the SCAQMD and SJVAPCD briefs is summarized herein.
In requiring a health impact type of analysis for criteria air pollutants, it is important to understand how O3 and PM is formed, dispersed and regulated. The formation of O3 and PM in the atmosphere, as secondary pollutants,2 involves complex chemical and physical interactions of multiple pollutants from natural and anthropogenic sources. The O3 reaction is self-perpetuating (or catalytic) in the presence of sunlight because NO 2 is photochemically reformed from nitric oxide (NO). In this way, O 3 is controlled by both NO x and VOC emissions (NRC 2005). The complexity of these interacting cycles of pollutants means that incremental decreases in one emission may not result in proportional decreases in O3 (NRC 2005). Although these reactions and interactions are well understood, variability in emission source operations and meteorology creates uncertainty in the modele d O 3 concentrations to which downwind populations may be exposed (NRC 2005). Once formed, O3 can be transported long distances by wind and due to atmospheric transport, contributions of precursors from the surrounding region can also be important (EPA 2008).
Because of the complexity of O3 formation, a specific tonnage amount of VOCs or NOX emitted in a particular area
2 Air pollutants formed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere are referred to as secondary pollutants.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
10 November 2022
does not equate to a particular concentration of O 3 in that area (SJVAPCD 2015). PM can be divided into two categories: directly emitted PM and secondary PM. Secondary PM, like O3, is formed via complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere between precursor chemicals such as SOx and NOx (SJVAPCD 2015). Because of the complexity of secondary PM formation, including the potential to be transport ed long distances by wind, the tonnage of PM - forming precursor emissions in an area does not necessarily result in an equivalent concentration of secondary PM in that area (SJVAPCD 2015). This is especially true for individual projects, like the Project, where Project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions are not derived from a single "point source," but from construction equipment and mobile sources (passenger cars and trucks) driving to, from and around the Project site.
Another important technical nuance is that health effects from air pollutants are related to the concentration of the air pollutant that an individual is exposed to, not necessarily the individual mass quantity of emissions associated with an individual project. For example, health effects from O3 are correlated with increases in the ambient level of O3 in the air a person breathes (SCAQMD 2015). However, it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over an entire region (SCAQMD 2015). The lack of link between the tonnage of precursor pollutants and the concentration of O 3 and PM2.5 formed is important because it is not necessarily the tonnage of precursor pollutants that causes human health effects; rather, it is the concentration of resulting O 3 that causes these effects (SJVAPCD 2015). Indeed, the ambient air quality standards, which are statutorily required to be set by EPA at levels that are requisite to protect the public health, are established as concentrations of O3 and PM2.5 and not as tonnages of their precursor pollutants (EPA 2018b). Because the ambient air quality standards are focused on achieving a particular concentration region -wide, the tools and plans for attaining the ambient air quality standards are regional in nature. For CEQA analyses, project-generated emissions are typically estimated in pounds per day or tons per year and compared to mass daily or annual emission thresholds. While CEQA thresholds are established at levels that the air basin can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS, even if a project exceeds established CEQA significance thresholds, this does not mean that one can easily determine the concentration of O3 or PM that will be created at or near the project site on a particular day or month of the year, or what specific health impacts will occur (SJVAPCD 2015).
In regard to regional concentrations and air basin attainment, the SJVAPCD emphasized that attempting to identify a change in background pollutant concentrations that can be attributed to a single project, even one as large as the entire Friant Ranch Specific Plan, is a theoretical exercise. The SJVAPCD brief noted that it “would be extremely difficult to model the impact on NAAQS attainment that the emissions from the Friant Ranch project may have” (SJVAPCD 2015). The situation is further complicated by the fact that background concentrations of regional pollutants are not uniform either temporally or geographically throughout an air basin, but are constantly fluctuating based upon meteorology and other environmental factors. SJVAPCD noted that the currently available modeling tools are equipped to model the impact of all emission sources in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin on attainment (SJVAPCD 2015). The SJVAPCD brief then indicated that, “Running the photochemical grid model used for predicting O3 attainment with the emissions solely from the Friant Ranch project (which equate to less than one-tenth of one percent of the total NOx and VOC in the Valley) is not likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved” (SJVAPCD 2015).
SCAQMD and SJVAPCD have indicated that it is not feasible to quantify project -level health impacts based on existing modeling (SCAQMD 2015; SJVAPCD 2015). Even if a m etric could be calculated, it would not be reliable because the models are equipped to model the impact of all emission sources in an air basin on attainment and would likely not yield valid information or a measurable increase in O 3 concentrations sufficient to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts for an individual project.
Nonetheless, following the Supreme Court’s Friant Ranch decision, some EIRs where estimated criteria air pollutant emissions exceeded applicable air district thresholds have included a quantitative analysis of potential project-generated
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
11 November 2022
health effects using a combination of a regional photochemical grid model (PGM)3 and the EPA Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP or BenMAP–Community Edition [CE]).4 The publicly available health impact assessments (HIAs) typically present results in terms of an increase in health incidences and/or the increase in background health incidence for various health outcomes resulting from the project’s estimated increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5.5 To date, the five publicly available HIAs reviewed have concluded that the evaluated project’s health effects associated with the estimated project-generated increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5 represent a small increase in incidences and a very small percentage of the number of background incidences, indicating that these health impacts are negligible and potentially within the models’ margin of error. It is also important to note that while the results of the five available HIAs conclude that the project emissions do not result in a substantial increase in health incidences, the estimated emissions and assumed toxicity is also conservatively inputted into the HIA and thus, overestimate health incidences, particularly for PM2.5.
As explained in the SJVAPCD brief and noted previously, running the PGM used for predicting O3 attainment with the emissions solely from an individual project like the Friant Ranch project or the Project is not likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved. The five examples reviewed support the SJVAPCD’s brief contention that consistent, reliable, and meaningful results may not be provided by methods applied at this time. Accordingly, additional work in the industry and more importantly, air district participation, is needed to develop a more meaningful analysis to correlate project- level mass criteria air pollutant emissions and health effects for decision makers and the public. Furthermore, at the time of writing, no HIA has concluded that health effects estimated using the PGM and BenMAP approach are substantial provided that the estimated project-generated incidences represent a very small percentage of the number of background incidences, potentially within the models’ margin of error.
In summary, operation of the Project could result in exceedances of the MDAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM 10, and the Project would potentially result in health effects associated with those pollutants. Because construction of the Project would not exceed any MDAQMD thresholds , and operation of the Project would not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for CO, SO x or PM2.5, and because the MDAQMD thresholds are based on levels that the MDAB can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS and the AAQS are established to protect public health and welfare, the Project is not anticipated to result in health effects associated with CO, SOx or PM2.5.
Notably, there are numerous scientific and techn ological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days, and methods available to quantitatively evaluate health effects may not be appropriate to apply to emissions
3 The first step in the publicly available HIAs includes running a regional PGM, such as the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model or the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) to estimate the increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5 as a result of project-generated emissions of criteria and precursor pollutants. Air districts use photochemical air quality models for regional air quality planning. These photochemical models are large -scale air quality models that simulate the changes of pollutant concentrations in the atmosph ere using a set of mathematical equations characterizing the chemical and physical processes in the atmosphere (EPA 2017).
4 After estimating the increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5, the second step in the five examples includes use of BenMAP or BenMAP-CE to estimate the resulting associated health effects. BenMAP estimates the number of health incidences resulting from changes in air pollution concentrations (EPA 2018a). The health impact function in BenMAP-CE incorporates four key sources of data: (i) modeled or monitored air quality changes, (ii) population, (iii) baseline incidence rates, and (iv) an effect estimate. A ll of the five example HIAs focused on O3 and PM2.5.
5 The following CEQA documents included a quantitative HIA to address Friant Ranch: (1) California State University Dominguez Hills 2018 Campus Master Plan EIR (CSUDH 2019), (2) March Joint Powers Association K4 Warehouse and Cactus Channel Improvements EIR (March JPA 2019), (3) Mineta San Jose Airport Amendment to the Airport Mas ter Plan EIR (City of San Jose 2019), (4) City of Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center Project EIR (City of Inglewood 2019), and (5) San Diego Stat e University Mission Valley Campus Master Plan EIR (SDSU 2019).
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
12 November 2022
associated with the Project, which cannot be estimated with a high -level of accuracy. Notwithstanding, because operation of the Project could result in exceedances of MDAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10, even after implementation of MM -AQ-1 through MM -AQ-6, the potential health effects associated with criteria air pollutants are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions and Associated Pollutant Concentrations As discussed above, because operation of the Project could result in exceedances of the MDAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10, the Project would potentially result in health effects associated with those pollutants.
Because construction of the Project would not exceed any MDAQMD thresholds (after implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6), and operation of the Project would not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for CO, SO x or PM2.5, and because the MDAQMD thresholds are based on levels that the MDAB can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS and the AAQS are established to protect public health and welfare, the Project is not anticipated to result in health effects associated with CO, SOx or PM2.5.
Notably, there are numerous scientific and technological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days, and methods available to quantitatively evaluate health effects may not be appropriate to apply to emissions associated with the Project, which cannot be estimated with a high -level of accuracy. Notwithstanding, because operation of the Project could result in exceedances of MDAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10, even after implementation of MM -AQ-1 through MM -AQ-6, the potential health effects associated with criteria air pollutants are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative Air Quality Impact
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the MDAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. Individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the MDAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the MDAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact.
The area of the MDAB in which the Project is located is a nonattainment area for O 3 and PM10 under the NAAQS and/or CAAQS. The poor air quality in the MDAB is the result of cumulative emissions from motor vehicles, off-road equipment, commercial and industrial facilities, and other emission sources. Projects that emit these pollutants or their precursors (i .e., VOC and NO x for O 3) potentially contribute to poor air quality. Daily construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the MDAQMD significance thresholds. However, as presented in the preceding discussion, Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would result in exceedances of regional thresholds for emissions of NOX and PM 10. It should be noted that the majority of the Project’s NOX and PM 10 emissions are derived from vehicle usage. Although MM -AQ-1 through MM -AQ-6 would reduce operational emissions from to the extent feasible, since neither the Project Applic ant nor the City of Hesperia have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible MMs exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
13 November 2022
less-than-significant. As such, Project operational -source NOX and PM 10 emissions exceeda nces of applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds would be significant and unavoidable, and thus, cumulatively considerable.
2.2.1.2 Mitigation Measures
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.
▪ 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 enga ged; and (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 ▪ 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 Applica nt during construction
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
14 November 2022
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. ▪ 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.
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.
MM-AQ-4 The Project shall implement the f ollowing measures in order to reduce construction air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
▪ 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 contrac ts with successful contractors. After either (1) the completion of grading or, (2) the completion of an electrical hookup at the site, whichever is
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
15 November 2022
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. 6 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 docu ments, 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. ▪ 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 acc ordance 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 su rface 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:
▪ Recommends the use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters;
6 For example, if a Tier 4 Final piece of equipment is not reasonably available at the time of construction and a lower tier equipment 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
16 November 2022
▪ 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 s urface 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.
2.2.1.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the proposed project’s air quality impact. Construction emissions would be below the MDAQMD’s regional thresholds. However, Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would result in exceedances of regional thresholds for emissions of NOx and PM 10, even after implementation of MM -AQ-1 through MM -AQ-6. As such, NOx and PM 10 emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. In addition, the project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to the potential to conflict with the MDAQMD’s thresholds, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (NOx and PM10), and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (VOC, NOx and PM10). Additionally, it should be noted that the majority of the Project’s NOX and PM10 emissions are derived from vehicle usage. Although MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible, since neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Hesperia have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible MMs exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less -than-significant. As such, Project operational-source NOX and PM 10 emissions exceedances of applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds would be significant and unavoidable, and thus, cumulatively considerable.
Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the Californ ia Public Resources Code, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, and the iden tified air quality impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Section 5).
2.2.1.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Air Quality Based on the impact analysis, the proposed project would result in significant operational NOx, and PM10 emission impacts. Implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce potential impacts from criteria air pollutants and project emissions. However, due to the size and type of the project, it is not feasible to implement mitigation measures to reduce the operational mobile source emissions. Various mitigation measures were considered, including land use strategies such as proximity to a transit stop; however, these strategies and MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 cannot be quantified due to the uncertainty. Thus, the project’s impacts related to potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the MDAQMD’s regional thresholds and the project operational NOx and PM 10 emissions would remain significant. In addition, the project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
17 November 2022
related to the potential to conflict with the MDAQMD regional thresholds, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants ( NOx and PM 10), and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (NOx and PM10).
2.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.2.2.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
For construction phase Project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. MDAQMD follows the SCAQMD recommendation in calculating the total GHG emissions for construction activities by amortizing the emissions over the life of the Project by dividing it by a 30-year Project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30 -year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions.
Total estimated GHG emissions generated during construction of the Project is approximately 3,054.77 MT CO2e.
Estimated Project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 101.83 MT CO2e per year.
Long-term operations of the Project would result in GHG emissions through mobile sources and on-site equipment, area sources (landscape maintenance equipment); energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the Project); generation of electricity associated with wastewater treatment and with water supply, treatment, and distribution; and solid waste disposal. Annual GHG emissions from these sources were estimated using CalEEMod.
To effectively analyze operational GHG emissions as sociated with the Project, two scenarios were modeled. The first scenario represents Project emissions under a without regulatory measures and PDFs (shown as “unmitigated” emissions in CalEEMod), which estimates Project emissions absent federal, state, and local measures and without Project features intended to reduce GHG emissions upon Project buildout. The second scenario (shown as “mitigated” emissions in CalEEMod) represents Project emissions with implementation of applicable federal, state, and local GHG reduction measures and Project features. Without accounting for applicable regulatory requirements and PDFs, the Project would result in approximately 32,920.52 MT CO2e per year.
The Project would be required to comply with all mandates imposed by the State of California and the MDAQMD. Those measures that are applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of GHG emissions are as follows:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).
• Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375). • Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction.
• Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances.
• Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
18 November 2022
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. • Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions.
• Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 % by 2010 and 33% by 2020. • SB 32. Requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 level s by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15.
In addition to the above regulatory measures, the Project would implement mitigation measures energy efficiency and sustainability, which are found below in Section 2.2.2.2, Project Design Features.
With applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures , the Project would result in approximately 28,263.95 MT CO2e per year, which would exceed the SCAQMD GHG threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year.
Therefore, the Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and this would represent a cumulatively potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures would be required that would reduce Project-generated construction and operational GHG emissions. As presented in Section 2.2.1, Air Quality, implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would also reduce GHG emissions. In addition, mitigation measures MM-GHG-1, requiring water conservation measures. MM-GHG-2, implementing solid waste reduction strategies, would be implemented to reduce GHG emissions generated during operation of the Project, and MM-GHG-3, funding of a GHG mitigation grants program, would result in reductions emissions outside of the Project. However, the effectiveness of all of the required mitigation measures cannot be accurately quantified at this time. Therefore, Project -generated GHG emissions would still exceed the applied threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year and impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative GHG Impacts
GHG emissions impacts are inherently cumulative in nature. The Project would result in GHG emissions in exceedance of the SCAQMD significance threshold. The Project would result in potentially significant impacts with regard to GHG emissions Implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce the Project’s GHG impacts; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
2.2.2.2 Mitigation Measures
Energy-saving and sust ainable design features and operational programs would be incorporated into facilities developed pursuant to the currently Project. The Project also incorporates and expresses the following project design features (PDFs) and attributes promoting energy eff iciency and sustainability. Because these features/attributes are integral to the Project, and/or are regulatory requirements, they are not considered to be mitigation measures.
• The Project will design building shells and building components, such as windows; roof systems: electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards which expects 30% less energy for non-residential buildings.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
19 November 2022
• To reduce water demands and associated energy use, subseq uent 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).7 • In order to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills, the Project would implement a 75% waste diversion.
2.2.2.3 Mitigation Measures
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.
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:
▪ 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.
2.2.2.4 Findings Per CEQA Guidelines
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions impact. The Project would result in GHG emissions in exceedance of the SCAQMD significance threshold even with implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 and MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-
3. However, the effectiveness of all the required mitigation measures cannot be accurately quantified at this time.
7 Reduction of 20% indoor and outdoor water usage is consistent with the current CALGreen Code performance standards for residential and non-residential land uses. Per CALGreen, the reduction shall be based on the maximum allowable water use per plumbing fixture and fittings as required by the California Building Standards Code.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
20 November 2022
Therefore, these impacts must be considered significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, and the identified greenhouse gas emission impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Section 5).
2.2.2.5 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Based on the impact analysis, the proposed project would result in significant greenhouse gas emission impacts.
Implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 and MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-3 would reduce potential impacts from greenhouse gas emissions. However, the effectiveness of the required mitigation measures cannot be accurately quantified at this time, therefore, greenhouse gas emission project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
2.2.3 Transportation
2.23.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Transportation Design Hazards
Queuing Analysis
A queuing analysis was performed for US Hwy 395 from Eucalyptus Street to Joshua Street to assess vehicle queues along the roadways. A queuing analysis was also performed for the off -ramps at the I -15 and Main Street interchange, as well as the southbound off -ramp at I -15 and Joshua Street to asses s vehicle queues for the off ramp that may potentially result in deficient peak hour operations at the ramp -to-arterial intersections and may potentially “spill back” onto the I -15 mainline. The queuing analysis was performed for the Existing plus Project, Opening Year (2024) plus Project, and Horizon Year (2040) plus Project conditions.
The Project was found to result in potentially significant impacts associated with increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature related to queuing. Improvement measures required to mitigate Project’s impact would include fair-share contribution to Intersections #1, #4, #8, #9, #13, #21, #22, and #23. Since the City does not have jurisdiction over some of these facilities, these improvements cannot be assumed to be in place prior to Project’s occupancy. Therefore, Project’s impact to increase in hazardous conditions (i.e. queuing) would be significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative Transportation Impacts
As discussed previously, the Project may increase a hazar dous condition due to queuing impacts at the intersections #1, #4, #8, #9, #13, #21, #22, and #23 under the Horizon Year (2040) plus Project analysis scenario.
Since the City does not have jurisdiction over these facilities, these improvements cannot be as sumed to be in place prior to Project’s occupancy. Therefore, Project’s impact to increase in hazardous conditions (e.g., queuing) would be significant and unavoidable, and thus, the Project could contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact associated with queuing and hazardous design features.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
21 November 2022
2.2.3.2 Mitigation Measures
Improvement measures were identified within the Project’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) to address hazards associated with queueing. However, in light of the City’s VMT Guidelines, which indicate that improvement measures are outside of the scope of CEQA, these measures were not identified as mitigation measures.
2.2.3.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
The City finds that the Project may increase a hazardous condition due to queuing impacts at various intersections that the City does not have jurisdiction over, therefore, these improvements cannot be assumed to be in place prior to Project’s occupancy. Therefore, the Project’s impact to increase in hazardous conditions (i.e. queuing) would be significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, and the identified transportation impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Section 5).
2.2.3.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Transportation Some intersection impacts remain significant and unavoidable because they are outside the City’ s control to implement mitigation. The Project may increase a hazardous condition due to queuing impacts at the intersections #1, #4, #8, #9, #13, #21, #22, and #23 under the Horizon Year (2040) plus Project analysis scenario. Since the City does not have jurisdiction over some of these facilities, these improvements cannot be assumed to be in place prior to Project’s occupancy.
Improvement measures are proposed to reduce potential transportation impacts, however, since implementation of the roadway improvements cannot be guaranteed by project opening or project build -out, improvements are rendered infeasible. The significance determinations are based on a conservative worst -case scenario whereby it is assumed that improvement measures for all significant impacts outside the control of the City are infeasible and therefore, the impacts are significant and unavoidable.
2.3 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
The following summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the Project identified in the Final EIR that would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
2.3.1 Aesthetics
2.3.1.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Aesthetics
Scenic Vistas
The Project would involve the construction of two industrial/warehouse buildings, surface parking and loading areas. While the Project site and the surrounding area contain some areas with undisturbed natural desert
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
22 November 2022
landscape, existing development (including commercial uses, trucking -related uses [i.e., truck stops], lodging accommodations, big-box retail developments, residential subdivisions, and major interstate highways) precludes the area from being an area with significant scenic value that could comprise a scenic vista.
Physical improvements proposed as part of the Project would be limited to the Project site and the immediate vicinity. Given that existing scenic resources are outside of the Project’s disturbance footprint and located between 4 and 10 miles away from the Project site, the Project would not result in any physical modifications to scenic resources that comprise a scenic vista.
A project could also have a pote ntial indirect impact on a scenic vista if it results in a significant loss of viewing opportunities from publicly available viewpoints. With the exception of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, scenic resources identified by the City’s General Plan that comprise scenic vistas are not visible in the vicinity of the Project site. Due to the relatively flat topography of the Project area, views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are available to viewer groups in the vicinity of the Project site, including motorists traveling on nearby highways and roads, as well as employees and visitors of the nearby commercial and light industrial areas. These viewers are provided intermittent background views of mountain ridgelines under optimal atmospheric conditions and when not obstructed by existing development in the area. Development of the Project’s proposed buildings would result in some obstruction of these views where they are currently available from publicly accessible areas when viewed across the Project site. However, the presence of existing development, major roadways, and other man-made elements (i.e., transmission lines, signage, and traffic and streetlights) lowers viewer expectations of unobstructed views and precludes the significance of views of the mountains from the Project vicinity. While views of these features would be restored as viewers move throughout the Project area, higher quality, less - obstructed views are available in the greater Project area as viewers move throughout and outside of the City (particularly for motorists traveling on I-15 and U.S. Highway 395).
Implementation of MM-AES-1 would require that Project buildings are designed such that building colors mimic the colors and tones found in the natural desert landscape. Implementation of this mitigation measure would soften the contrast of the proposed buildings with the surrounding desert terrain. The Project’s landscaping would also have a similar effect by providing natural elements throughout the Project site. Thus, Project structures would not result in a significant impact to scenic vistas, as the Project buildings would result in minor blockage of views, views would be restored as vi ewers move through the Project area; and existing intervening features within and surrounding the Project site detract from existing views through and beyond the Project site. Therefore, with incorporation of MM-AES-1, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant.
Conflicts with Applicable Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality California Public Resources Code Section 21071 defines an “urbanized area” as “an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or (2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.” The City’s population in 2019 was approximately 95,750 people (U.S. Census 2019). However, the City is bordered by the City of Victorville to the north, Town of Apple Valley to the east, unincorporated San Bernardino County land to the south, and the unincorporated community of Oak Hills to the west. The combined population of the City of Hesperia and any one of these adjacent Cities is over 100,000 persons. Thus, the Project site is considered to be within an urbanized area and the following analysis considers whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
23 November 2022
In an attempt to ensure that current and future development within the City is designed and constructed to conform to existing the visual character and quality, the City of Hesperia Development Code (Title 16 of the City’s Municipal Code) includes design standards related to building size, height, floor area ratio, and setbacks, as well as landscaping, signage, and other visual considerations. These design standards help adjacent land uses to be visually consistent with on e another and their surroundings, and reduces the potential for conflicting visual elements. More specific to the Project site, the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan sets forth development standards for the CIBP Zone and industrial development. The design specifications for the Project will be reviewed by the City for compliance with all applicable provisions set forth by the City’s Development Code and the Specific Plan. As part of the City’s development review process, the Project’s architect ural plans are reviewed by City staff and the Planning Commission to determine whether Project design conforms to the Development Code and Specific Plan, and promotes the visual character and quality of the surrounding area. The Project was found to be consistent with the development standards of the CIBP zone.
Additionally, due to the size and scale of industrial buildings, it is especially important to consider design to ensure compatibility with other parts of the community. Chapter 11 of the Specific Plan provides additional details regarding design standards and guidelines for industrial development. In accordance with the Specific Plan design guidelines, all setback areas would be landscaped, and building orientation, siting and entrances would be designed to minimize conflicts with the surrounding visual environment. For instance, landscaping and vegetation is incorporated into the site plan to provide visual screening and building facades would feature a complementary neutral color palette and a variety of building materials.
With implementation of MM-AES-1, building colors shall be reviewed to incorporate the colors and tones that match or complement the natural desert environment such that color contrasts with the surrounding environment would be minimized. Buildings would include materials such as concrete, metal, aluminum entry framing, and glass, and building elevations would include vertical and horizontal elements that would break up the overall massing of the buildings and provide visual.
The visual setting surrounding the Project site currently consists of a mix of developed and undeveloped areas.
Development in the area includes commercial uses, trucking-related uses [i.e., truck stops], lodging accommodations, big-box retail developments, residential subdivisions, public roadways and landscaping, and major interstate highways. Undeveloped areas consist of flat desert terrain with sparse vegetation. As a result, the Project site and surrounding area can be characterized as low density industrial and commercial development within a desert landscape setting. The Project would result in the development of vacant, undeveloped land with industrial buildings that would feature of contemporary architecture landscaping, and streetscape improvements that would assist in completing a cohesive ‘gateway’ corridor envisioned in the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. The Project would also eliminate the illegal uses currently occurring on site (trespassing and illegal dumping).
In summary, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and the Project would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding area. Therefore, compliance with the City’s Development Code and the Main Street Corridor Specific Plan design standards and guidelines, implementation of site specific landscaping, and with implementation of MM-AES-1, the Project would not conflict applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts related to visual character and quality would be less than significant.