Attachment 12 - Planning Commission Agenda — Hesperia City Council, January 17, 2023 (part 1 of 3)

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).

Page 21 ends

Page 2 of 9 ends

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

Page 22 ends

Page 3 of 9 ends

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.

Page 23 ends

Page 4 of 9 ends

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

Page 24 ends

Page 5 of 9 ends

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

Page 25 ends

Page 6 of 9 ends

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:

Page 26 ends

Page 7 of 9 ends

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

Page 27 ends

Page 8 of 9 ends

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.

Page 28 ends

Page 9 of 9 ends

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)

Page 29 ends

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

Page 30 ends

APPLICANT(S):

COVINGTON GROUP, INC.

FILE NO(S):

CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001,
TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 &
CUP21-00005
LOCATION:

APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 &
3064-581-01
PROPOSAL:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N

BUILDING 1 SITE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 1-A

Page 31 ends

APPLICANT(S):

COVINGTON GROUP, INC.

FILE NO(S):

CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001,
TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 &
CUP21-00005
LOCATION:

APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 &
3064-581-01
PROPOSAL:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N

BUILDING 2 SITE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 1-B

Page 32 ends

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

Page 33 ends

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

Page 34 ends

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

Page 35 ends

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

Page 36 ends

APPLICANT(S):

COVINGTON GROUP, INC.

FILE NO(S):

CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001,
TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 &
CUP21-00005
LOCATION:

APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 &
3064-581-01
PROPOSAL:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N

VIEW RENDERING-BUILDING 1
ATTACHMENT 5

Page 37 ends

APPLICANT(S):

COVINGTON GROUP, INC.

FILE NO(S):

CUP21-00004, SPLA21-00001,
TPM22-00010, DA22-00002 &
CUP21-00005
LOCATION:

APNs:
3064-601-07 & 3064-621-01 &
3064-581-01
PROPOSAL:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
N

VIEW RENDERING-BUILDING 2
ATTACHMENT 5-A

Page 38 ends

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

Page 39 ends

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

Page 40 ends

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

Page 41 ends

Resolution No. PC-2022-26

Page 2 ends

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

Page 42 ends

Resolution No. PC-2022-26

Page 3 ends

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.

Page 43 ends

Resolution No. PC-2022-26

Page 4 ends

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 8th day of December 2022.
_______________________________

_______________________________________

Roger Abreo, Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:

_______________________________________
Maricruz Montes, Secretary, Planning Commission

Page 44 ends

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

Page 45 ends

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Page 46 ends

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

Page 47 ends

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

Page 48 ends

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

Page 49 ends

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.

Page 50 ends

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.

Page 51 ends

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.

Page 52 ends

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.

Page 53 ends

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).

Page 54 ends

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.

Page 55 ends

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.

Page 56 ends

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.

Page 57 ends

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

Page 58 ends

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.

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).

Page 59 ends

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

Page 60 ends

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

Page 61 ends

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

Page 62 ends

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.

Page 63 ends

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

Page 64 ends

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.

Page 65 ends

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.

Page 66 ends

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.

Page 67 ends

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.

Page 68 ends

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

Page 69 ends

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.

Page 70 ends

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.

Page 71 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
24 November 2022
Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts
The Project is located within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan area, and thus, would be designed and constructed according to the design guidelines and standards outlined in the Specific Plan for the CI BP Zone and industrial development. These guidelines and standards aim to protect the Specific Plan area’s high desert setting and panoramic mountain views. All related projects located within the Specific Plan area would be subject to these design guidelines and standards, which include recommendations for the architectural character of new buildings to maximize views of the landscape while taking inspiration from surrounding natural elements.

The development and design standards provide the framework for the desired aesthetic and visual environment.

Other development projects in the area will incorporate development standards, design guidelines, and other strategies outlined in the Specific Plan. In addition, with implementation of MM -AES-1, the Project’s proposed 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 cumulative environment would be minimized. Thus, cumulative impacts relat ed to the visual quality and character of the Project area would not be cumulatively considerable, assuming that related Projects would implement the same mandatory design standards set forth in the Specific Plan to which the Project must adhere.

Related d evelopment in the Specific Plan area and surrounding areas would introduce new sources of light in a setting that includes large areas of undeveloped land. However, Project lighting would comply with existing requirements (i.e., lighting would be directed downward, shielded, and focused on the Project site) to ensure lighting has a minimal effect on the overall night sky and reduce the potential for glare. Other projects located throughout the Specific Plan area would similarly be required to comply with th ese regulations. Therefore, compliance with these regulations would ensure that lighting and glare impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

2.3.1.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-AES-1 Project buildings and elements shall include colors and tones that mimic the natural desert environment. The Project applicant shall present to the City of Hesperia a materials board showing the proposed building color palette for review and appr oval prior to issuance of the first building permit. City staff shall review the color palette to ensure that the selected colors and tones largely conform to those colors and tones already found in the surrounding natural desert landscape. The color palet te, along with the Project design as a whole, shall also be reviewed to assure conformance with the development standards of the Hesperia Municipal Code and the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan in order to promote the visual character and qua lity of the surrounding area.

2.3.1.3 Findings Per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.3.1.1. This feasible measure, MM-AES-1, is described in Section 2.3.1.2.

The City finds that this mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the potential aesthetics impacts of the proposed project to less -than-significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section

Page 72 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
25 November 2022
21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guideli nes Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant aesthetics‐related impacts of the proposed project identified in the Final EIR.

2.3.1.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Aesthetics The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the proposed project’s aesthetics impact. Potential impacts to scenic vistas and cumulative aesthetics would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM-AES-1. Furthermore, the Project’s conflicts with regulations governing scenic quality would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of MM-AES-1.

2.3.3 Biological Resources

2.3.3.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species
The following section evaluates the Project’s effects on plant and wildlife species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Special-Status Plant Species
Direct Impacts
No non-listed special-status plant species were observed or have high or moderate potential to occur within the BSA; therefore, the Project would have no direct or indirect impacts to non -listed special-status plant species.

Western Joshua tree, a candidate for state listing under CESA, was observed and would be directly impacted by the Project. Based on the site plan, implementation of the Project would result in direct impacts to 56 western Joshua tree individuals. All ground -disturbing activities, even areas temporarily impacted, are considered permanent impacts to western Joshua trees.

As required by MM-BIO-1, mitigation for direct impacts to 56 western Joshua trees will be fulfilled through conservation of Western Joshua tree through purchase of credits at a CDFW -approved mitigation bank or other conservation mechanism approved by the City of Hesperia and CDFW. Additionally, as required by MM-BIO-1 and in accordance with Chapter 16.24 of the Hesperia Municipal Code, the preparation of a Joshua tree and desert native plants relocation plan is required to mitigate impacts to western Joshua trees as a result of the Project. As such, a Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan, and California Desert Native Plant Relocation Plan was prepared to provide detailed specifications for the Project Applicant to meet the requirements of Chapter 16.24 of the Hesperia Municipal Code to protect, preserve, and mitigate impacts to Joshua trees.

Indirect Impacts
Construction-related indirect impacts may include inadvertent spillover impacts outside of the construction footprint, dust accumulation on western Joshua tree individuals , chemical spills, stormwater erosion and sedimentation, and increased wildfire risk. Indirect impacts to western Joshua tree individuals are considered significant absent mitigation.

Page 73 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
26 November 2022
Implementation of MM-BIO-3 gives the Project’s Designated Biologist the authority to stop work if construction is not compliant with this EIR. MM-BIO-4 requires that an experienced biologist oversee compliance with the protective measures, including limiting impacts to the Project impact footprint. MM-BIO-5 would provide construction personnel with training related to western Joshua trees that are present on and adjacent to the impact footprint.

MM-BIO-6 provides for documentation that the education program was administered to applicable personnel. MM- BIO-7 requires that impacts occur within the fenced, staked, or flagged area that is clearly delineated within the Project impact footprint. The construction crew will be responsible for unauthorized impacts from construction activities to western Joshua trees that are outside the permitted Project footprint. Thus, implementation of MM- BIO- 3 through MM-BIO-7 will enable the Project to avoid and minimize inadvertent spillover impacts outside of the approved impact footprint.

To reduce fugitive dust resulting from Project construction and to minimize adverse air quality impacts, the Project would employ dust mitigation measures in accordance with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District’s Rules 401 and 403.2, which limit the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction.

MM-BIO-8 would ensure that a prompt and effective response to any accidental chemical spills will be implemented and that repair and clean-up of any hazardous waste occurs. Thus, implementation of MM-BIO-8 would help to avoid and minimize impacts to western Joshua tree from any construction-related chemical spills.

A stormwater pollution prevention plan would be prepared and implemented to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater during construction activities, with the intent of keeping sediment and any other pollutants from moving off site and into receiving waters. Best management practice categories employed on site would include erosion control, sediment control, and non -stormwater good housekeeping. Preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan would help to avoid and minimize the potential effects of stormwater erosion during construction.

Construction of the Project would introduce potential ignition sources to the Project site, including the use of heavy machinery and the potential for sparks during welding activities or other hot work. However, the Project would be required to comply with City of Hesperia and state requirements for fire safety practices to reduce the possibility of fires during construction activities. Further, vegetation would be removed from the site prior to the start of construction. Adherence to City of Hesperia and state regulatory standards during Project construction would reduce the risk of wildfire ignition and spread during construction activities. Therefore, sh ort-term construction impacts involving wildland fires would not be substantial.

Potential long-term (post-construction) indirect impacts from operations and maintenance activities may include effects of herbicides, changes in water quality, increased wildfire risk, and accidental chemical spills.

MM-BIO-9 would limit herbicide use to instances where hand or mechanical efforts are infeasible and would only be applied when wind speeds are less than 7 miles per hour to prevent drift into off-site western Joshua trees.

Implementation of low-impact-development features and best management practices (BMPs) would, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters, including inadvertent release of pollutants (e.g., hydraulic fluids and petroleum); the improper management of hazardous materials; trash and debris; and the improper management of portable restroom facilities (e.g., regular service) in accordance with all relevant local and state development standards. In addition, in accordance with CalGreen requirements (California Green Building Standards Code; 24 CCR, Part 11), Project source controls to improve water quality would be provided for outdoor material storage

Page 74 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
27 November 2022
areas, outdoor trash storage/waste handling areas, and outdoor loading/unloading areas. Therefore, impacts to western Joshua trees due to changes in water quality would be avoided and minimized through implementation of low-impact- development features and BMPs.

Upon completion of Project construction, with adherence to the City of Hesperia’s Municipal Code and because of the low ignitability of the proposed structures and implementation of fire -resistant and irrigated landscaping, the Project would not facilitate wildfire spread or exacerbate wildfire risk. Further, given that surrounding off-site fuels consist of moderately spaced vegetation, wildfires in the immediate surrounding area are not common, and it is unlikely that the Project site would be exposed to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. It is not anticipated that the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would exacerbate wildfire risks or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire; thus, with adherence to the City of Hesperia’s Municipal Code, long -term indirect impacts to western Joshua tree associated with increased wildlife risk is not expected to occur.

Special-Status Wildlife
Direct Impacts
The Project site could support two special-status wildlife species: burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike.

Burrowing owl was not observed on the Project site or BSA; however, suitable habitat exists on site, and the species could eventually occupy the Project site or BSA prior to construction.

Burrowing Owl
The Project would result in the loss of 92.63 acres of suitable habitat for burrowing owl, including impacts to California juniper woodland, Joshua tree woodland, and non-native grassland. These potential direct impacts to burrowing owls are considered significant absent mitigation.

Pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA, a pre ‐construction survey in compliance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) would be necessary to reevaluate the locations of potential burrowing owl burrows located within the Project limits so take of owls or active owl nests can be avoided. Consistent with MM-BIO-10, a pre -construction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted in areas supporting potentially suitable habitat and within 14 days prior to the start of construction activities. A Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan has been prepared to facilitate implementation of this mitigation measure and is attached as part of Appendix C.

As required by MM-BIO-1, mitigation for direct impacts to western Joshua trees will be fulfilled through purchase of credits at a CDFW -approved mitigation bank or other conservation mechanism approved by the City of Hesperia and CDFW. Conservation efforts for western Joshua tree associated with the Western Joshua Tree Mitigation Fund will focus on the conservation of large, interconnected Joshua tree woodlands on lands where edge effects are limited, versus lands in urban settings that are subject to habitat fragmentation and edge effects, such as the Project site. Thus, mitigation for impacts to weste rn Joshua tree will also mitigate for impacts to loss of suitable habitat for burrowing owl.

The loggerhead shrike is a CDFW Species of Special Concern during its nesting period. It can be found in lowlands and foothills throughout California. It prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches. Highest density occurs in open-canopied valley foothill hardwood, valley foothill hardwood-conifer, valley foothill riparian, pinyon-juniper, juniper, desert riparian, and western Joshua tree habitats. Loggerhead shrike

Page 75 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
28 November 2022
was not observed during the biological surveys, but has a moderate potential to occur on the Project site and BSA.

Extensive suitable nesting habitat, particularly near western Joshua trees, is present within the Project site and off- site utilities alignments.

Also, the Project would result in the loss of 21.81 acres of suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike, including impacts to California juniper woodland, and Joshua tree woodland. These potential direct impacts to loggerhead shrike are considered significant absent mitigation.

Loggerhead Shrike
To avoid potential impacts to nesting loggerhead shrike, it is recommended that the vegetation removal activities be conducted outside the general bird nest ing season ( February 1 through August 31). If vegetation cannot be removed outside the bird nesting season, a pre‐construction nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist is required prior to vegetation removal. This requirement is outlined in MM-BIO-13.

As required by MM-BIO-1, mitigation for direct impacts to western Joshua trees will be fulfilled through purchase of credits at a CDFW -approved mitigation bank or other conservation mechanism approved by the City of Hesperia and CDFW. Conservation efforts for western Joshua tree associated with the Western Joshua Tree Mitigation Fund will focus on the conservation of large, interconnected Joshua tree woodlands on lands where edge effects are limited, versus lands in urban settings that are subject to habita t fragmentation and edge effects, such as the Project site. Thus, mitigation for impacts to western Joshua tree will also mitigate for impacts to loss of suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike.

American Badger and Desert Kit Fox
No desert kit fox or American badger individuals (or sign) were observed during desert tortoise or Mohave ground squirrel surveys or incidentally observed during oth er focused surveys conducted within the BSA . In addition, no suitable habitat exists on site. Disturbances from human presence and fragmentation from surrounding roadways, including off-highway vehicle use and illegal waste dumping within the Project site and BSA has had a negative effect on habitat quality for these species. However, albeit unlikely, these species could eventually occupy the Project site or BSA prior to construction; therefore, potential direct impacts to American badger and desert kit fox are considered significant absent mitigation,
To avoid potential impacts to American badger and desert kit fox , it is recommended that a desert kit fox and American badger mitigation and monitoring plan be developed. As such, in an abundance of caution and to ensure that potential impacts to these species are less than significant, the Project Applicant shall prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan that addresses desert kit fox and American badger if either species is determined to occur on the Project s ite prior to the start of construction, pursuant to MM-BIO-14. With the incorporation of mitigation, impacts associated with desert kit fox and American badger would be less than significant.

Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
Similar to most other sites containing trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, the Project site contains opportunities for birds of prey (raptors) and other avian species to nest on site. Native nesting bird species with potential to occur within the Project site are protected by Califo rnia Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5, and by the federal MBTA (16 USC 703 –711). In particular, Section 3503 provides that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the active nests or eggs of any bird in California; Section 3503.5 protects all raptors and their

Page 76 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
29 November 2022
eggs and active nests; and the MBTA prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of native migratory bird species throughout the United States. Recently, the Department of Interior ruled that the MBTA should apply only to “affirmative actions that have as their purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs” and will not be applied to incidental take of migratory birds pursuant to otherwise lawful activities However, that ruling is now under review as a revision to the MBTA that would include prohibitions to incidental take has recently been proposed. Therefore, impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors would be considered significant absent mitigation.

Indirect Impacts
During construction activities, indirect effects to sensitive wildlife could include construction -related d ust, soil erosion, and water runoff decreasing or permanently altering habitat suitability. In the absence of BMPs, construction-related minimization measures to control dust, erosion, and runoff; and compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatio n System requirements, indirect impacts to on -site riparian resources and upland communities could occur. However, standard construction BMPs to control dust, erosion, and runoff, including straw bales and silt fencing, would be implemented to minimize these adverse effects.

Burrowing Owl
Construction activities have the potential to result in indirect impacts to burrowing owls and their habitat. Those impacts could include dust, noise and vibration, trash and debris, increased human presence, vehicle colli sions, chemical spills, and night-time lighting. These potential short-term or temporary indirect impacts to burrowing owls are considered significant absent mitigation.

MM-BIO-10 would require burrowing owl surveys and result in establishment of construc tion buffers around any burrowing owl burrows found, thus limiting effects from most short -term indirect impacts, including noise and vibration, increased human presence, night-time lighting, and vehicle collisions. MM-BIO-11 would require night-time lighting during construction within 50 feet of habitat for special-status species to be shielded downward. Additionally, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5, and MM-BIO-6 would require that all workers complete a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training and would require ongoing biological monitoring and compliance with all biological resource mitigation requirements. MM-BI0-12 would require trash and debris to be removed regularly and would require animal-resistant trash receptacles to avoid attracting urban-related, predator species. MM-BIO-8 would ensure that a prompt and effective response to any accidental chemical spills will be implemented and that repair and clean-up of any hazardous waste occurs. To reduce fugitive dust resulting from Project construction and to minimize adverse air quality impacts, the Project would employ dust mitigation measures in accordance with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District’s Rules 401 and 403.2, which limit the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction.

Potential long-term indirect impacts that could result from development within or adjacent to burrowing owl habitat include nighttime lighting and increased invasive plant species that may degrade habitat. MM-BIO-11 would require night-time lighting during operations within 50 feet of habitat for special-status species to be shielded downward.

Loggerhead Shrike
Construction activities have the potential to result in indirect impacts to loggerhead shrike and their habitat. Those impacts could include dust, noise and vibration, increased human presence, vehicle collisions, chemical spills, and

Page 77 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
30 November 2022
night-time lighting. These potential short -term or temporary indirect impacts to loggerhead shrike are considered significant absent mitigation.

MM-BIO-13 would require nesting bird surveys and would result in establishment of construction buffers around nests, thus limiting effects from most short-term indirect impacts, including noise and vibration, increased human presence, night -time lighting, and vehicle collisions. MM -BIO-11 would require night -time lighting during construction within 50 feet of habitat for special -status species to be shielded downward. MM -BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5, and MM -BIO-6 would require that all workers complete a WEAP training an d would require ongoing biological monitoring and compliance with all biological resource mitigation requirements. MM-BIO-8 would ensure that a prompt and effective response to any accidental chemical spills will be implemented and that repair and clean-up of any hazardous waste occurs. To reduce fugitive dust resulting from project construction and to minimize adverse air quality impacts, the Project would employ dust mitigation measures in accordance with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District’s Rules 401 and 403.2, which limit the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction.

Potential long-term indirect impacts that could result from development within or adjacent to loggerhead shrike habitat include nighttime lighting and increased invasive plant species that may degrade habitat. MM-BIO-11 would require night-time lighting during operations within 50 feet of habitat for special-status species to be shielded downward.

American Badger and Desert Kit Fox
Construction activities have the potential to result in indirect impacts to American badger and desert kit fox, and their habitats. Those impacts could include dust, noise and vibration, trash and debris, increased human presence, vehicle collisions, chemical spills, and night-time lighting. These potential short-term or temporary indirect impacts to these species are considered significant absent mitigation.

MM-BIO-14 would require a pre-construction survey for American badger and desert kit fox and if determined present, would result in establishment of an American badger/desert kit fox mitigation and monitoring plan, which shall include avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential impacts to either species, as well as compensatory mitigation to offset indirect impacts including noise and vibration, increased human presence, night-time lighting, and vehicle collisions. MM-BIO-11 would require night-time lighting during construction within 50 feet of habitat for special-status species to be shielded downward. MM -BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5, and MM -BIO-6 would require that all workers complete a WEAP training and would require ongoing biological monitoring and compliance with all biological resource mitigation requirements. MM-BIO-8 would ensure that a prompt and effective response to any accidental chemical spills will be implemented and that repair and clean-up of any hazardous waste occurs. To reduce fugitive dust resulting from Project construction and to minimize adverse air quality impacts, the Project would employ dust mitigation measures in accordance with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District’s Rules 401 and 403.2, which limit the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction.

Potential long-term indirect impacts that could result from development within or adjacent to the BSA include nighttime lighting and increased invasive plant species that may degrade habitat. MM-BIO-11 would require night-time lighting during operations within 50 feet of habitat for special-status species to be shielded downward.

Page 78 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
31 November 2022
MM- BIO-13 (Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance), would reduce potential indirect impacts to American badger and desert kit fox to less than significant.

Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
Construction activities have the potential to result in indirect impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors, and their habitats. Those impacts could include the loss of a nest through increased dust, noise and vibration, increased human presence, and night-time lighting. These potential short-term or temporary indirect impacts to these species are considered significant absent mitigation.

To ensure compliance with the California Fish and Game Code and MBTA and to avoid potential indirect impacts to nesting birds, it is recommended that the vegetation removal activities be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31, depending on t he species), and if vegetation cannot be removed outside the bird nesting season, a pre ‐construction nesting bird survey (MM-BIO-13) by a qualified biologist is required prior to vegetation removal. Indirect impacts including increased dust, noise and vibr ation, increased human presence, and night-time lighting, will be offset through implementation of MM-BIO-11, which would require night-time lighting to be shielded downward during construction within 50 feet of habitat for special-status species.

MM- BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5, and MM-BIO-6 would require that all workers complete a WEAP training and would require ongoing biological monitoring and compliance with all biological resource mitigation requirements. To reduce fugitive dust resulting from Project construction and to minimize adverse air quality impacts, the Project would employ dust mitigation measures in accordance with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District’s Rules 401 and 403.2, which limit the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction.

Implementation of MM-BIO-3, (Designated Biologist Authority), MM-BIO-4 (Compliance Monitoring), MM-BIO-5 (Education Program), MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook), MM-BIO-11 (Lighting), and MM-BIO-13 (Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance), would reduce potential indirect impacts to American badger and desert kit fox to less than significant.

Adverse Impact on Riparian Habitat/Sensitive Natural Communities Joshua tree woodland is a sensitive CDFW natural community. As described above, western Joshua trees are also protected under CESA as a candidate species.

Direct Impacts
A total of 115.09 acres, including 96.0 5-acres within the Project site and 19.09 -acres within the Off -Site Areas, would be permanently impacted from the Project. Joshua tree woodland is considered a sensitive biological resource by CDFW under CEQA.

All ground-disturbing activities, even areas temporarily impacted, are considered permanent impacts to Joshua tree woodland. The Project will result in permanent impacts to 19.17 acres of Joshua tree woodland, which would be considered a significant impact under CEQA absent mitigation.

The Project would also result in permanent impacts to 99.27 acres of vegetation communities and land cover types that are not considered sensitive by CDFW, including black mustard scrub, rubber rabbitbrush scru b, California juniper woodland, disturbed habitat, non -native grassland, and urban/developed lands. Therefore , these direct impacts are considered less than significant under CEQA.

Page 79 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
32 November 2022
Mitigation for impacts to 19.17 acres of Joshua tree woodland will also mitigate for impacts to western Joshua tree individuals. As required by MM-BIO-1, mitigation for direct impacts to 19.17 acres of Joshua tree woodland will be fulfilled through purchase of credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank or other conservation mechanism approved by the City of Hesperia and CDFW. Conservation efforts for western Joshua tree associated with the Western Joshua Tree Mitigation Fund will focus on the conservation of large, interconnected Joshua tree woodlands on lands where edge effects are limited, versus lands in urban settings that are subject to habitat fragmentation and edge effects, such as the Project site. Thus, mitigation for impacts to western Joshua tree will also mitigate for impacts to Joshua tree woodland.

Additionally, as required by MM-BIO-2 and in accordance with Chapter 16.24 of the Hesperia Municipal Code, the preparation of a western Joshua tree and desert native plants relocation plan is required to mitigate impacts to western Joshua trees as a result of the Project. As such, a Joshua Tree Preservation, Prot ection, and Relocation Plan (Appendix C) was prepared for Project to provide detailed specifications for the Project Applicant to meet the requirements of Chapter 16.24 of the Hesperia Municipal Code to protect, preserve, and mitigate impacts to Joshua trees. Thus, mitigation for impacts to western Joshua tree will also mitigate for impacts to Joshua tree woodland.

Indirect Impacts
Construction-related indirect impacts may include inadvertent spillover impacts outside of the construction footprint, dust accumulation on Joshua tree woodland, chemical spills, stormwater erosion and sedimentation, and increased wildfire risk. Indirect impacts to Joshua woodland are considered significant absent mitigation.

Implementation of MM-BIO-1 (Western Joshua Tree Mitigation) and MM-BIO-2 (Relocation of Desert Native Plants), and adherence to both the CDNPA and the Hesperia Municipal Code, would reduce potential indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities (i.e., Joshua tree woodland).

State or Federally Protected Wetlands
Construction-related indirect impacts may include inadverte nt spillover impacts outside of the construction footprint, chemical spills, and stormwater erosion and sedimentation. These potential short -term or temporary indirect impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources are considered significant absent mitigation (Figure 4.3 -4, Impacts to Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources).

Implementation of MM-BIO-3 gives the Project’s Designated Biologist the authority to stop work if construction is not compliant with this EIR. MM -BIO-4 requires that an experienced biologist ov ersee compliance with the protective measures, including limiting impacts within the Project footprint. MM-BIO-5 would provide construction personnel with training related to waters of the state that are present on and adjacent to the impact footprint. MM-BIO-6 provides for documentation that the education program was administered to applicable personnel. MM -BIO-7 requires that impacts occur within the fenced, staked, or flagged area that is clearly delineated within the Project impact footprint.

The construction crew will be responsible for unauthorized impacts from construction activities to waters of the state that are outside the permitted project footprint. Thus, implementation of MM-BIO-3 through MM-BIO-7 will enable the Project to avoid and minimize inadvertent spillover impacts outside of the approved impact footprint.

MM-BIO-8 would ensure that a prompt and effective response to any accidental chemical spills will be implemented and that repair and clean-up of any hazardous waste occurs. Thus, implementation of MM-BIO-8 would help to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the state from any construction-related chemical spills.

Page 80 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
33 November 2022
pollutants from moving off site and into receiving waters. BMP categories employed on site would include erosion control, sediment control, and non -stormwater good housekeeping. Preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan would help to avoid and minimize the potential effects of stormwater erosion during construction.

Potential long-term (post-construction) indirect impacts from o perations and maintenance activities may include changes in water quality and accidental chemical spills.

Implementation of low-impact-development features and BMPs would, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters, including inadvertent release of pollutants (e.g., hydraulic fluids and petroleum); the improper management of hazardous materials; trash and debris; and the improper management of portable restroom facilities (e.g., regular service) in accordance with all relevant local and state development standards. In addition, in accordance with CalGreen requirements (California Green Building Standards Code; 24 CCR, Part 11), Project source controls to improve water quality would be provided for outdoor material storage areas, outdoor trash storage/waste handling areas, and outdoor loading/unloading areas.

Therefore, impacts to western Joshua trees due to changes in water quality would be avoided and minimized through implementation of low-impact-development features and BMPs.

MM-BIO-8 would ensure that a prompt and effective response to any accidental chemical spills will be implemented, and repair and clean -up of any hazardous waste occurs. Thus, implementation of MM-BIO-8 would help to avoid and minimize impacts to western Joshua tree from any operations-related chemical spills.

Conflict with Biological Resources Protection Policies and Ordinances In addition to western Joshua tree, one desert native plant species, western honey mesquite, was recorded on the BSA. One individual was documented within the BSA and would be directly impacted (Figure 4.3-3). Because the focused desert native plant survey was positive for western honey mesquite, and in accordance with the CDNPA and the Hesperia Municipal Code, Chapter 16.24, a native plant removal permit must be obtained from the City of Hesperia prior to the removal of western honey mesquite. Additionally, western honey mesquite is addressed in the Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan, and Desert Native Plant Relocation Plan (Appendix C), which provides detailed specifications for the Project Applicant to meet the requirements of Chapter 16.24 of the Hesperia Municipal Code to protect, preserve, and mitigate impacts to desert native plants.

Joshua Trees
In accordance with Chapter 16.24 of the Hesperia Municipal Code, the preparation of a western Joshua tree and desert native plants relocation plan is required to mitigate impacts to Joshua trees as a result of the Project. As such, a Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan , and Desert Native Plant Relocation Plan (Appendix C) was prepared for the Project to provide detailed specifications for the Project Applicant to meet the requirements of Chapter 16.24 of the Hesperia Municipal Code to protect, preserve, and mitigate impacts to western Joshua trees.

The Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan addresses the requirements of the City’s Protected Plant Policy and provides details for the initial survey of the Project site’s Joshua trees, detailed specifications for the protection of trees to be preserved o n site, and relocation/salvage requirements for those trees requiring removal and relocation.

Page 81 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
34 November 2022
Pursuant to MM-BIO-2, the Project Applicant shall submit an application and applicable fee paid to the City of Hesperia for removal or relocation of protected native desert plants under Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter 16.24.

The application shall include certification from a qualified Joshua tree and native desert plant expert(s) to determine that proposed removal or relocation of protected native desert plants ar e appropriate, supportive of a healthy environment, and in compliance with the City of Hesperia Municipal Code. The application will include the Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan, and Desert Native Plant Relocation Plan (Appendix C). The plan was prepared by a qualified Joshua Tree and native desert plant expert(s).

The Project could result in potentially significant impacts to native desert plant s—western honey mesquite and western Joshua tree —both of which are addressed by state a nd local plant and tree preservation regulations, absent mitigation. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts .

Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts
The Project would result in potentially cumulatively considerable impacts to western Joshua trees and Joshua tree woodland vegetation on the Project site. Western Joshua trees are a state candidate species for listing under CESA and are locally protected by the City of Hesperia and by the CDNPA. Joshua tree woodlands are considered a sensitive natural community by CDFW (CDFW 2020). As required by MM-BIO-1, mitigation for direct impacts to 56 western Joshua trees will be fulfilled through purchase of credits at a CDFW -approved mitigation bank or other conservation mechanism approved by the City of Hesperia and CDFW. Additionally, as required by MM-BIO-2 and in accordance with Chapter 16.24 of the Hesperia Municipal Code, the preparation of a Joshua tree and desert native plants relocation plan is required to mitigate impacts to western Joshua trees as a result of the Project. As such, a Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan, and Desert Native Plant Relocation Plan was prepared.

Potential impacts to special -status wildlife species, such as borrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and nesting birds, would be reduced to less than significant through Project implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-13.

Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant and would significantly reduce the potential for direct or indirect impacts to special-status species. Therefore, there would not be a cumulatively considerable impact on any special-status species.

Potential impacts to jurisdictional waters of the state, if necessary, would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of MM-BIO-3 through MM-BIO-8. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant and would significantly reduce the potential for direct or indirect impacts to waters of the state. Therefore, there would not be a cumulatively considerable impact to waters of the state.

Additionally, the Project would not result in a significant impact to wildlife corridors and linkages, nor to local policies and regional conservation plans. The Project would therefore not contribute to a cumulative impact on these resources.

2.3.3.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-1 Conservation of Western Joshua Tree Lands. Mitigation for direct impacts to western Joshua trees shall be fulfilled through conservation of western Joshua trees at a 1:1 habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project.

Mitigation can be through purchases of credits at a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-approved mitigation bank for western Joshua tree or through conservation lands t hat meet the functions and values criteria. If mitigation is not purchased through a mitigation bank

Page 82 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
35 November 2022
and lands are conserved separately, a cost estimate will be prepared to estimate the initial start-up costs, and ongoing annual costs, of management activi ties for the management of the conservation easement(s) area in perpetuity. The funding source will be in the form of an endowment to help the qualified natural lands management entity that is ultimately selected to hold the conservation easement(s). The e ndowment amount will be established following the completion of a project -specific Property Analysis Record (PAR) to calculate the costs of in perpetuity land management. The PAR will take into account all of the management activities required in the Incid ental Take Permit to fulfill the requirements of the conservation easement(s), which are currently in review and development.

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

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

The application shall include a detailed plan for removal of all protected plants on the Project site.

The plan shall be prepared by a qualified western Joshua tree and native desert plant expert(s).

The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
▪ Salvaged plants shall be transplanted expeditiously to either their final on-site location, or to an approved off -site area. If the plants cannot be expeditiously taken to their permanent relocation area at the time of excavation, they may be transplanted in a temporary area (stockpiled) prior to being moved to their permanent relocation site(s). ▪ Western Joshua trees shall be marked on their north -facing side prior to excavation.

Transplanted western Joshua trees shall be planted in the same orientation as they currently occur on the Project site, with the marking on the north side of the trees facing north at the relocation site(s).
▪ Transplanted plants shall be watered prior to and at the time of transplantation. The schedule of watering shall be determined by the qualified tree expert and desert native plant expert( s) to maintain plant health. Watering of the transplanted plants shall continue under the guidance of qualified tree expert and desert native plant expert(s) until it has been determined that the transplants have become established in the permanent relocation site(s) and no longer require supplemental watering.

Page 83 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
36 November 2022
MM-BIO-3 Designated Biologist Authority. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall retain a qualified biologist to act as a designated biologist (Designated Biologist). The Designated Biologist shall have authority to immediately stop any activity that does not comply with the biological resources mitigation measures and/or to order any reasonable measure to avoid the unauthorized take of an individual western Joshua tree.

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

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

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

MM-BIO-7 Delineation of Property Boundaries. Before beginning activities that would cause impacts, the contractor shall, in consultation with the Designated Biologist, clearly delineate the boundaries with fencing, stakes, or flags, consistent with the grading plan, within which the impacts will take place.

All impacts outside the fenced, staked, or flagged areas shall be avoided, and all fencing, stakes, and flags shall be maintained until the completion of impacts in that area.

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

MM-BIO-9 Herbicides. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall limit herbicide use for invasive plant species and shall use herbicide s only if it has been determined that hand or mechanical efforts are infeasible. To prevent drift, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall apply

Page 84 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
37 November 2022
herbicides only when wind speeds are less than 7 miles per hour. All herbicide application shall be performed by a licensed applicator and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

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

If burrowing owls are detected, the Burrowing Owl Relocat ion Plan shall be implemented in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan shall identify procedures for both active and passive owl relocation. CDFW shall be consulted to approve any relocat ion activities and identify the appropriate method of relocation (i.e., active or passive relocation). As required by the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan disturbance to burrows shall be avoided during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Buffer s will be established around occupied burrows in accordance with guidance provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation or current version. No Project activities shall be allowed to encroach into established buffers without the consent of a moni toring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until it is determined that occupied burrows have been vacated or the nesting season has completed.

Outside of the nesting season, owl relocation techniques approved by CDFW shall be implemented.

Owls shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate Project area and within a buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors will be placed at least 48 hours prior to ground-disturbing activities. The Project area shall be monitored daily for one week to confirm owl departure from burrows prior to any ground -disturbing activities. Compensatory mitigation for permanent loss of owl habitat will be provided following the guidance in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation or current version.

Where possible, burrows will be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation.

Sections of flexible plastic pipe shall be inserted into the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any wildlife inside the burrow.

MM-BIO-11 Lighting. Lighting for construction activities and operations within 50 feet of the outside edge of the impact footprint containing habitat for special -status wildlife will be directed away from natural areas.

MM-BIO-12 Trash and Debris. The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction:
(1) Fully covered trash receptacles that are animal-proof will be installed and used by the operator to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverage containers, and other

Page 85 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
38 November 2022
miscellaneous trash. Trash contained within the receptacles will be removed at least once a week from the Project site.
(2) Construction work areas shall be kept clean of debris, such as cable, trash, and construction materials. All construction/contractor personnel shall collect all litter, vehicle fluids, and food waste from the Project site on a daily basis.

MM-BIO-13 Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction activities shall avoid the migratory bird ne sting season (typically February 1 through August 31), to reduce any potential significant impact to birds that may be nesting on the survey area. If construction activities must occur during the migratory bird nesting season, an avian nesting survey of th e Project site and within 500 feet of all impact areas must be conducted to determine the presence/absence of protected migratory birds and active nests. The avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to the start of construction in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If an active bird nest is found, the nest shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with an appropriate buffer established around the nest, which will be determined by the biologist based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and special-status species). The nest area shall be avoided until the nest is vacated and the juveniles have fledged. The nest area shall be demarcated in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. On-site construction monitoring shall also be conducted when construction occurs in close proximately to an active nest buffer. No Project activities may encroach into established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until is determined the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer considered active.

MM-BIO-14 Pre-construction Survey for American Badger and Desert Kit Fox and Avoidance. A pre - construction survey for American badger and desert kit fox shall be conducted on the Project site and Off -Site Areas within 10 days prior to the start of cons truction to determine the presence/absence of either species. If either species is discovered during the survey, an American badger/desert kit fox mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed. The mitigation and monitoring plan shall include avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential impacts to either species, as well as compensatory mitigation to offset direct or indirect impacts. The plan will be developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. At a minimum, the plan shall:
▪ Identify pre-construction survey methods for American badger and desert kit fox ▪ Describe feasible pre-construction and construction-phase avoidance methods ▪ Describe pre-construction and construction-phase relocation methods, including the possibility for passive relocation
▪ For burrows that will not be impacted by the Project, identify an appropriate construction exclusion zones for both active and natal burrows
▪ Coordinate survey findings prior to and during construction to meet the information needs of wildlife health officials in monitoring the health of kit fox populations

Page 86 ends

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

2.3.3.3 Findings Per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can mini mize significant adverse impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.3.3.1. These feasible measures, MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-13, are listed in Section 2.3.3.2.

The City finds that these mitigation measures are feas ible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential biological resources impacts of the proposed project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant biological‐related impacts of the proposed project identified in the Final EIR.

2.3.3.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Biological Resources Implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-13 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to biological resources after implementation of these mitigation measures.

2.3.4 Cultural Resources

2.3.4.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Cultural Resources Archaeological Resources
A cultural resources records search, review of literature and archival resources (historic maps, aerial photographs, topographic maps), and a field survey were conducted for the Project site. The CHRIS records search identified four previously recorded cultural resources , including three historic -period unpaved roads and one historic -period archaeological site within the Project site. None of the identified resources would be impacted by the Project.

Although the overall potential for archaeological resources to exist within the Project site is considered low, it is still possible that unknown intact archaeological resources could be encountered subsurface during ground-disturbing activities within native soils. Specifically, and in consideration of the findings of the geotechnical reports prepared for the Project (Appendix E), the potential remains for intact archaeological deposits to be encountered within native younger and older alluvium identified within the Project site from surface elevation to a maximum depth of 20+ feet bgs. For this reason, the Project site should be treated as potentially sensitive for archaeological resources , and Mitigation Measures ( MM-) CUL-1 through MM -CUL-3 are required to reduce potential impacts to unanticipated archaeological resources. With incorporation of MM -CUL-1 through MM -CUL-3, impacts associated with archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Disturbance of Human Remains
A cultural resources records search, review of literature and archival resources (historic maps, aerial photographs, topographic maps), and a field survey were conducted for the Project site. The CHRIS records search results and archival document review did not identify any location within or near the Project where human burials/r emains exist, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Neither did the pedestrian survey identify any evidence of human remains or archaeological resources that may suggest the potential presence of human burials/remains,

Page 87 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
40 November 2022
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries . However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, pursuant to MM-CUL-4. The County Coroner must be notified of the inadvertent discovery immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify an MLD.

With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD will have the opportunity to offer recommendations for the disposition of the remains. With incorporation of MM -CUL-4, impacts associated with human remains would be less than significant.

Cumulative Cultural Resources Impact
The geographic scope of the cumulative cultural resources analysis is the region surrounding the Project site.

Ongoing development and growth in the broader Project area may result in a cumulatively significant impact to cultural resources due to the continuing disturbance areas, which could potentially contain s ignificant, buried archaeological resources. However, as discussed above, the individual, Project -level impacts associated with cultural resources were found to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures (MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4). The Project would be required by law to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to cultural resources. Other related cumulative projects would similarly be required to comply with all such requirements and regulations, to be consistent with the provisions set forth by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and to implement all feasible mitigation mea sures should a significant project -related and/or cumulative impact be identified. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

2.3.4.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-1 Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Training. All construction personnel and monitors conducting ground disturbing activities who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of construction activities. A basic presentation should be prepared and presented by a qualified archaeologist to inform all personnel working on the Project about the archaeological sensiti vity of the area. The purpose of the WEAP training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction of the Project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground -disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the on-call archaeologist and if appropriate, tribal representative. Necessity of training attendance shall be stated on all construction plans.

MM-CUL-2 On-Call Archaeological Construction Monitoring. In consideration of the general sensitivity of the Project site for cultural resources, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct spot monitoring as well as on -call response in the case of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources. A qualified archaeologis t, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall oversee and adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural deposits. The archaeologist shall be responsible for maintaining

Page 88 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
41 November 2022
monitoring logs. Following the completion of construction, the qualified archaeologist shall provide an archaeological monitoring report to the lead agency and the South–Central Coastal Information Center with the results of the archaeological monitoring program.

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

2.3.4.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2 .3.4.1. These feasible measures, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4, are listed in Section 2.3.4.2.

The City finds that these mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential cultural resources impacts of the proposed project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1 ) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed project that will mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts on cultural resources.

2.3.4.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Cultural Resources Implementation of MM -CUL-1 through MM -CUL-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to cultural resources to a less than significant level. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to cultural resources after implementation of these mitigation measures.

2.3.5 Geology and Soils

2.3.5.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Geology and Soils Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature . The City encompasses a wide variety of geological formations that differ in age and fossil-bearing sensitivity. The Project site, however, is overlain by Holocene-age deposits. Late Quaternary (late Holocene, or “modern”) alluvium and alluvial fan deposits are generally considered to be too young geologically to contain significant nonrenewable

Page 89 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
42 November 2022
paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) and are typically assigned a low paleontological sensitivity. Additionally, the Technical Background Report in Support of the Cultural Resource Element: City of Hesperia General Plan Update (City of Hesperia 2010) determined that the Project site has low to medium paleontological sensitivity.

Despite the low potential for paleontological resources to occur on the Project site, it is always possible that intact fossil deposits are present at subsurface levels and could be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. As such, MM-CUL-5 would ensure that if paleontological resources (sites, features, or fossils) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within the vicinity of the find would stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted.

With incorporation of MM-CUL-5, impacts associated with paleontological resources would be less than significant.

2.3.5.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-5 If paleontological resources (sites, features, or fossils) are exposed during Project construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. If the discovery proves significant under the California Environmental Quality Act, discovered fossils or samples of such fossils shall be collected and identified by the qualified paleontologist. Significant specimens recovered shall be properly recorded, treated, and donated to the San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Geological Sciences, or other repository with permanent retrievable paleontological storage. A final report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Hesperia that itemi zes any fossils recovered, with maps to accurately record the original location of recovered fossils and evidence that the resources were curated by an established museum repository.

2.3.5.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.3.5.1. This feasible measure, MM-CUL-5, is listed in Section 2.3.5.2.

The City finds that th is mitigation measures is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce th e potential paleontological impacts of the proposed project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed project that will mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts on geology and soils.

2.3.5.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Geology and Soils Implementation of MM-CUL-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils after implementation of these mitigation measures.

Page 90 ends

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

2.3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

2.3.6.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials During construction, a variety of hazardous substances and wastes would be stored, used, and generated on the Project site, including fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, cleaning solvents, paints, and storage containers. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, explosions, or pressure releases involving hazardous materials represent a potential threat to human health and the environment if not property treated. Provisions to properly manage hazardous substances and wastes during construction are typically included in construction specifications and are under the responsibility of the construction contractors. For example, construction contractors would be required to comply with Cal/OSHA regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safety equipment, and preparation of emergency action/prevention plans. Adherence to the construction specifications and applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials and hazardous waste, including disposal, would ensure that Project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during the construction phase of the Project.

Based on observed soil staining associated with on -site full and partially full automotive fluid containers and used tire piles, shallow soil impacts may be encountered during Project construction. MM -HAZ-1 requires the removal and disposal of on -site tires and automotive fluid containers from the Project area in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal guidelines. For excavation and grading activities that occur in areas with the potential for residual contamination, a qualified environmental professional shall screen soils in the identified area prior to excavation and grading based on the nature of the potential contamination. In the event that potential contamination is encountered, the contamination shall be evaluated by a qualified environmental professional using the appropria te collection and sampling techniques as determined by the environmental professional based on the nature of the contamination. The nature and extent of contamination shall be determined and the appropriate handling, disposal, and/or treatment shall be imp lemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Furthermore, adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the SBCFD would be required throughout the duration of Project construction. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations and with incorporation of MM-HAZ-1, short-term construction impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Upon completion of Project construction, the Project would involve the operation and maintenance of the industrial/warehouse facilities. Operation of the Project would likely involve the use of industrial -grade chemicals and commercially available cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and various other commercially available products during the day -to-day operation of the facilities. While these materials could be stored on the Project site, storage would be required to comply with the guidelines established by the manufacturer’s recommendations. Consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, the transport, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials from the Project site would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider. Any handling, transport, use, or disposal must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, including the EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control, CAL/OSHA, RCRA, and the SBCFD.

Page 91 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
44 November 2022
Although the future tenants are not known yet, in the event that a future tenant’s o perations require them to transport, use, or dispose of quantities of hazardous materials identified by the state, pursuant to the Health and Safety Code and in accordance with the SBCFD’s CUPA requirements, the owner/operator must complete and submit a HM BP to the California Environmental Reporting System. An HMBP is a document containing detailed information on the inventory of hazardous materials at a facility; emergency response plans and procedures in the event of a reportable release or threatened rel ease of a hazardous material; training for all new employees and annual training, including refresher courses, for all employees in safety procedures in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material; and a site map that contains north orientation, loading areas, internal roads, adjacent streets, storm and sewer drains, access and exit points, emergency shutoffs, evacuation staging areas, hazardous material handling and storage areas, and emergency response equipment. The HMBP provides basic information necessary for use by first responders to prevent or mitigate damage to the public health and safety and the environment from a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, and to satisfy federal and state Community Right-To-Know laws. In addition, should oil storage exceed 1,320 gallons aboveground or 42,000 gallons belowground, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan would also be prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 112. The SPCC Plan includes a summary of oil containing equipment, inspection requirements, spill response procedures, and employee training guidelines. While not required to be submitted, the SPCC Plan is required to remain onsite and be available for inspection by the local regulatory agency, in t his case the SBCFD’s CUPA. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

In summary, the Project would result in potentially significant impacts with regard to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

MM- HAZ-1 would be implemented, and Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Release of Hazardous Materials and the Potential for Upset Conditions During construction, hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants would be transported to and used on site in construction vehicles and equipment . Construction waste is a potential pollutant source of concern for the Oro Grande Wash and Mojave River, which are located hydrologically down gradient of the Project site. Concrete, paint, and other materials that are also used on construction sites are major contributors to habitat pollution, in the event that such materials exit a construction site. However, the potential for the use of these materials to result in significant hazards to the public or the environment would be low for the reasons described below.

The Project contractor and construction crews would be required to comply with all applicable regulations governing the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Hesperia requires the submittal, review, and approval of an erosion and sediment control plan. Implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan would ensure that construction -related BMPs are enacted to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, construction site pollutants from leaving the site during all phases of construction. The Project would also be required to comply with the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, including the regulation of surface water quality.

Under the NPDES MS4 Permit, the develo pment of 1.0 acres or more of land must file a notice of intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to comply with the state NPDES General Construction Permit. Implementation of this Permit would require the development of a site -specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP is required to identify BMPs that protect stormwater runoff and ensure avoidance of substantial degradation of water quality. Typical BMPs that could be incorporated into the SWPPP to minimize the off-site runoff of pollutants would include the following:

Page 92 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
45 November 2022
• diverting off-site runoff away from the construction site • vegetating landscaped/vegetated swale areas as soon as feasible following grading activities • using drop inlet protection (filters and sandbags or straw wattles), with sandbag check dams within paved areas • implementing specifications for construction waste handling and disposal • using contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas • training, including for subcontractors, on general site housekeeping Incorporation of required BMPs would help control the use of hazardous substances during construction and would minimize the potential for such substances to leave the site. As a result, there would be reduced potential for the public and environment to be exposed to hazardous chemicals and materials as a result of construction activities.

The implementation of applicable construction BMPs and adherence to applicable hazardous materials and waste regulations wou ld minimize the risk and exposure of the release of hazardous materials to the public and environmental to less than significant levels.

Based on the Phase I ESA, no on -site historical recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, recognized environmental conditions, or BRECs were identified.

Project grading and excavation could encounter soils impacts by petroleum hydrocarbons, resulting in potentially significant health and safety impacts to construction personnel, as well as potential off-gassing of petroleum from impacted soil excavations and associated soil stockpiles. However, MM -HAZ-1 would require the removal and disposal of on -site tires and automotive fluid containers from the Project area in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal guidelines. For excavation and grading activities that occur in areas with the potential for residual contamination, a qualified environmental professional shall screen soils in the identified area prior to excavation and grading activities based on the nature of the potential contamination. If potential contamination is encountered, the contamination shall be evaluated by a qualified environmental professional based on the nature of the contamination. The nature and extent of contamination shall be determined and the appropriate handling, disposal, and/or treatment shall be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, based on compliance with applicable regulations and with the incorporation of MM-HAZ-1, short-term construction impacts associated with creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Upon completion of Project construction, routine operation of the Project facilities would likely involve use of industrial grade chemicals and commercially available cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and various other commercially available products. These materials would be used for the day-to-day operation of the facilities and may involve the use of hazardous materials.

As previously discussed in Threshold A, the future tenants are not known yet. In the event that a future tenant ’s operations require them to transport, use, or dispose of quantities of hazardous materials identified by the state, pursuant to the Health and Safety Code and in accordance with the SBCFD’s CUPA requirements, or store quantities of oil that trigger the SPCC Plan regulations, the owner/operator must complete and submit an HMBP to the California Environmental Reporting System and/or prepare an SPCC Plan. Completion of an HMBP and SPCC Plan would ensure that an emergency spill response and containment plan is in place in the event of hazardous spills.

Furthermore, the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials and wastes would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations (e.g., RCRA and the Hazardous Waste Contro l Act “cradle to grave” requirements). All hazardous materials generated and/or used on the Project site would be managed in accordance with

Page 93 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
46 November 2022
all relevant federal, state, and local laws, including the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (22 CCR 4.5). Moreover, compliance with CAL/OSHA workplace and work practices requirements would avoid the exposure of persons and the environment to hazardous materials.

In addition to the regulations and practices described above, the following requirements would apply to storage and handling of hazardous wastes at the Project site: (1) hazardous materials are required to be stored in designated areas designed to prevent accidental release in accordance with state law, including the California Hazardous Waste Control Act and the California Health and Safety Code; (2) CAL/OSHA requirements prescribe safe work environments for workers working with materials that present a moderate explosion hazard, high fire, or physical hazard or health hazard; (3) federal and state laws related to the storage of hazardous materials would be complied with to maximize containment and provide for prompt and effective clean-up in case of an accidental release; and (4) hazardous materials inventory and response planning reports would be filed with the City in accordance with Unified Program Permit requirements.

Compliance with applicable regulations involving hazardous materials during opera tion would ensure that such materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a manner that minimizes the potential for upset and accidental conditions resulting in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Due to the existing regulations that are required, it is not expected that the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be less than significant.

In summary, the Project would re sult in potentially significant impacts with regard to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. MM -HAZ-1 would be implemented, and Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative hazards and hazardous material analysis is the immediate Project area, including surrounding land uses and other nearby properties. Adverse effects of hazards and hazardous materials tend to be localized; therefore, impacts from nearby projects would be limited, if any, and the Project site would be primarily affected by Project activities.

During construction, hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants would be transported to and used on site in construction vehicles and equipment. In addition, Project excavations could encounter shallow soil contaminants as a result of on-site used automotive fluid containers and tires. These contaminants, if improperly handled, could expose the public environment to pollutants. However, water quality enhancement components of the Project, including the implementation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, a SWPPP, stormwater BMPs, and MM -HAZ-1, would minimize the potential release of construction-related pollutants on and off site.

Post-development, routine operation of the Project would include the use of various hazardous materials, including chemical reagents, solvents, fuels, paints, and cleaners. These materials would be used for day-to-day operations as well as building and landscaping maintenance. However, compliance with applicable regulations involving hazardous materials during operation would ensure that such materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a manner that minimizes the potential for upset and accident conditions resulting in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. In addition, the owner/operator must complete and submit an HMBP to the California Environmental Reporting System and complete an SPCC Plan in the event oil storage is above thresholds outlined in 40 CFR 112. This would ensure that in the event that an emergency spill response and containment

Page 94 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
47 November 2022
plan is in place in the event of hazardous spills or releases. As such, it is not expected that the Project would create a significant hazard to the publ ic or the environment through routine operations or reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions or result in the release or exposure of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

2.3.6.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified environmental specialist that has documented experience in the identification, characterization, and removal of hazardous materials , such as a California licensed professional engineer, geologist, or hydrogeologist, to remove and dispose of all refuse located on the Project site , including but not limited to, the ille gally dumped tires and oil containers currently found on site . The removal, transport, and disposal of refuse shall be done in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal guidelines related to hazardous materials handling. Prior to the removal of refuse deposits from the site, the environmental specialist shall inspect each refuse pile for indications that the refuse may contain, or may have once contained, hazardous materials, including, but not limited to, motor oil, solvents, paints, and/or other petroleum products. In addition, the environmental specialist shall inspect the soils surrounding each refuse deposit for evidence of any contamination (staining) or volatilization of contaminants (odors).

If contamin ation indicators are identified, work shall stop in the immediate proximity of the potential contamination. The qualified environmental specialist shall prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) which will outline characterization, screening, handling, and disposal procedures for contaminated soils. The SMP shall include health and safety and training procedures for workers who may come in contact with contaminated soils. The health and safety procedures shall also include periodic breathing zone monitoring and monitoring for VOCs using a handh eld organic vapor analyzer and include required actions to be taken if concentrations of VOCs exceed applicable screening levels for health and safety of onsite workers. Should contaminated soil be determined hazardous , it shall be removed by personnel who have been trained through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration –recommended 40-hour safety program with an approved plan for soil excavation, control of contaminant releases to the air, and off-site transport or on-site treatment. All contaminated soils will be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

2.3.6.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.3.6.1. This feasible measure, MM-HAZ-1, is listed in Section 2.3.6.2.

The City finds that this mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the potential hazardous impacts of the proposed project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed project that will mitigate or avoi d potentially significant impacts on hazards and hazardous materials.

Page 95 ends

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

2.3.6.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of MM -HAZ-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to hazards and hazardo us materials to a less than significant level. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to hazardous and hazardous materials after implementation of this mitigation measure.

2.3.7 Tribal Cultural Resources

2.3.7.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources Register of Historical Resources/Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 The Project is subject to compliance with AB 52 (PRC Section 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to “tribal cultural resources” as a part of the CEQA process, and requires the City of Hesperia, as the CEQA lead agency, to notify any groups who have requested notification of proposed projects that are subject to AB 52 compliance and are under the jurisdiction of the agency. Additionally, the Project is subject to compliance with SB 18 (Government Code Section 65352.3), which requires local governments to invite California Native American tribal representatives, as provided by the NAHC, to participate in consultation about proposed General Plan and Specific Plan adoptions or amendments. The City is considering an amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan for the parcels within the Project site and as such, initiated SB 18 consultation.

The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) sent a comment letter on June 23, 2021, in response to the posting of the IS/NOP before the AB 52 and SB 18 processes were commenced. This letter contained a series of mitigation measures they wished to be included, despite having no concerns with the Project’s implementation.

On June 24, 2021, the City sent out SB 18 notification letters to all NAHC -listed California Native American Tribal representatives. On June 24, 2021, the City also sent out AB 52 notification letters to tribal representatives of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI), inviting each tribe to engage in tribal consultation, if desired. The City received one response to the notification letters, from Jamie Nord, Cultural Resources Technician of the SMBMI, on July 1, 2021, requesting for additional information concerning the project . The City sent the Project’s Cultural Resources Technical Report (Appendix D), as requested, to the SMBMI on August 31, 2021. The SMBMI responded on September 1 , 2021, stating that the SMBMI does not have any concerns with the Project and considered the consultation concluded.

The Project site has been thoroughly researched, surveyed, and analyzed to identify the level of potential for TCRs. No TCRs were identified as a result of these efforts. Results of the NAHC Sacred Lands File were negative for the presence of TCRs within the Project site. Notwithstanding, MM-CUL-3 and MM-CUL-4 are required to help ensure the proper treatment of TCRs and human remains that may be inadvertently encountered during ground- disturbing activities. With incorporation of MM-CUL-3 and MM -CUL-4, impacts associated with TCRs would be less than significant.

Page 96 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
49 November 2022
Cumulative Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative tribal cultural resources analysis is the region surrounding the Project site.

Ongoing development and growth in the broader Project area may result in a cumulatively significant impact to cultural resources due to the continuing disturbance of undeveloped areas, which could potentially co ntain significant, buried tribal cultural resources. However, as discussed above, the individual, Project -level impacts associated with tribal cultural resources were found to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures (MM -CUL-1 thr ough MM -CUL-4). The Project would be required by law to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to tribal cultural resources. Other related cumulative projects would similarly be required to comply with all such requirements and regulations, to be consistent with the provisions set forth by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and to implement all feasible mitigation measures should a significant project-related and/or cumulative impact be identified. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

2.3.7.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 can be found in Section 2.3.3.2 of Cultural Resources, above.

2.3.7.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.3.7.1. These feasible measures, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4, are listed in Section 2.3.4.2.

The City finds that these mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potential tribal cultural resource impacts of the proposed project to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the proposed project that will mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts on tribal cultural resources.

2.3.7.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Tribal Cultural Resources Through Assembly Bill 52 consultation with local tribes, additional mitigation measures addressing the potential to discover tribal cultural resources are also included to reduce potential impacts to archaeolo gical resources.

Implementation of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to the register of historic resources and related to a resource determined to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 to a less than significant level. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to tribal cultural resources after implementation of these mitigation measures.

2.4 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
Based on the analysis contained in the EIR, the following issue areas have been determined to fall within the “less than significant impact” category for all thresholds : agriculture and forestry resources, energy, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire .

Page 97 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
50 November 2022
Other impacts under aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation not addressed below are addressed in Section

2.2 and Section 2.3.

2.4.1 Aesthetics
Scenic Resource Damage within a State Scenic Highway
There are no officially designa ted scenic roads or highways within City boundaries (City of Hesperia 2010b). The nearest designated state scenic highway, Route 38, is located approximately 26 miles southeast of the Project site.

The nearest eligible scenic highway, Route 138, is located 6 miles to the south of the Project site (Caltrans 2019).

Due to distance and intervening terrain, vegetation and development, none of these officially designated or eligible scenic highways are visible from the Project site, nor is the Project site visib le from the highways. Therefore, no impacts associated with scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur.

Sources of Light or Glare
The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not support any existing sources of light or glare, and development of the Project would introduce new sources of light and glare to the Project site. However, developed portions of the City contain numerous sources of light and glare typical of urban and semi -rural environments.

Existing sources of light or glare include streetlights, freestanding lights, building -mounted lights, illuminated signage, reflective building materials, and vehicular headlights. The undeveloped portions of the City, such as the Project site, contain few, if any, sources of light and glare. New sources of nighttime lighting resulting from the implementation of the Project include parking lot and loading area lighting, as well as building mounted lights. The Project would include a variety of exterior building light fixtures and parking lot lighting fixtures, including building mounted and pole mounted light fixtures. As depicted in Figures 3-14A-B, Schematic Renderings, building materials would primarily include concrete, metal, aluminum, and glass windows. These features could result in light trespass, light pollution, and glare.

The majority of construction activities associated with the Project would occur during daytime hours consistent with standard industry practices. In the event that work is required outside the standard construction hours (to reduce traffic or other impacts), lighting would be focused directly on work activity areas and would be temporary. As such, nighttime construction lighting impacts would be less than significant.

Upon Project implementation, the Project could potentially result in significant adverse light and glare impacts on nighttime views due to the addition of building and parking lot lighting. However, the Project would be required to minimize light and glare impacts to sensitive land uses through the incorporation of setbacks, site planning, and other design techniques (consistent with General Plan Policy LU -3.5). Section 16.20.135 of the City’s Municipal Code contains general performance standards related to light and glare such that any industrial activity shall not cause light trespass above 0.5 footcandles when measured in a residential district or lot (City of H esperia 2020).

While the Project would not be located adjacent to any residential districts or lots, the Project’s lighting would be designed such that lighting is directed on -site and away from neighboring parcels. Lighting associated with streetlights would be designed consistent with City standards for safety and proper roadway illumination, consistent with other streetlights throughout the City. In addition, as part of the final engineering and site plan check phase, a photometric plan will be prepared by City planning staff prior to finalization of site plans. During this process, City staff would ensure that Project lighting would not result in glare on adjacent properties.

Page 98 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
51 November 2022
Further, all light fixtures would be required to be consistent with the Califo rnia Green Building Standards Code for illumination. The California Green Building Standards Code sets forth minimum requirements based on Lighting Zones, as defined in Chapter 10 of the California Administrative Code. The requirements are designed to minimize light pollution in an effort to maintain dark skies and ensure new development reduces backlight, uplight, and glare (BUG) from exterior light sources (CALGreen 2019). The Project would be required to comply with the CALGreen BUG rating for Lighting Z one 3. Further, all lights would be shielded and directed downward, and the proposed lighting plan does not include blinking, flashing, or oscillating light sources.

The warehouse buildings would incorporate a variety of building materials. As depicted on Figures 3 -12A-B, Architectural Elevations, building materials would primarily include concrete, metal, aluminum, and glass windows.

Metal canopy overhands for shading would be include above building entrances, and aluminum entrance fronts would include glass and metal attachments. Blue reflective glazing and high gloss paint is proposed for the entrance fronts and canopies. Glass windows would consist of tempered vision insulated glass with a solarban 60 rating, which has a low exterior reflectance percenta ge to maximize daylighting opportunities to interior building spaces.

Although metallic materials and glass have been incorporated into Project design, Project setbacks and proposed landscaping would provide screening to screen such Project elements from v iew, and all paint finishes would be flat (with the exception of the high gloss proposed for entrance fronts and canopies). As such, building materials would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics and visual resources as it relates to scenic resource damage within a state scenic highway and sources of light and glare; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Conversion of Agricultural Lands and Forestlands
According to the California De partment of Conservation California Important Farmland Finder (CDOC 2016a), the Project site is designated as “grazing land .” Grazing land does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively “Important Farmla nd”). The Project would not occur within any farmland locations and would not result in the conversion of this land to nonagricultural use. In addition, based on the California Department of Conservation ’s 2015/2016 San Bernardino County Williamson Act map (CDOC 2016b), there are no Williamson Act contracts on site or within the Project area. Further, the Project site and surrounding area are not zoned for agricultural uses, but instead for commercial, industrial, business park, rural estate residential, an d neighborhood commercial uses (City of Hesperia 2010). As such, implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or land under a Williamson Act contract.

In regard to forestland or timberland, the Project site is not located on or adjacent to forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production (City of Hesperia 2010). Therefore, no impacts associated with Important Farmland, Williamson Act contracts/Farmland Security Zones, forestland, or timberland would occur.

Page 99 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
52 November 2022
Cumulative Agricultural and Forestry Resource Impacts
As analyzed above, the proposed project would experience no impacts related to all agricultural and forestry resource issue areas. Considering the proposed project would not be located on farmland or forestland, the proposed project would not combine with cumulative projects resulting in a significant impact to an agricultural or forestry resource.

Therefore, impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would not be cumulatively considerable.

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

2.4.3 Air Quality
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Mobile source impacts occur on two scales of motion. Regionally, Project-related travel would add to regional trip generation and increase VMT within the local airshed and the MDAB. Locally, Project -generated traffic would be added to the roadway system near the Project site. If such traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation, is composed of a large number of vehicles “cold-started” and operating at pollution-inefficient speeds, and operates on roadways already crowded with non -Project traffic, there is a potential for the formation of microscale CO hotspots in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. However, because of continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the MDAB is steadily decreasing.

The MDAQMD thresholds of significance for local CO emissions is the 1 -hour and 8-hour CAAQS of 20 ppm and 9 ppm, respectively. By definition, these represent levels that are protective of public health. As noted previously, the MDAB is currently designated attainment for both state and national CO ambient air quality standards, and the City typically experiences low background CO concentrations.

A screening evaluation was conducted comparing the highest hourly traffic volumes at any studied intersection in proximity to the Project site to the 100,000 vehicles per day criterion from the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (SCAQMD 2003a). The highest average daily trips on a segment of road would be 61,500 daily trips on the I-15 Northbound Ramps and Main Street (Appendix I), which would be substantially less than the 100,000 vehicles per day screening criterion applied. Therefore, impacts associated with CO hotspots would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminant Exposure
The potential impact of Project-generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has been evaluated. While all of the residences surrounding the Project site have been accounted for, the analysis focuses on the residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM source emissions, as any residences located further away from the Project site or primary truck travel route than the residence with the greatest potential for exposure would experience a lesser impact because conc entrations dissipate with distance. Project construction activities would result in a Residential Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of 7.4 in 1 million, which is less than the significance

Page 100 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
53 November 2022
threshold of 10 in 1 million. Project construction would result in a Residential Chronic Hazard Index of 0.008, which is below the 1.0 significance threshold.

During operation, the DPM emissions from operation of the Project would result in a Residential Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of 6.8 in 1 million and a Residential Chronic Hazard Index of 0.002. These impact levels would be less than the MDAQMD significance threshold resulting in a less than significant impact. Therefore, impacts associated with toxic air contaminants and cancer and non-cancer health risk would be less than significant.

Valley Fever
Valley Fever is not highly endemic to San Bernardino County; within San Bernardino County the incident rate is 1.8 cases per 100,000 people (CDPH 2017). In contrast, in 2016 the statewide annual incident rate was 13.7 per 100,000 people. The California counties considered highly endemic for Valley Fever include Kern (251.7 per 100,000), Kings (157.3 per 100,000), San Luis Obispo (82.8 per 100,000), Fresno (60 .8 per 100,000), Tulare (45.3 per 100,000), Madera (31.5 per 100,000), and San Joaquin (25.3 per 100,000) and accounted for 70% of the reported cases in 2016 (CDPH 2017).

Even if present at the site, construction activities may not result in increased incidence of Valley Fever. Propagation of Valley Fever is dependent on climatic conditions, with the potential for growth and surface exposure highest following early seasonal rains and long dry spells. Valley Fever spores can be released when filaments are disturbed by earth-moving activities, although receptors must be exposed to and inhale the spores to be at increased risk of developing Valley Fever. Moreover, exposure to Valley Fever does not guarantee that an individual will become ill— approximately 60% of people exposed to the fungal spores are asymptomatic and show no signs of an infection (USGS 2000).

In order to reduce fugitive dust from the Project and minimize adverse air quality impacts, the Project would employ dust mitigation measures in accordance with the MDAQMD Rules 401 and 403.2, which limit the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. These requirements are consistent with CDPH recommendations for the implementation of dust control measures, including regular application of water during soil-disturbance activities, to reduce exposure to Valley Fever – the watering minimizes the potential that the fungal spores become airborne (CDPH 2013). Further, regulations designed to minimize exposure to Valley Fever hazards are included in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and would be complied with during the Project’s construction phase (California Department of Industrial Relations 2017).

In summary, the Project would not result in a significant impact attributable to Valley Fever exposure based on its geographic location and compliance with applicable regulatory standards and dust mitigation measures, which will serve to minimize the release of and exposure to fungal spores. Therefore, impacts associated with Valley Fever exposure for sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Other Emissions
Land uses generally associated with odor complaints generally include: agricultural uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not propose uses that would be substantive sources of objectionable odors. Potential temporary and intermittent odors may result from construction equipment exhaust, the application of asphalt, and architectural coatings. Temporary and intermittent construction -source emissions

Page 101 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
54 November 2022
are controlled through existing requirements and industry Best Management Practices (BMPs) addressing proper storage of and application construction materials.

Over the life of the Project, odors may result from storage of municipal solid waste pending its transport to area landfills. Project -generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular in tervals in compliance with the City of Hesperia’s solid waste regulations.

The Project would also be required to comply with MDAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance). Rule 402 provides that “[a] person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property” (MDAQMD 1976). Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant.

Finding
The City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on air quality as it relates to health impacts of CO hotspots, toxic air contaminant exposure and valley fever, and other emissions; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.4 Biological Resources
Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species
The following section evaluates the Project’s effects on plant and wildlife species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
Desert Tortoise
The results of the survey determined that des ert tortoise is currently considered absent from the Project site and BSA. The on -site vegetation has been determined to provide low ‐quality habitat for the desert tortoise. While suitable (albeit low-quality) habitat for this species will be removed as a result of construction of the Project, this habitat is unoccupied, and the Project would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to desert tortoise. Therefore, impacts to desert tortoise associated with the Project and BSA would be less than significant.

Mohave Ground Squirrel
The Project site is located in an area that is cut off from known Mohave ground squirrel populations by I-15 and U.S. Highway 395 to the east and by the California Aqueduct to the north. Disturbances from human presence and fragmentation from surrounding roadways, including off-highway vehicle use and illegal waste dumping within the Project site and BSA has had a negative effect on habitat quality for Mohave ground squirrel. CNDDB records reveal two occurrences of Mohave ground squirrel near the Project site and BSA that were detected in 2005 and 2011.

However, both these records are from sites located across the California Aqueduct, making dispersal to the Project site highly unlikely because the aqueduct creates a considerable barrier to dispersal.

Page 102 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
55 November 2022
The visual survey concluded that the Project site and BSA provides marginally suitable habitat for Mohave ground squirrel. Specifically, foraging plants for Mohave ground squirrel such as spiny hop sage (Grayia spinosa ), winterfatland (Krascheninnikovia lanata), peach thorn (Lycium cooperi), Anderson’s boxthorn (Lycium andersonii), and western Joshua tree were observed throughout the Project site and BSA along with suitable substrate that includes friable soils for burrowing. However, surrounding roadways and various forms of human presence, including off-highway vehicle impacts, have marginalized the habitat quality.

Although marginally suitable Mohave ground squirrel habitat is present on the Project site and BSA, no Mohave ground squirrel were detected at the camera stations or captured during the trapping surveys. Additionally, the high density of California juniper on site is indicative that the area is within the Mohave -transmontane transition zone, an area with low likelihood of use by Mohave ground squirrel. As such, the survey results indicate that Mohave ground squirrel do not inhabit the Project site or BSA.

Therefore, the Project would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to Mohave ground squirrel. Therefore, impacts to Mohave ground squirrel associated with the Project and BSA would be less than significant.

State or Federally Protected Wetlands
There would be no direct impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources with Project implementation. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant impacts to this resource.

Interference with Wildlife Movement/Use of Nursery Sites The Project site is located in an area of encroaching development and has been regionally isolated by U.S. Highway 395 to the east and by the California Aqueduct to the north. As a result, the Project site does not provide for regional wildlife movement or serve as a regional wildlife corridor. However , on a local level, wildlife may move across the site when migrating or foraging/hunting. Therefore, wildlife movement may be temporarily disrupted during the construction phase of the Project, although this effect would be both localized and short -term in nature. Nearby corridors that could support wildlife movement in the region, include the La Bureau of Power and Light Road immediately to the west and the Oro Wash further to the east, would not be impacted by the Project. Further, the Project site does not contain nursery sites, such as bat colony roosting sites or colonial bird nesting areas.

All off-site utilities would be located below grade, and thus, would not represent an impedance to wildlife movement.

Similar to the construction work being conducted on the Project site, the construction activities associated with the off-site utilities have the potential to temporarily disrupt wildlife movement in the immediate vicinity of construction; however, any impact would be both localized and short-term in nature. Therefore, impacts associated with wildlife movement, wildlife corridors, and wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant.

Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other Conservation Plan The Project is located within the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (BLM 1980). The Project is also located within the Draft West Mojave Plan (BLM 2005) and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (BLM 2016) areas. The West Mojave Plan and Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan are amendments to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The BLM issued a Record of Decision for the West Mojave Plan in 2006, although the West Mojave Plan has not been formally adopted. The Project will not conflict with the conservation criteria associated with the California Desert Conservation Area Plan or Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.

Therefore, impacts associated with an adopted habitat conservation plan would be less than significant.

Page 103 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
56 November 2022
Finding
The City finds t hat, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources as it relates to specific special-status wildlife species; the interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; and as it relates to a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other conservation plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

2.4.5 Energy
Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Electricity
Construction Energy Usage
Temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment, such as computers inside temporary construction trailers, would be provided by SCE. The electricity used for such activities would be temporary, would be substantially less than that required for Project operation, and would therefore have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption.

Operational Energy Usage
The Project is estimated to have a total electrical demand of 9,893,993 kilowatt-hours per year. The Project would be built in accordance with and exceed the current Title 24 standards at the time of construction and CALGreen standards.

The Project proposes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. Uses proposed by the Project are not inherently energy intensive, and the Project energy demands in total would be comparable to other projects of similar scale and configuration. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with and exceed the applicable Title 24 standards which would further ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Construction Energy Usage
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the Project. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed under the subsection “Petroleum,” below. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of Project construction would be temporary and negligible, and would not have an adverse effect; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Energy Usage
Natural gas consumption during operation would be required for various purposes, including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling. SoCalGas confirmed availability of natural gas supply in the Project vicinity to serve the Project. Default natural gas generation rates in CalEEMod for the proposed land use and climate zone were used.

Page 104 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
57 November 2022
The Project is estimated to have a total electrical demand of 18,874,720 kBTU per year. The Project is subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. Prior to Project approval, the applicant would ensure that the Project would meet Title 24 requirements applicable at that time, as required by state regulations through their plan review process. Thus, the natural gas consumption of the Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.

Petroleum
Construction Energy Usage
Petroleum would be consumed throughout construction of the Project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of constru ction, and VMT associated with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes would also result in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities and haul trucks involved in relocating dirt around the Project site are assumed to use diesel fuel. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration of construction. It is assumed that construction workers would travel to and from the Project site in gasoline-powered vehicles.

Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during Project construction. CalEEMod was used to estimate construction equipment usage for the estimated diesel fuel usage from construction equipment, and vendor trucks, as well as estimated gasoline fuel usage from worker vehicles.

In summary, construction of the Project is conservatively anticipated to consume 118,217 gallons of gasoline and 197,488 gallons of diesel. Project construction would represent a “single-event” petroleum demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of petroleum resources for this purpose. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant
Operational Energy Usage
During operations, the majority of fuel consumption re sulting from the Project would involve the use of motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project site, as well as fuels used for alternative modes of transportation that may be used by employees of the Project.

Petroleum fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project site is a function of the VMT as a result of Project operation. The annual VMT attributable to the Project is expected to be 64,040,529 VMT.

The Project would result in 44,4400,664 annual VMT and an estimated annual fuel demand of 2,613,836gallons of fuel. Fuel would be provided by current and future commercial vendors. Trip generation and VMT generated by the Project are consistent with other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration. That is, the Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption.

Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The Project would implement sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian access. In compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code, the Project would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative mean of transportation

Page 105 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 106 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 107 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 108 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 109 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 110 ends

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

Therefore, no impacts associated with airport hazards would occur.

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

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

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

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

Page 111 ends

Hesperia City CouncilJanuary 17, 2023

Hesperia City Council
January 17, 2023