Hesperia City Council
January 17, 2023

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
Attachment 2 Exhibit A
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

13087
i November 2022
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1

1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Custodian and Location of Records ......................................................................................... 2

1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2.1 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.2.2 Discretionary Action .................................................................................................................. 3 2 CEQA FINDINGS OF INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT ................................ ................................ ........................ 5

2.1 Independent Review and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Impacts Determined to Be Significant and Unavoidable ..................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 6

2.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 17

2.2.3 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 20

2.3 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation .................................................... 21

2.3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 21

2.3.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 25

2.3.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 39

2.3.5 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 41

2.3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 43

2.3.7 Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 48

2.4 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant ............................................................................. 49

2.4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 50

2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................................................... 51

2.4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 52

2.4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 54

2.4.5 Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 56

2.4.6 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 58

2.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 61

2.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 62

2.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 64

2.4.10 Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 71

2.4.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................. 73

2.4.12 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 74

2.4.13 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................ 79

2.4.14 Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 80

2.4.15 Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 83

2.4.16 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 83

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

2.4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................ 86

2.4.18 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................... 93 3 FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 101

3.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated During the Scoping/Project Planning Process .............. 101

3.2 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis ....................................................................................... 103

3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative ................................................................... 103

3.2.2 Alternative 2: Other Development Project Alternative ....................................................... 104

3.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Development Intensity Alternative ............................................... 105

3.2.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................................. 106 4 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 107

4.1 Findings Regarding Recirculation ..................................................................................................... 107 5 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 109 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 113

13087
1 November 2022
1 Introduction
These Findings of Fact (Findings) for The Industrial Park Project (Project) are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), specifically PRC Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), specifically Sectio ns 15091 and 15093. The Final EIR examines the full range of potential effects of construction and operation of the Project, identifies standard mitigation practices that could be employed to reduce, minimize, or avoid those potential effects, and evaluate s alternatives to the Project. The Final EIR is incorporated into these Findings by reference.

1.1 Purpose
PRC Section 21081, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the lead agency, in this case the City of Hesperia (City), prepare written findings for identified significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states, in part, that:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infea sible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

In accordance with PRC Section 21081, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the decision‐making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, t he adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.” In that case, the decision-making agency may prepare and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact.

Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:
a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
2 November 2022
adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The stat ement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.

This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

The Final EIR for the Project identified potentially significant effects that could result from the Project. The City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of the approval of the Project would reduce these effects to less-than‐significant levels.

The City also finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, which is incorporated by reference and made part of these Findings, meets the requirements of PRC Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the Project.

Pursuant to PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that th ese Findings reflect the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the Project.

1.1.1 Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the Record of Proceedings for the City’s actions related to the Project are located at the City of Hesperia, 9700 Seventh Avenue, Hesperia, California 92345. The City is the custodian of the Record of Proceedings for the Project.

1.2 Project Description
The Project would include the construction of two industrial/warehouse buildings and associated improvements on 96.1 acres of vacant land. Building 1 (the easternmost building) would be approximately 1,108,000 square feet and Building 2 (t he westernmost building) wou ld be approximately 742,000 square feet. In total, the Project would provide 1,850,000 square feet of industrial/warehouse space. Associated improvements would include loading docks, tractor-trailer stalls, passenger vehicle parking spaces, stormwater dete ntion basins, and landscape area.

Additionally, the Project would include off -site construction of Sultana Street from the northwestern corner of the Building 2 site to Poplar Street.

The Project would involve a General Plan Amendment to modify a portion of the Project site’s General Plan Land Use designation from Regional Commercial to Commercial/Industrial Business Park, a Specific Plan Amendment to modify the Project site’s MSFCSP land use designation from Regional Commercial to Commercial/Industrial Business Park, and a Zone Change to modify the Project site’s zoning designation from Regional Commercial to Commercial/Industrial Business Park.

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

1.2.1 Project Objectives
The following are the objectives of the Project:

1. Develop a jobs-producing and tax generating land use near transportation corridors within the housing-rich Victor Valley/High Desert region that is constructed to high standards of quality and provides diverse economic opportunities for those residing and wishing to invest within the City of Hesperia.

2. Concentrate nonresidential uses near existing roadways, highways, and freeways in an effort to isolate and reduce any potential environmental impacts related to truck traffic congestion, air emissions, industrial noise, and biological resources to the greatest extent feasible.

3. Develop a fiscally sound and employment -generating land use that maximizes use of industrial zoned areas.

4. Create a project that takes advantage of and enhances existing infrastructure, including the proximity to major regional roadways such as Interstate 15 and U.S. Highway 395, railroad service corridors, and other similar infrastructure that will help promote the site and its use as an industrial business park.

5. Fulfill the existing and growing demand for logistics and warehouse uses in the region.

1.2.2 Discretionary Action
A discretionary action is an action taken by an agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project. The Project would require consideration of the following discretionary actions by the City:
• An administrative review by the Development Review Committee is held in order to review the Project. Such review will yield a recommendation and/or ruling by City administrative staff. • A review by the P lanning Commission is held in order to review the Project, including all requested entitlements. Such review will yield a recommendation to the City Council. • The Planning Commission will review the EIR and make a recommendation to the City Council to certify or reject this EIR, along with appropriate CEQA Findings and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. • Project implementation would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit for each building (CUP21-00004 for Building 1 and CUP21-00005 for Building 2). The MSFCSP requires review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for warehousing and wholesale distribution centers over 200,000 square feet located in the Main Street/I-15 District and the Highway 395/I-15 District of the Specific Plan. Each building includes more than 200,000 square feet of total building area, and thus, a CUP would be required. • Project implementation would require approval of General Plan Amendment to modify a portion of the Project Site’s General Plan land use desig nation from Regional Commercial to Commercial/Industrial Business Park.
• Project implementation would require approval of Specific Plan Amendment to modify a portion of the Project Site’s MSFCSP land use designation from Regional Commercial to Commercial/ Industrial Business Park.
• Project implementation would require approval of a zone change to change a portion of the Project Site’s zoning from Regional Commercial to Commercial/Industrial Business Park.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
4 November 2022
• Project implementation would require processing of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 20315), to adjust existing property lines and easements within the Building 2 site to accommodate the proposed building and to facilitate necessary right-of-way dedications.
• The City Council will certify or reject this EIR, along with appropriate CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. • The City Council will approve a proposed Development Agreement between the City and the Project Applicant pursuant to Section 16.12.085 of the Hesperia Municipal Code. The Development Agreement would provide sufficient time for the development of the Project by locking in development standards and extending applicable vesting periods for the Project’s entitlements and to establish a mechanism whereby the Project Applicant would be partially reimbursed for costs associated with public improvements constructed that would be used by future developments. Reimbursements would be funded by developers of these future developments. The Development Agreement does not contemplate any additional physical improvements, other than those already identified in the Project description, analysis, and proposed mitigation for the Project.

13087
5 November 2022
2 CEQA Findings of
Independent Judgement

2.1 Independent Review and Analysis
Under CEQA, the lead agency must (1) independently review and analyze the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); (2) circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment; (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, find that the EIR or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and (4) submit copies of the documents to the State Clearinghouse if there is state agency involvement or if the project is of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance (PRC Section 21082.1[c]).

These Findings reflects the City’s independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with CEQA Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant in the preparation of the EIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing, and revising material prepared by the consultant.

Having received, reviewed, and considered the informa tion in the EIR, as well as any and all other information in the record, the City hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with CEQA Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6.

2.2 Impacts Determined to Be Significant and
Unavoidable
This section identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued by the City, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, if the Project is approved. Based on the analysis contained in the EIR, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. These impacts are discussed in further detail below. • Air Quality. The Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District for emissions of volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen , and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns. As such, the Project would potentially result in health effects associated with those pollutants. Although mitigation measures have been recommended to minimize operational-related air quality impacts (MM-AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM- AQ-3), no feasible mitigation measures or Project design features beyond those already identified exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, even with the incorporation of mitigation, long -term impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non -attainment would be significant and unavoidable , as would their potential health effects. Additionally, the Project would require a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Zone Change that could lead to an increase in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled and the Project operational-source emissions have the potential to increase the frequency or severity of a violation in the federal or state ambient air q uality standards. On this basis, the Project is considered to potentially conflict with the Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan for the Mojave Desert Air Basin.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
6 November 2022
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Construction and operation of the Pr oject would result in the generation of approximately 33,720 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent, which would exceed the numerical greenhouse gas threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District of 3,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. While the Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District , because the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s thresholds are more stringent and are backed by substantial evidence from an expert agency, the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s recommended thresholds have been utilized for determining the significance of the Project’s greenhouse gas emission impacts. Implementation of mitigation measures MM -AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM -AQ-3 would also reduce operation -related GHG emissions. However, the effectiveness of the mitigation and the associated emiss ion reductions cannot be accurately quantified at this time and GHG emissions impacts are inherently cumulative in nature. As such, impacts on the project -level and cumulatively would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Transportation. Several intersections in the vicinity of the Project site currently experience periodic queuing issues during peak hours, which can lead to potential safety concern if a significant speed differential exists between queue vehicles and vehicles proceeding beyond the queue. The Project would result in additional traffic that would exacerbate these conditions under the Existing Plus Project Conditions, Opening Year (2024) Plus Project Conditions, and Horizon Year (2040) Plus Project Conditions (queueing issues would continue to occur without Project -generated traffic for many intersections regardless of the Project ).

Improvement measures have been identified for which the Project would be required to either construct or contribute fair-share costs to address these conditions. However, some of these intersections are not within the City’s jurisdiction, but rather within the jurisdiction of other agencies, such as the California Department of Transportation. Since the City does not have jurisdiction over these facilities, these improvements cannot be assumed to be in place prior to Project’s occupancy, and these impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.

2.2.1 Air Quality

2.2.1.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Air Quality
Applicable Air Quality Plan
The Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan f or the Mojave Desert set forth a comprehensive set of programs that will lead the MDAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards.

The control measures and related emission reduction estimates within the Federal Particulate Matter Attainm ent Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. A project is non -conforming with an air quality plan if it conflicts with or delays implementation of any applicable attainment or maintenance plan. A project is conforming if it complies with all applicable MDAQMD rules and regulations, complies with all proposed control measures that are not yet adopted from the applicable plan(s), and is consistent with the growth forecasts in the applicable plan(s) (or is directly included in the applicable plan). Zoning changes, specific plans, general plan amendments and similar land use plan changes wh ich do not increase dwelling unit density, do not increase vehicle trips, and do not increase vehicle miles traveled are also deemed to comply with the applicable air quality plan (MDAQMD 2016).

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
7 November 2022
The Project would be required to comply with all applicable MDAQMD Rules and Regulations, including, but not limited to Rules 401 (Visibile Emissions), 402 (Nuisance), and 403 (Fugitive Dust). The Project site is located within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, and a majority of the site is designated for Commercial/Industrial Business Park uses. The Commercial/Industrial Business Park designation is intended to provide for service commercial, light industrial, light manufacturing, and industrial support uses. A portion of the Project sit e is designated as Regional Commercial. The Regional Commercial designation is intended for regional-serving commercial and services uses that are designed to serve the region as a whole. The portion of the Project site designated Regional Commercial would require a land use change to Commercial/Industrial Business Park. Therefore, the Project would require a land use change and General Plan Amendment to modify a portion of the Project site’s land use designation, and the change in land use could lead to an increase in vehicle trips to the Project site and VMT.

As discussed below, Project construction -source emissions would not exceed applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds after implementation of Mit igation Measure (MM) AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, MM-AQ-3, MM-AQ-4, MM-AQ-5, and MM-AQ-6. However, Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would result in exceedances of regional thresholds for emissions of NOx, and PM10, even after implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6. As such, NOx and PM 10 emissions are considered significant and unavoidable and the Project would have the potential to increase the frequency or severity of a violation in the federal or state ambient air quality for on -going Project operations.

Based on the preceding considerations, the Project would conform to local land use plans and would comply with all applicable all MDAQMD Rules and Regulations. However, Project operational -source emissions have the potential to increase the frequency or severity of a violation in the f ederal or state ambient air quality standards.

On this basis, the Project is considered to potentially conflict with the Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan for the MDAB. Therefore, impacts associated with the conflicting w ith the MDAQMD would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants Construction and operation of the Project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants from mobile, area, and/or stati onary sources, which may cause exceedances of federal and state AAQS or contribute to existing nonattainment of AAQS. The following discussion identifies potential short -term construction and long -term operational impacts that would result from implementation of the Project.

Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the MDAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of AAQS. Although the area of the MDAB where the P roject is located is currently designated a nonattainment area for federal and state O3 standards and federal and state PM 10 standards, the MDAB has experienced a substantial reduction in maximum 8-hour concentrations of O3 over the past 30 years, as well as reductions in PM10 over time, as described in the respective MDAQMD O 3 and PM10 attainment plans. CEQA thresholds are established at levels that the air basin can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS . Based on these considerati ons, Project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
8 November 2022
Long-Term Operational Impacts
Operation of the Project would generate VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources, including passenger vehicle and truck trips; area sources, including the use of consumer products, architectural coatings for repainting, and landscape maintenance equipment; energy sources, including combustion of fuels used for space and water heating; and on-site equipment. CalEEMod utilizes summer and winter EMFAC2017 emission factors in order to derive vehicle emissions associated with on-road vehicle activities, which vary by season.

The Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the MDAQMD for emissions of NOX and PM10. This impact would be potentially significant without mitigation.

Mitigation measures are required to minimize operational-related air quality impacts (MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6).

The majority of the Project’s NOX and PM10 emissions are derived from vehicle usage, which n either the Project Applicant nor the City can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile source emissions beyond what is already required. Nonetheless, MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would be implemented to reduce emissions of NOX and PM10. While MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce Project-generated operational criteria air pollutant emissions, the associated emission reductions cannot be accurately quantified at this time; therefore, em issions of NOX and PM10 would still exceed the MDAQMD thresholds with implementation of mitigation. Furthermore, no feasible mitigation measures or project design features beyond those already identified exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, even with the incorporation of mitigation, long - term impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non-attainment would be significant and unavoidable.

Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction of the Project would result in emissions that would not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Operation of the Project, however, would result in emissions that would exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants including NOx and PM10, even after implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6.

Under the heading Pollutants and Effects, health effects associated with O 3 include respiratory symptoms, worsening of lung disease leading to premature death, and damage to lung tissue (CARB 2019a). NOx is a precursor to O3, for which the MDAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The contribution of NOx to regional ambient O 3 concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increases in O 3 concentrations in the MDAB due to O 3 precursor emissions tend to be found downwind of the source location because of the time required for the photochemical reactions to occur. Further, the potential for exacerbating excessive O3 concentrations would also depend on the time of year that the VOC emissions would occur, because exceedances of the O3 NAAQS and CAAQS tend to occur between April and October when solar radiation is highest.

Due to the lack of quantitative methods to assess this complex photochemistry, the holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O3 precursors is speculative. That being said, because the Project would exceed the MDAQMD NOx thresholds during Project operations, the Project could contribute to health effects associated with O3.

Health effects associated with NOx and NO2 include lung irritation and enhanced allergic responses (CARB 2019b).

Although Project-related NOx emissions would exceed the MDAQMD construction mass daily thresholds, because the MDAB is a designated attainment area for NO 2 (and NO 2 is a constituent of NO x) and the existing NO 2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards, 1 it is not anticipated that the Project

1 Ambient concentrations of NO2 at the Victorville monitoring station have not exceeded the NAAQS or CAAQS between 2016 and 2018.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
9 November 2022
would cause an exceedance of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2 or result in potential health effects associated with NO2 and NO x. Nonetheless, because the Project would excee d the MDAQMD NO x threshold during Project operations, the Project could contribute to health effects associated with NOx and NO2.

Health effects associated with CO include chest pain in patients with heart disease, headache, light -headedness, and reduced mental alertness (CARB 2019 c). CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. The potential for CO hotspots is discussed under the subsequent impact criterion below and determined to be less than significant. Thus, the Project’s CO emissions would not contribute to significant health effects associated with CO.

Health effects associated with PM10 include premature death and hospitalization, primarily for worsening of respiratory disease (CARB 2017). Operation of the Project would exceed the MDAQMD threshold for PM10. As such, the Project would potentially contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for particulate matter and obstruct the MDAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants. Because the Project has the potential to contribute substantial particulate matter during operation, the Project could result in associated health effects.

The California Supreme Court’s Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502 decision (referred to herein as the Friant Ranch decision) (issued on December 24, 2018), addresses the need to correlate mass emission values for criteria air pollutants to specific health consequences, and contains the following direction from the California Supreme Court: “The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must provide an adequate analysis to inform the public how its bare numbers translate to create potential adverse impacts or it must explain what the agency does know and why, given existing scientific constraints, it cannot translate potential health impacts further” (Italics original). Currently, MDAQMD, CARB, and EPA have not approved a quantitative method to reliably, meaningfully, and consistently translate the mass emissi on estimates for the criteria air pollutants resulting from the Project to specific health effects. In addition, there are numerous scientific and technological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days.

In connection with the judicial proceedings culminating in issuance of the Friant Ranch decision, the SCAQMD and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) filed amicus briefs attesting to the extreme difficulty of correlating an individual project’s criteria air pollutant emissions to specific health impacts. Both the SJVAPCD and the SCAQMD have among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capabilities of the air districts in the state. The key, relevant points from the SCAQMD and SJVAPCD briefs is summarized herein.

In requiring a health impact type of analysis for criteria air pollutants, it is important to understand how O3 and PM is formed, dispersed and regulated. The formation of O3 and PM in the atmosphere, as secondary pollutants,2 involves complex chemical and physical interactions of multiple pollutants from natural and anthropogenic sources. The O3 reaction is self-perpetuating (or catalytic) in the presence of sunlight because NO 2 is photochemically reformed from nitric oxide (NO). In this way, O 3 is controlled by both NO x and VOC emissions (NRC 2005). The complexity of these interacting cycles of pollutants means that incremental decreases in one emission may not result in proportional decreases in O3 (NRC 2005). Although these reactions and interactions are well understood, variability in emission source operations and meteorology creates uncertainty in the modele d O 3 concentrations to which downwind populations may be exposed (NRC 2005). Once formed, O3 can be transported long distances by wind and due to atmospheric transport, contributions of precursors from the surrounding region can also be important (EPA 2008).

Because of the complexity of O3 formation, a specific tonnage amount of VOCs or NOX emitted in a particular area

2 Air pollutants formed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere are referred to as secondary pollutants.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
10 November 2022
does not equate to a particular concentration of O 3 in that area (SJVAPCD 2015). PM can be divided into two categories: directly emitted PM and secondary PM. Secondary PM, like O3, is formed via complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere between precursor chemicals such as SOx and NOx (SJVAPCD 2015). Because of the complexity of secondary PM formation, including the potential to be transport ed long distances by wind, the tonnage of PM - forming precursor emissions in an area does not necessarily result in an equivalent concentration of secondary PM in that area (SJVAPCD 2015). This is especially true for individual projects, like the Project, where Project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions are not derived from a single "point source," but from construction equipment and mobile sources (passenger cars and trucks) driving to, from and around the Project site.

Another important technical nuance is that health effects from air pollutants are related to the concentration of the air pollutant that an individual is exposed to, not necessarily the individual mass quantity of emissions associated with an individual project. For example, health effects from O3 are correlated with increases in the ambient level of O3 in the air a person breathes (SCAQMD 2015). However, it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over an entire region (SCAQMD 2015). The lack of link between the tonnage of precursor pollutants and the concentration of O 3 and PM2.5 formed is important because it is not necessarily the tonnage of precursor pollutants that causes human health effects; rather, it is the concentration of resulting O 3 that causes these effects (SJVAPCD 2015). Indeed, the ambient air quality standards, which are statutorily required to be set by EPA at levels that are requisite to protect the public health, are established as concentrations of O3 and PM2.5 and not as tonnages of their precursor pollutants (EPA 2018b). Because the ambient air quality standards are focused on achieving a particular concentration region -wide, the tools and plans for attaining the ambient air quality standards are regional in nature. For CEQA analyses, project-generated emissions are typically estimated in pounds per day or tons per year and compared to mass daily or annual emission thresholds. While CEQA thresholds are established at levels that the air basin can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS, even if a project exceeds established CEQA significance thresholds, this does not mean that one can easily determine the concentration of O3 or PM that will be created at or near the project site on a particular day or month of the year, or what specific health impacts will occur (SJVAPCD 2015).

In regard to regional concentrations and air basin attainment, the SJVAPCD emphasized that attempting to identify a change in background pollutant concentrations that can be attributed to a single project, even one as large as the entire Friant Ranch Specific Plan, is a theoretical exercise. The SJVAPCD brief noted that it “would be extremely difficult to model the impact on NAAQS attainment that the emissions from the Friant Ranch project may have” (SJVAPCD 2015). The situation is further complicated by the fact that background concentrations of regional pollutants are not uniform either temporally or geographically throughout an air basin, but are constantly fluctuating based upon meteorology and other environmental factors. SJVAPCD noted that the currently available modeling tools are equipped to model the impact of all emission sources in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin on attainment (SJVAPCD 2015). The SJVAPCD brief then indicated that, “Running the photochemical grid model used for predicting O3 attainment with the emissions solely from the Friant Ranch project (which equate to less than one-tenth of one percent of the total NOx and VOC in the Valley) is not likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved” (SJVAPCD 2015).

SCAQMD and SJVAPCD have indicated that it is not feasible to quantify project -level health impacts based on existing modeling (SCAQMD 2015; SJVAPCD 2015). Even if a m etric could be calculated, it would not be reliable because the models are equipped to model the impact of all emission sources in an air basin on attainment and would likely not yield valid information or a measurable increase in O 3 concentrations sufficient to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts for an individual project.

Nonetheless, following the Supreme Court’s Friant Ranch decision, some EIRs where estimated criteria air pollutant emissions exceeded applicable air district thresholds have included a quantitative analysis of potential project-generated

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
11 November 2022
health effects using a combination of a regional photochemical grid model (PGM)3 and the EPA Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP or BenMAP–Community Edition [CE]).4 The publicly available health impact assessments (HIAs) typically present results in terms of an increase in health incidences and/or the increase in background health incidence for various health outcomes resulting from the project’s estimated increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5.5 To date, the five publicly available HIAs reviewed have concluded that the evaluated project’s health effects associated with the estimated project-generated increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5 represent a small increase in incidences and a very small percentage of the number of background incidences, indicating that these health impacts are negligible and potentially within the models’ margin of error. It is also important to note that while the results of the five available HIAs conclude that the project emissions do not result in a substantial increase in health incidences, the estimated emissions and assumed toxicity is also conservatively inputted into the HIA and thus, overestimate health incidences, particularly for PM2.5.

As explained in the SJVAPCD brief and noted previously, running the PGM used for predicting O3 attainment with the emissions solely from an individual project like the Friant Ranch project or the Project is not likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved. The five examples reviewed support the SJVAPCD’s brief contention that consistent, reliable, and meaningful results may not be provided by methods applied at this time. Accordingly, additional work in the industry and more importantly, air district participation, is needed to develop a more meaningful analysis to correlate project- level mass criteria air pollutant emissions and health effects for decision makers and the public. Furthermore, at the time of writing, no HIA has concluded that health effects estimated using the PGM and BenMAP approach are substantial provided that the estimated project-generated incidences represent a very small percentage of the number of background incidences, potentially within the models’ margin of error.

In summary, operation of the Project could result in exceedances of the MDAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM 10, and the Project would potentially result in health effects associated with those pollutants. Because construction of the Project would not exceed any MDAQMD thresholds , and operation of the Project would not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for CO, SO x or PM2.5, and because the MDAQMD thresholds are based on levels that the MDAB can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS and the AAQS are established to protect public health and welfare, the Project is not anticipated to result in health effects associated with CO, SOx or PM2.5.

Notably, there are numerous scientific and techn ological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days, and methods available to quantitatively evaluate health effects may not be appropriate to apply to emissions

3 The first step in the publicly available HIAs includes running a regional PGM, such as the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model or the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) to estimate the increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5 as a result of project-generated emissions of criteria and precursor pollutants. Air districts use photochemical air quality models for regional air quality planning. These photochemical models are large -scale air quality models that simulate the changes of pollutant concentrations in the atmosph ere using a set of mathematical equations characterizing the chemical and physical processes in the atmosphere (EPA 2017).
4 After estimating the increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5, the second step in the five examples includes use of BenMAP or BenMAP-CE to estimate the resulting associated health effects. BenMAP estimates the number of health incidences resulting from changes in air pollution concentrations (EPA 2018a). The health impact function in BenMAP-CE incorporates four key sources of data: (i) modeled or monitored air quality changes, (ii) population, (iii) baseline incidence rates, and (iv) an effect estimate. A ll of the five example HIAs focused on O3 and PM2.5.
5 The following CEQA documents included a quantitative HIA to address Friant Ranch: (1) California State University Dominguez Hills 2018 Campus Master Plan EIR (CSUDH 2019), (2) March Joint Powers Association K4 Warehouse and Cactus Channel Improvements EIR (March JPA 2019), (3) Mineta San Jose Airport Amendment to the Airport Mas ter Plan EIR (City of San Jose 2019), (4) City of Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center Project EIR (City of Inglewood 2019), and (5) San Diego Stat e University Mission Valley Campus Master Plan EIR (SDSU 2019).

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
12 November 2022
associated with the Project, which cannot be estimated with a high -level of accuracy. Notwithstanding, because operation of the Project could result in exceedances of MDAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10, even after implementation of MM -AQ-1 through MM -AQ-6, the potential health effects associated with criteria air pollutants are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions and Associated Pollutant Concentrations As discussed above, because operation of the Project could result in exceedances of the MDAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10, the Project would potentially result in health effects associated with those pollutants.

Because construction of the Project would not exceed any MDAQMD thresholds (after implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6), and operation of the Project would not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for CO, SO x or PM2.5, and because the MDAQMD thresholds are based on levels that the MDAB can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS and the AAQS are established to protect public health and welfare, the Project is not anticipated to result in health effects associated with CO, SOx or PM2.5.

Notably, there are numerous scientific and technological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days, and methods available to quantitatively evaluate health effects may not be appropriate to apply to emissions associated with the Project, which cannot be estimated with a high -level of accuracy. Notwithstanding, because operation of the Project could result in exceedances of MDAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10, even after implementation of MM -AQ-1 through MM -AQ-6, the potential health effects associated with criteria air pollutants are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative Air Quality Impact
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the MDAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. Individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the MDAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the MDAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact.

The area of the MDAB in which the Project is located is a nonattainment area for O 3 and PM10 under the NAAQS and/or CAAQS. The poor air quality in the MDAB is the result of cumulative emissions from motor vehicles, off-road equipment, commercial and industrial facilities, and other emission sources. Projects that emit these pollutants or their precursors (i .e., VOC and NO x for O 3) potentially contribute to poor air quality. Daily construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the MDAQMD significance thresholds. However, as presented in the preceding discussion, Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would result in exceedances of regional thresholds for emissions of NOX and PM 10. It should be noted that the majority of the Project’s NOX and PM 10 emissions are derived from vehicle usage. Although MM -AQ-1 through MM -AQ-6 would reduce operational emissions from to the extent feasible, since neither the Project Applic ant nor the City of Hesperia have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible MMs exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
13 November 2022
less-than-significant. As such, Project operational -source NOX and PM 10 emissions exceeda nces of applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds would be significant and unavoidable, and thus, cumulatively considerable.

2.2.1.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-AQ-1 The Project shall implement the following measures in order to reduce operational mobile source air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
▪ Only haul trucks meeting California Air Resources Board (CARB) model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the Project site.
▪ Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti -idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include: (1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; (2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is enga ged; and (3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations; and (4) that penalties apply for violations. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the City of Hesperia shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.
▪ Prior to tenant occupancy, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Hesperia demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the Project site have been provided documentation on funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleaner-than-required engines and equipment. ▪ Ensure that site enforcement staff in charge of keeping the daily log and monitoring for excess idling will be trained/certified in diesel health effects and technologies, for example, by requiring attendance at California Air Resources Board -approved courses (such as the free, one-day Course #512).
▪ The facility operator shall be required to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements ▪ Prior to certificate of occupancy, install conduit and infrastructure for Level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations on-site for employees for the percentage of employee parking spaces commensurate with Title 24 requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance plus additional charging stations equal to 5% of the total employee parking spaces in the building permit, whichever is greater. By 2030 install Level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations for 25% of the employee parking spaces required. Buildings shall include electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the future.
▪ In anticipation of a transition to zero emission truck fleets during the lifetime of the Project, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall install at least four heavy -duty truck vehicle charging stations on -site by 2030. In addition, conduit shall be installed to tractor trailer parking areas in logical locations determined by the Project Applica nt during construction

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
14 November 2022
document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations.

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

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

MM-AQ-4 The Project shall implement the f ollowing measures in order to reduce construction air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
▪ Require all generators, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower, to be zero-emissions or equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines (as set forth in Section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) or better by including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contrac ts with successful contractors. After either (1) the completion of grading or, (2) the completion of an electrical hookup at the site, whichever is

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
15 November 2022
first, require all generators and all diesel -fueled off-road construction equipment, to be zero - emissions or equipped with CARB Tier IV -compliant engines (as set forth in Section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) or better by including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts with successful contractors. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City in the event that the applicant documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment. 6 Before an exemption may be considered by the City, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate that at least two construction fleet owners/operators in the San Bernadino Region were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Final or better equipment could not be located within the San Bernardino Region. To ensure that Tier 4 Final construction equipment or better would be used during the proposed Project’s construction, the applicant shall include this requirement in applicable bid docu ments, purchase orders, and contracts. Successful contractors must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities. ▪ Provide infrastructure for zero -emission off -road construction equipment if the contractors selected to construct the Project plan to use zero-emission off-road construction equipment. ▪ Provide electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than diesel -fueled generators, for contractors’ electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors. In applicable bid documents and contracts with contractors selected to construct the Project, include language requiring all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers, etc.) used during Project construction to be electric. ▪ Require construction equipment to be turned off when not in use ▪ Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in acc ordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ On days when the hourly average wind speed for the City of Hesperia exceeds 20 miles per hour, additional dust control measures shall be implemented, such as increased su rface watering. Grading and excavation shall be prohibited when sustained wind speed exceeds 30 miles per hour.
▪ Use paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings for all interior painting that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 grams per liter (g/L).

MM-AQ-5 Prior to tenant occupancy, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Hesperia demonstrating that the occupants of the Project site have been provided documentation that:
▪ Recommends the use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters;

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

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
16 November 2022
▪ Recommends the use of water-based or low-VOC cleaning; and ▪ For occupants with more than 250 employees, require the establishment of a transportation demand management program to reduce employee commute vehicle emissions.

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

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

2.2.1.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the proposed project’s air quality impact. Construction emissions would be below the MDAQMD’s regional thresholds. However, Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would result in exceedances of regional thresholds for emissions of NOx and PM 10, even after implementation of MM -AQ-1 through MM -AQ-6. As such, NOx and PM 10 emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. In addition, the project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to the potential to conflict with the MDAQMD’s thresholds, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (NOx and PM10), and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (VOC, NOx and PM10). Additionally, it should be noted that the majority of the Project’s NOX and PM10 emissions are derived from vehicle usage. Although MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible, since neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Hesperia have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible MMs exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less -than-significant. As such, Project operational-source NOX and PM 10 emissions exceedances of applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds would be significant and unavoidable, and thus, cumulatively considerable.

Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the Californ ia Public Resources Code, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, and the iden tified air quality impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Section 5).

2.2.1.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Air Quality Based on the impact analysis, the proposed project would result in significant operational NOx, and PM10 emission impacts. Implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce potential impacts from criteria air pollutants and project emissions. However, due to the size and type of the project, it is not feasible to implement mitigation measures to reduce the operational mobile source emissions. Various mitigation measures were considered, including land use strategies such as proximity to a transit stop; however, these strategies and MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 cannot be quantified due to the uncertainty. Thus, the project’s impacts related to potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the MDAQMD’s regional thresholds and the project operational NOx and PM 10 emissions would remain significant. In addition, the project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
17 November 2022
related to the potential to conflict with the MDAQMD regional thresholds, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants ( NOx and PM 10), and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (NOx and PM10).

2.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2.2.2.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
For construction phase Project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. MDAQMD follows the SCAQMD recommendation in calculating the total GHG emissions for construction activities by amortizing the emissions over the life of the Project by dividing it by a 30-year Project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30 -year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions.

Total estimated GHG emissions generated during construction of the Project is approximately 3,054.77 MT CO2e.

Estimated Project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 101.83 MT CO2e per year.

Long-term operations of the Project would result in GHG emissions through mobile sources and on-site equipment, area sources (landscape maintenance equipment); energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the Project); generation of electricity associated with wastewater treatment and with water supply, treatment, and distribution; and solid waste disposal. Annual GHG emissions from these sources were estimated using CalEEMod.

To effectively analyze operational GHG emissions as sociated with the Project, two scenarios were modeled. The first scenario represents Project emissions under a without regulatory measures and PDFs (shown as “unmitigated” emissions in CalEEMod), which estimates Project emissions absent federal, state, and local measures and without Project features intended to reduce GHG emissions upon Project buildout. The second scenario (shown as “mitigated” emissions in CalEEMod) represents Project emissions with implementation of applicable federal, state, and local GHG reduction measures and Project features. Without accounting for applicable regulatory requirements and PDFs, the Project would result in approximately 32,920.52 MT CO2e per year.

The Project would be required to comply with all mandates imposed by the State of California and the MDAQMD. Those measures that are applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of GHG emissions are as follows:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).
• Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375). • Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction.
• Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances.
• Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
18 November 2022
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. • Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions.
• Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 % by 2010 and 33% by 2020. • SB 32. Requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 level s by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15.

In addition to the above regulatory measures, the Project would implement mitigation measures energy efficiency and sustainability, which are found below in Section 2.2.2.2, Project Design Features.

With applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures , the Project would result in approximately 28,263.95 MT CO2e per year, which would exceed the SCAQMD GHG threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year.

Therefore, the Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and this would represent a cumulatively potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures would be required that would reduce Project-generated construction and operational GHG emissions. As presented in Section 2.2.1, Air Quality, implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would also reduce GHG emissions. In addition, mitigation measures MM-GHG-1, requiring water conservation measures. MM-GHG-2, implementing solid waste reduction strategies, would be implemented to reduce GHG emissions generated during operation of the Project, and MM-GHG-3, funding of a GHG mitigation grants program, would result in reductions emissions outside of the Project. However, the effectiveness of all of the required mitigation measures cannot be accurately quantified at this time. Therefore, Project -generated GHG emissions would still exceed the applied threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year and impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative GHG Impacts
GHG emissions impacts are inherently cumulative in nature. The Project would result in GHG emissions in exceedance of the SCAQMD significance threshold. The Project would result in potentially significant impacts with regard to GHG emissions Implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 would reduce the Project’s GHG impacts; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

2.2.2.2 Mitigation Measures
Energy-saving and sust ainable design features and operational programs would be incorporated into facilities developed pursuant to the currently Project. The Project also incorporates and expresses the following project design features (PDFs) and attributes promoting energy eff iciency and sustainability. Because these features/attributes are integral to the Project, and/or are regulatory requirements, they are not considered to be mitigation measures.
• The Project will design building shells and building components, such as windows; roof systems: electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards which expects 30% less energy for non-residential buildings.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
19 November 2022
• To reduce water demands and associated energy use, subseq uent development proposals within the Project site would be required to implement a Water Conservation Strategy and demonstrate a minimum 20% reduction in indoor and outdoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand without implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy).7 • In order to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills, the Project would implement a 75% waste diversion.

2.2.2.3 Mitigation Measures
MM-GHG-1 Water Conversation. To reduce water demands and associated energy use, subsequent development proposals within the Project site would be required to implement a Water Conservation Strategy and demonstrate a minimum 20% reduction in indoor and outdoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand without implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy).

To implement this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project, the Project applicant shall provide building plans that include the following water conservation measures:
▪ Install low-water use appliances and fixtures
▪ Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces
▪ Implement water-sensitive urban design practices in new construction ▪ Install rainwater collection systems where feasible.

MM-GHG-2 Solid Waste Reduction. In order to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills, the Project would implement a 75% waste diversion program. To implement this mitigation measure, prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project, the Project applicant shall provide building plans that include the following solid waste reduction measures:
▪ Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste in new construction, and food waste storage, if a pick-up service is available.
▪ Evaluate the potential for onsite composting.

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

2.2.2.4 Findings Per CEQA Guidelines
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions impact. The Project would result in GHG emissions in exceedance of the SCAQMD significance threshold even with implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 and MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-

3. However, the effectiveness of all the required mitigation measures cannot be accurately quantified at this time.

7 Reduction of 20% indoor and outdoor water usage is consistent with the current CALGreen Code performance standards for residential and non-residential land uses. Per CALGreen, the reduction shall be based on the maximum allowable water use per plumbing fixture and fittings as required by the California Building Standards Code.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
20 November 2022
Therefore, these impacts must be considered significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, and the identified greenhouse gas emission impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Section 5).

2.2.2.5 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Based on the impact analysis, the proposed project would result in significant greenhouse gas emission impacts.

Implementation of MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-6 and MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-3 would reduce potential impacts from greenhouse gas emissions. However, the effectiveness of the required mitigation measures cannot be accurately quantified at this time, therefore, greenhouse gas emission project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

2.2.3 Transportation

2.23.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Transportation Design Hazards
Queuing Analysis
A queuing analysis was performed for US Hwy 395 from Eucalyptus Street to Joshua Street to assess vehicle queues along the roadways. A queuing analysis was also performed for the off -ramps at the I -15 and Main Street interchange, as well as the southbound off -ramp at I -15 and Joshua Street to asses s vehicle queues for the off ramp that may potentially result in deficient peak hour operations at the ramp -to-arterial intersections and may potentially “spill back” onto the I -15 mainline. The queuing analysis was performed for the Existing plus Project, Opening Year (2024) plus Project, and Horizon Year (2040) plus Project conditions.

The Project was found to result in potentially significant impacts associated with increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature related to queuing. Improvement measures required to mitigate Project’s impact would include fair-share contribution to Intersections #1, #4, #8, #9, #13, #21, #22, and #23. Since the City does not have jurisdiction over some of these facilities, these improvements cannot be assumed to be in place prior to Project’s occupancy. Therefore, Project’s impact to increase in hazardous conditions (i.e. queuing) would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative Transportation Impacts
As discussed previously, the Project may increase a hazar dous condition due to queuing impacts at the intersections #1, #4, #8, #9, #13, #21, #22, and #23 under the Horizon Year (2040) plus Project analysis scenario.

Since the City does not have jurisdiction over these facilities, these improvements cannot be as sumed to be in place prior to Project’s occupancy. Therefore, Project’s impact to increase in hazardous conditions (e.g., queuing) would be significant and unavoidable, and thus, the Project could contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact associated with queuing and hazardous design features.

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

2.2.3.2 Mitigation Measures
Improvement measures were identified within the Project’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) to address hazards associated with queueing. However, in light of the City’s VMT Guidelines, which indicate that improvement measures are outside of the scope of CEQA, these measures were not identified as mitigation measures.

2.2.3.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
The City finds that the Project may increase a hazardous condition due to queuing impacts at various intersections that the City does not have jurisdiction over, therefore, these improvements cannot be assumed to be in place prior to Project’s occupancy. Therefore, the Project’s impact to increase in hazardous conditions (i.e. queuing) would be significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, and the identified transportation impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding considerations (see Section 5).

2.2.3.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Transportation Some intersection impacts remain significant and unavoidable because they are outside the City’ s control to implement mitigation. The Project may increase a hazardous condition due to queuing impacts at the intersections #1, #4, #8, #9, #13, #21, #22, and #23 under the Horizon Year (2040) plus Project analysis scenario. Since the City does not have jurisdiction over some of these facilities, these improvements cannot be assumed to be in place prior to Project’s occupancy.

Improvement measures are proposed to reduce potential transportation impacts, however, since implementation of the roadway improvements cannot be guaranteed by project opening or project build -out, improvements are rendered infeasible. The significance determinations are based on a conservative worst -case scenario whereby it is assumed that improvement measures for all significant impacts outside the control of the City are infeasible and therefore, the impacts are significant and unavoidable.

2.3 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
The following summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the Project identified in the Final EIR that would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

2.3.1 Aesthetics

2.3.1.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Aesthetics
Scenic Vistas
The Project would involve the construction of two industrial/warehouse buildings, surface parking and loading areas. While the Project site and the surrounding area contain some areas with undisturbed natural desert

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
22 November 2022
landscape, existing development (including commercial uses, trucking -related uses [i.e., truck stops], lodging accommodations, big-box retail developments, residential subdivisions, and major interstate highways) precludes the area from being an area with significant scenic value that could comprise a scenic vista.

Physical improvements proposed as part of the Project would be limited to the Project site and the immediate vicinity. Given that existing scenic resources are outside of the Project’s disturbance footprint and located between 4 and 10 miles away from the Project site, the Project would not result in any physical modifications to scenic resources that comprise a scenic vista.

A project could also have a pote ntial indirect impact on a scenic vista if it results in a significant loss of viewing opportunities from publicly available viewpoints. With the exception of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, scenic resources identified by the City’s General Plan that comprise scenic vistas are not visible in the vicinity of the Project site. Due to the relatively flat topography of the Project area, views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are available to viewer groups in the vicinity of the Project site, including motorists traveling on nearby highways and roads, as well as employees and visitors of the nearby commercial and light industrial areas. These viewers are provided intermittent background views of mountain ridgelines under optimal atmospheric conditions and when not obstructed by existing development in the area. Development of the Project’s proposed buildings would result in some obstruction of these views where they are currently available from publicly accessible areas when viewed across the Project site. However, the presence of existing development, major roadways, and other man-made elements (i.e., transmission lines, signage, and traffic and streetlights) lowers viewer expectations of unobstructed views and precludes the significance of views of the mountains from the Project vicinity. While views of these features would be restored as viewers move throughout the Project area, higher quality, less - obstructed views are available in the greater Project area as viewers move throughout and outside of the City (particularly for motorists traveling on I-15 and U.S. Highway 395).

Implementation of MM-AES-1 would require that Project buildings are designed such that building colors mimic the colors and tones found in the natural desert landscape. Implementation of this mitigation measure would soften the contrast of the proposed buildings with the surrounding desert terrain. The Project’s landscaping would also have a similar effect by providing natural elements throughout the Project site. Thus, Project structures would not result in a significant impact to scenic vistas, as the Project buildings would result in minor blockage of views, views would be restored as vi ewers move through the Project area; and existing intervening features within and surrounding the Project site detract from existing views through and beyond the Project site. Therefore, with incorporation of MM-AES-1, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Conflicts with Applicable Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality California Public Resources Code Section 21071 defines an “urbanized area” as “an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or (2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.” The City’s population in 2019 was approximately 95,750 people (U.S. Census 2019). However, the City is bordered by the City of Victorville to the north, Town of Apple Valley to the east, unincorporated San Bernardino County land to the south, and the unincorporated community of Oak Hills to the west. The combined population of the City of Hesperia and any one of these adjacent Cities is over 100,000 persons. Thus, the Project site is considered to be within an urbanized area and the following analysis considers whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I-15 INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
13087
23 November 2022
In an attempt to ensure that current and future development within the City is designed and constructed to conform to existing the visual character and quality, the City of Hesperia Development Code (Title 16 of the City’s Municipal Code) includes design standards related to building size, height, floor area ratio, and setbacks, as well as landscaping, signage, and other visual considerations. These design standards help adjacent land uses to be visually consistent with on e another and their surroundings, and reduces the potential for conflicting visual elements. More specific to the Project site, the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan sets forth development standards for the CIBP Zone and industrial development. The design specifications for the Project will be reviewed by the City for compliance with all applicable provisions set forth by the City’s Development Code and the Specific Plan. As part of the City’s development review process, the Project’s architect ural plans are reviewed by City staff and the Planning Commission to determine whether Project design conforms to the Development Code and Specific Plan, and promotes the visual character and quality of the surrounding area. The Project was found to be consistent with the development standards of the CIBP zone.

Additionally, due to the size and scale of industrial buildings, it is especially important to consider design to ensure compatibility with other parts of the community. Chapter 11 of the Specific Plan provides additional details regarding design standards and guidelines for industrial development. In accordance with the Specific Plan design guidelines, all setback areas would be landscaped, and building orientation, siting and entrances would be designed to minimize conflicts with the surrounding visual environment. For instance, landscaping and vegetation is incorporated into the site plan to provide visual screening and building facades would feature a complementary neutral color palette and a variety of building materials.

With implementation of MM-AES-1, building colors shall be reviewed to incorporate the colors and tones that match or complement the natural desert environment such that color contrasts with the surrounding environment would be minimized. Buildings would include materials such as concrete, metal, aluminum entry framing, and glass, and building elevations would include vertical and horizontal elements that would break up the overall massing of the buildings and provide visual.

The visual setting surrounding the Project site currently consists of a mix of developed and undeveloped areas.

Development in the area includes commercial uses, trucking-related uses [i.e., truck stops], lodging accommodations, big-box retail developments, residential subdivisions, public roadways and landscaping, and major interstate highways. Undeveloped areas consist of flat desert terrain with sparse vegetation. As a result, the Project site and surrounding area can be characterized as low density industrial and commercial development within a desert landscape setting. The Project would result in the development of vacant, undeveloped land with industrial buildings that would feature of contemporary architecture landscaping, and streetscape improvements that would assist in completing a cohesive ‘gateway’ corridor envisioned in the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. The Project would also eliminate the illegal uses currently occurring on site (trespassing and illegal dumping).

In summary, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and the Project would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding area. Therefore, compliance with the City’s Development Code and the Main Street Corridor Specific Plan design standards and guidelines, implementation of site specific landscaping, and with implementation of MM-AES-1, the Project would not conflict applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts related to visual character and quality would be less than significant.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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-8 (Hazardous Waste), MM-BIO-11 (Lighting), and

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.

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.

A stormwater pollution prevention plan would be prepared and implemented to prevent all construction pollutants from conta cting stormwater during construction activities, with the intent of keeping sediment and any other

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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.

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.

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:

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

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

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, no impacts associated with airport hazards would occur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequently, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Require or Result in the Construction of New Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications Facilities
As discussed in further detail below, the Project would result in less -than-significant impacts with regard to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Generation of Solid Waste
Construction and operation of the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts with regard to the generation of solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

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

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

For the reasons stated above, Project construction would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals (e.g., CALGreen standards). Therefore, short-term construction impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons described above, Project operations would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, no mitigation is required.

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

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

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

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.25-1.50 (City of Hesperia 2016).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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