Hesperia City Council
April 16, 2024

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 49
Findings of Fact
December 2023
and CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) related to idling, would be im plemented. Therefore, impacts related to operational energy consumption would be less than significant.

7.6.2 CONFLICT WITH PLAN FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY OR ENERGY

EFFICIENCY
Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for r enewable energy or energy efficiency (Draft EIR Page 5.5-6).

Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of the proposed Project. The City’s administration of the CCR Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the Project would not conflict with the idling limits imposed by CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling. Furthermore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy.

In addition, the Project would provide solar panels in order to offset the Project’s energy demands. Thus, the Project would not obstruct use of renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The CEC’s 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report and 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update provides the results of the CEC’s a ssessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Energy usage on the Project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed Project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in San Bernardino County, and the State’s available energy resources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed Project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report.

Overall, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.

7.6.3 CUMULATIVE ENERGY IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to energy. (Draft EIR Page 5.5- 7).

Facts in Support of Finding: The geographic context for analysis of cumulative impacts regarding energy includes past, present, and future development within southern California because energy supplies (including electricity, natural gas, and petroleum) are generated and distributed throughout the southern California region.

All development projects throughout the region would be required to comply wi th the energy efficiency standards in the Title 24 requirements. Additionally, some of the developments could provide for additional reductions in energy consumption by use of solar panels, sky lights, or other LEED -type energy efficiency infrastructure. With implementation of the existing energy conservation regulations, cumulative electricity and natural gas consumption would not be cumulatively wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Petroleum consumption associated with the proposed uses and cumulative d evelopment projects would be primarily attributable to transportation, especially vehicular use. However, state fuel efficiency standards and alternative fuels policies (per AB 1007 Pavely (2005)) would contribute to a reduction in fuel use, and the federal Energy Independence and Security Act and the state Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan would reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources. For these reasons, the consumption of petroleum

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 50
Findings of Fact
December 2023
would not occur in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner and impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

7.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

7.7.1 EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO FAULT RUPTURE
Impact Finding: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the state geologist for the area of based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Draft EIR Page 5.6-11).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault zone (California Geological Survey 2021). The closest Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault zone is the San Andreas Fault Zone, located approximately 10.9 miles southwest of the Project site. Due to the distance of the Project site from the closest fault zone, there is no potential for the Project to be subject to rupture of a known earthquake fault. Impacts related to a fault zone would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project.

7.7.2 EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO STRONG SEISMIC GROUND

SHAKING
Impact Finding: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking (Draft EIR Page 5.6-11).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site, like most of southern California, could be subject to seismically related strong ground shaking. The closest active fault zone to the Project site is the San Andreas fault zone, located approximately 10.9 miles from the Project site. A major earthquake along this fault or another regional fault could cause substantial seismic ground shaking at the site. However, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2) that provides provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including building occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probabl e strength of ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would require the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) constructi on of the building structure so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking.

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. Compliance with the CBC as verified by the City’s review process and included as a condition of approval, would reduce impacts related to stron g seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code as included in Chapter 15.04 of the Hesperia Municipal Code to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic and soils hazards. CBC related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the proposed Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a conditio n of construction permit approval.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 51
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.7.3 EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO LANDSLIDES
Impact Finding: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides (Draft EIR Page 5.6-12).

Facts in Support of Finding: According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the Project site is located in a flat area that does not contain nor is adjacent to large slopes, and the Project would not generate large slopes.

As a result, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and impacts related to landslides would not occur.

7.7.4 SOIL EROSION OR LOSS OF TOPSOIL
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Draft EIR Page

5.6-12).

Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil.

Grading activities that would be required for the Project would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water. Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter 15.06.110, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance , implements the requirements of the California Region al Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Order No. R8-2002-0011 (MS4 Permit) which establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls that are required to be implemented for the Project.

To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by these City and RWQCB regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer), which would be impl emented by the City’s conditions of approval. The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities that could cause erosion and the loss of topsoil and provide erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil.

Erosion control BMPs include use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding, etc. With compliance with the Municipal Code Chapter 15.06.110 stormwater management requirements, RWQCB SWPPP requirements, and installation of BMPs, which would be implemented by the City’s Project review by the Building and Safety Division, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Project includes installation of landscaping adjacent to the proposed building and throughout the proposed parking areas. With this landscaping, areas of loose topsoil that could erode by wind or water would not exist upon operation of the proposed Project. In addition, as described in Draft EIR Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the hydrologic features of the proposed Project have been designed to slow, filter, and retain stormwater within landscaping and the proposed undergroun d infiltration basins, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil. Furthermore, implementation of the Project requires City approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Appendix K), which would ensure that RWQCB requiremen ts and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, with implementation of existing requirements, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 52
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.7.5 EXPANSIVE SOIL
Impact Finding: The Project would not be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 -1-B pf the Uniform Building Code (1994 ), and would not create substantial risks to life or property (Draft EI R Page

5.6-14).

Facts in Support of Finding: Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code mandates that special foundation design consideration be employed if the Expansion Index of soils is 20 or greater. The Geotechnical Investigation describes that the Project site’s near-surface soils consist of fine- to coarse-grained, silty sand with some roots that is in a loose condition. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, these materials have an Expansion Index of 0 and therefore are expected to have very lo w to low expansion potential (AGS 2022). Accordingly, the Project site does not contain expansive soils and as such, would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils. No impact would occur.

7.7.6 SOILS INCAPABLE OF SUPPORTING SEPTIC TANKS
Impact Finding: The Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (Draft EIR Page 5.6-14).

Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project would install new onsite and offsite sewer lines and would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur from implementation of the Project.

7.7.7 CUMULATIVE GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS AND SOILS IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to geology and soils (Draft EIR Page 5.6-15).

Facts in Support of Finding: Geotechnical impacts are site-specific rather than cumulative in nature. Direct and indirect impacts related to geology and soils would be mitigated through mandatory conformance with the California Building Code, Ci ty of Hesperia Municipal Code, and site -specific geotechnical recommendations, which will be incorporated as part of the Project’s design and construction efforts. With the exception of erosion hazards, potential hazardous effects related to geologic and s oil conditions are unique to each project site, and inherently restricted to the developments proposed. That is, issues including fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils would involve effects to (and not from) t he development, are specific to conditions on the property, and are not influenced by or additive with the geologic and/or soils hazards that may occur on other, off-site properties. Because of the site-specific nature of these potential hazards and the measures to address them, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects at the Project site.

Impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil could be cumulatively considerable. However, mandates related to the NPDES permit, preparation of a WQMP, and SWPPP, as well as compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) incorporate measures during construction activities to ensure that significant erosion impacts do not occur. Other development project s in the vicinity of the Project site would be required to comply with the same regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial adverse water and wind erosion impacts. Because the Project and related projects within the cumulative study area would be subject to similar mandatory regulatory requirements to control erosion hazards during construction and long -term operation, cumulative impacts associated with wind and water erosion hazards would be less than significant.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 53
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

7.8.1 CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE GREENHOUSE GAS PLAN, POLICY, OR

REGULATION
Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Draft EIR Page 5.7-14).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would provide contemporary, energy-efficient/energy-conserving design features and operational procedures. The proposed Project would not interfere with the state’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85 perc ent below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by 2045 because it does not interfere with implementation of the GHG reduction measures listed in CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan (2022), as demonstrated in Draft EIR Tables 5.7 -3. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan reflects t he 2045 target of a, 85 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B -55-18, and codified by AB 1279. In addition, the Project would be consistent with the following state policies that were adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Further, the proposed Project is consistent with AB 32 and SB 32 through implementation of measures that address GHG emissions related to building energy, solid waste management, wastewater, and water conveyance. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the State’s requirements for GHG reductions.

As demonstrated in Draft EIR Table 5.7 -4, the proposed Project would be consistent with each reduction measure evaluated for the City of Hesperia, as identified in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. In addition, the City has included the efficient use of energy resources as a goal in the General Plan Conservation Element. Moreover, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.7 -5, the Project would not conflict with the relevant General Plan goals and policies related to GHGs.

Overall, the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Project would be implemented in compliance with state energy standards provided in Title 24, in addition to provision of sustainable design features. The Project would not interfere with the state’s implementation of Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32’s target of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; or Executive Order S-3-05’s target of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 because it would be consistent with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, which is intended to achieve the reduction targets required by the state. In addition, the proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant City General Plan goal and policies. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and impacts would be less than significant.

7.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

7.9.1 ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Draft EIR Page 5.8-15).

Facts in Support of Finding: Development and long-term operation of the Project would require standard transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes.

Construction
Construction contractors would be required to comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials. Applicable laws and regulations include

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 54
Findings of Fact
December 2023
CCR, Title 8 Section 1529 (pertaining to ACM) and Section 1532.1 (pertaining to LBP); CFR, Title 40, Part 61, Subpart M (pertaining to ACM); CCR, Title 23, Chapter 16 (pertaining to UST); CFR, Title–29 - Hazardous Waste Control Act; CFR, Title 49, Chapter I; and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act requirements as imposed by the USDOT, CalOSHA, CalEPA and DTSC. Additionally, construction activities would require a SWPPP, which is mandated by the NPDES General Construction Permit (included as PPP WQ-1 herein) and enforced by the Lahontan RWQCB. The SWPPP will include strict onsite handling rules and BMPs to minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment during construction.

Mandatory compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities at the Project site would limit potentially significant hazards to construction workers, the public, and the environm ent. Impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project site would be developed with a new industrial building that would support high -cube warehousing, manufacturing, and office uses utilizing up to five percent cold storage. Operations would include the manufacturing and storage of make-up products which may contain the use of various types and quantities of hazardous materials, including lubricants, solvents, cleaning agents, wastes, paints and related wastes, petroleum, wastewater, and batter ies (lead acid, nickel cadmium, nickel, iron, carbonate). These hazardous materials would be used, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and standards (such as CFR, Title 49, Chapter I; CCR, Title 8; CFR, Title 40, Part 263) tha t are enforced by the USEPA, USDOT, CalEPA, CalOSHA, DTSC, and County of San Bernardino Environmental Health Services.

Under California Health and Safety Code Section 25531 et seq., CalEPA requires businesses operating with a regulated substance that exceeds a specified threshold quantity to register with a managing local agency, known as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). In Hesperia, the San Bernardino County Fire Department is the CUPA. If the operations of future tenants of the proposed wareho use facility exceed established thresholds, CUPA permits would be required. The County requires businesses subject to any of the CUPA permits to file a Business Emergency/Contingency Plan. Additionally, businesses would be required to provide workers with training on the safe use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials. Additionally, businesses would be required to maintain equipment and supplies for containing and cleaning up spills of hazardous materials that can be safely contained and cleaned by onsite workers and to immediately notify emergency response agencies in the event of a hazardous materials release that cannot be safely contained and cleaned up by onsite personnel.

Additionally, prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department, included as PPP WQ-2. BMPs would be incorporated in the WQMP that would protect human health and the environment should any ac cidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of the Project, including onsite collection and treatment of potentially polluted runoff, as well as nonstructural maintenance implemented to prevent potentially hazardous spills or leaks of stored materials. Compliance with existing laws and regulations governing hazard and hazardous materials results in less than significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of the hazardous materials, and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall provide the City Building and Safety Department evidence of compliance with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. The Project applicant/proponent shall comply

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 55
Findings of Fact
December 2023
by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site.

PPP WQ-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. The WQMP shall be submitted using the Mojave River Watershed Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans and shall identify all Post -Construction, Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters.

7.9.2 RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR UPSET

CONDITIONS
Impact Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of h azardous materials into the environment (Draft EIR Page 5.8-16).

Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would involve the limited use and disposal of hazardous materials.

Equipment that would be used in construction of the Project has the potential to release gas, oils, greases, solvents, and spills of paint and other finishing substances. However, the amount of hazardous materials onsite would be limited, and construction activities would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials storage and handling, as well as to implement construction BMPs (through implementation of a required SWPPP implemented by City conditions of approval, and included as PPP WQ-1) to prevent a hazardous materials release and to promptly contain and clean up any spills, which would minimize the potential for harmful exposures. With compliance to existing laws and regulations, which is mandated by the City through construction permitting, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The future tenants within the Project site may use, store, and dispose of various types and quantities of hazardous materials that would be required to comply with regulations and standards (such as CFR, Title 49, Chapter I; CCR, Title 8; CFR, Title 40, Part 263; San Bernardino County regulations; and City of Hesperia regulations enforced by the USEPA, USDOT, CalEPA, CalOSHA, DTSC, and San Bernardino County Fire Department). The San Bernardi no County Fire Department, as CUPA would require that future tenants prepare Business Emergency/Contingency Plans, which provide information to emergency responders and the general public regarding hazardous materials, and coordinates reporting of releases and spill response among businesses and local, state, and federal government authorities. Moreover, the proposed development Project would include a WQMP, included as PPP WQ -2. BMPs would be incorporated in the WQMP that would protect human health and the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of the Project, including onsite collection and treatment of potentially polluted runoff, as well as nonstructural maintenance implemented to prevent potent ially hazardous spills or leaks of stored materials. Therefore, operations within the Project site would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident involving hazardous material. Imp acts related to hazardous materials from operation would be less than significant.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 56
Findings of Fact
December 2023

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As previously listed.

PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As previously listed.

7.9.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WITHIN ONE-QUARTER MILE OF AN EXISTING

OR PROPOSED SCHOOL
Impact Finding: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school (Draft EIR Page 5.8-17).

Facts in Support of Finding: The nearest school to the Project site is Canyon Ridge High School, located 1.5- miles southwest. Therefore, there are no schools located within a 0.25 mile of the Project site. In addition, trucks traveling to and from the Project site would s tay on designated truck routes, which are not within a

0.25-mile proximity of any existing school in the City of Hesperia.

Additionally, the use of hazardous materials related to the proposed industrial warehouse uses would be limited and used and dispose d of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential of accidental release into the environment. Also, the emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the proposed Project were evaluated in the air quality analysis presented in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR, and the emissions generated from the proposed Project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the federal or state air quality standards. Thus, the proposed Project would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of school, and no impacts would occur.

7.9.4 CORTESE LIST
Impact Finding: The Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Draft EIR Page 5.8-17).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Phase I ESA (Appendix H) conducted database searches t o determine if the Project area or any nearby properties are identified as currently having hazardous materials. The record searches determined that the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (McAlister GeoScience, 2022). As such, no impacts related to hazardous materials sites would occur.

7.9.5 NEAR AN AIRPORT OR WITHIN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN Impact Finding: The Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people re siding or working in the Project area for a project area for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within two miles of a public airport or public use airport (Draft EIR

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located approximately six miles northwest of the Hesperia Airport. According to the Hesperia Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the site is outside of the 60 -65 dBA CNEL noise contour and would not be subject to excessive noise levels due to operations at the Hesperia Airport. The site is also outside of the established airport safety zones. Thus, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the area. As such, no impact would occur.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 57
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.9.6 IMPAIR OR INTERFERE WITH AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN

OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN
Impact Finding: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Draft EIR Page 5.8-18).

Facts in Support of Finding: The City of Hesperia has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) intended to provide comprehensive procedures and guidance for the City to prepare and respond to large- scale emergencies and di sasters in the community. In addition, the City of Hesperia is part of the San Bernardino County Operational Area and therefore has created a plan that complements the San Bernardino County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. Emergency responses ar e coordinated through various offices within City and County government and aligned agencies. The City of Hesperia, San Bernardino County Fire, and Sheriff’s office provide emergency response.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas.

During construction of the Project, driveways, and connections to existing infrastructur e along Phelan Road and Caliente Road would remain open to ensure adequate emergency access to the Project area and vicinity.

Construction activities within the Project site that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement ade quate measures to facilitate the safe passage of persons and vehicles during required temporary road restrictions. In accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), prior to any activity that wou ld encroach into a right -of-way, the area of encroachment must be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices to ensure that construction activities would not physically interfere with emergency access or evacuation. Compliance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code would be specified by the City’s Building and Safety Division during the construction permitting process. Therefore, the Project would not block any evacuation routes or conflict with an emergency response plan, and impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response of evacuation plan during construction activities would be less than significant.

Operation
Project access would occur off Caliente Road and Phelan Road. As described in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Transportation, these driveways and roadways would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project site and would provide a variety of routes for emergency responders to access the site and surrounding areas. Additionally, the Project would comply with Municipal Code standards, which require design and construction specifications to allow adequate emergency access to the site and ensure that roadway improvements would meet public safety requirements. Furthermore, drivers are expected to comply with all state driving laws, roadway signage, as well as restrictions related to vehicle stopping and parking.

Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation or interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

7.9.7 WILDLAND FIRES
Impact Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires (Draft EIR Page 5.8-19).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located in an undeveloped area that is not within an identified wildland fire hazard area or an area where residences are intermixed with wildlands. According to the CAL Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the Project site is categorized as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) (CALFire, 2023). Further, Project implementation would require adherence to Chapter 15.04 Building Codes of the

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 58
Findings of Fact
December 2023
City Development Code which contain the adoption of the California Fire Codes to reduce potential fire hazards. The Project would also be required to comply with guidelines from San Bernardino County Fire related to fire prevention and subject to review during the plan check process by the City Building Division.

Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires, and there would be no impacts.

7.9.8 CUMULATIVE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials (Draft EIR Page 5.8-19.

Facts in Support of Finding: The cumulative study area for the purposes of hazardous materials and waste would be considered the City of Hesperia. This cumulative impact analysis for hazards and hazardous materials considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction with other development projects as well as the projects identified in Draft EIR Section 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects. None of the projects identified in D raft EIR Table 5 -1 are proposed adjacent to the Project site.

However, there are multiple cumulative projects within the Hesperia area, in the general vicinity of the Project.

Cumulative land use changes within the City of Hesperia would have the potentia l to expose future area residents, employees, and visitors to chemical hazards through the transport, storage, or use of hazardous materials. The severity of potential hazards for individual projects would depend upon the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated with individual sites. All hazardous materials users and transporters, as well as hazardous waste generators and disposers are subject to regulations that require proper transport, handling, use, storage, and disposal of such materials to ensure public safety. Thus, if hazardous materials are found to be present on future project sites, appropriate remediation activities would be required pursuant to standard federal, state, and regional regulations. Compliance with the relevant federal, state, and local regulations, during the operation and construction throughout the Project site, as well as during the construction and operation of related projects would ensure that cumulative impacts from hazardous materials would be less than significant.

7.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

7.10.1 VIOLATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE

REQUIREMENTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality (Draft EIR Page 5.9-10).

Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction
Water quality impacts during construction of the Project would be prevented through the requirements of the existing NPDES Construction General Permit, as included in the City’s Chapter 8.30, and PPP WQ -1, which establishes minimum stormwater management re quirements and controls that are required to be implemented for construction of the proposed Project, including preparation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Therefore, compliance with the State Construction General Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010 -0014-DWQ and 2012 -0006-DWQ, the City of Hesperia Municipal Code, and other applicable requirements, which would be verified during the City’s construction permitting process, would ensure that Project impacts related to construct ion activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant.

KISS Logistics Center Project

City of Hesperia 59
Findings of Fact
December 2023
Operation
As previously mentioned, the Project site is within the Mojave River watershed and drains to the Upper Mojave reach (Forks Reservoir Outlet to the Upper N arrows). The Mojave River (Forks Reservoir Outlet to the Upper Narrows) is classified as an impaired water body and has been placed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters for Sulfates, Fluoride, and Sodium (toxic inorganics and salinity/total dissolved solids/chlorides/sulfates).

The proposed Project would include development of a one -story, 655,468 SF warehouse building on the

29.61-acre site and the extension of sewer and water lines over 1.3 linear acres. Additional improvements would include landscaping , sidewalks, utility connections, implementation of stormwater facilities, and pavement of parking areas and driveways. The existing Project is vacant and undeveloped. The proposed development would add 1,149,815 SF of impervious surface area, with approximately 16.5 percent of the Project site including pervious landscaping.

Increases in impervious surface area would result in an increase in the volume and flow rate of surface runoff and potential pollutants from vehicles. Operation of the proposed land u ses could generate pollutants including trash, debris, oil residue, and other residue that could be deposited on streets, sidewalks, which have the potential to further exacerbate existing impairments of local water bodies. Proposed drainage improvements would include construction of onsite conveyance, including catch basins and roof drains that route flows to underground pipes. In the post -project condition, the drainage characteristics would be maintained similar to the pre-Project condition. Runoff from the site will be collected via a proposed on-site private storm drain system (including catch basins and storm drainpipes) and conveyed to the linear detention basin proposed within the northern portion of the Project site. The proposed storm water management system would consist of an above -ground hybrid infiltration/bioinfiltration basin. The stormwater infrastructure would capture and treat the 100 -year, 24 -hour storm. This proposed system would address the San Bernardino County Phase II Small MS4 Genera l Permit for the Mojave River Watershed requirements and design capture volume (DCV) (85th percentile, 24-hour storm). The City of Hesperia Engineering Department requested that the applicant provide capture of the 100 -year, 24-hour storm, which exceeds existing San Bernardino County requirements.

Implementation of the proposed Project would comply with BMPs pursuant to the County’s NPDES requirements, and the City Code. The Project would be required to implement a WQMP pursuant to Chapter

8.30 of the City of Hesperia Municipal Code and included as PPP WQ -2. Post construction BMPs and LID included in the WQMP would avoid potential quality degradation of receiving waters resulting from proposed development. As part of the permitting approval process, construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Plans for grading, drainage, erosion control and water quality would be reviewed by the City Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits to ensure that the applicable and required LID BMPs are constructed during implementation of the Project.

Additionally, BMPs would include non-structural water quality controls to further minimize potential of water quality degradation of receiving waters. Overall, adherence to the existing regulations as implemented by the City Code would ensure that Project impacts related to degradation of water quality from operational activities would be less than significant.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As previously listed.

PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As previously listed.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 60
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.10.2 DEPLETE GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR INTERFERE WITH

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Basin (Draft EIR Page 5.9-12).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is underlain by the Upper Mojave River Basin, which is fully adjudicated and managed by the Mojave Water Agenc y (Watermaster). The Mojave Water Agency is a low priority basin that is not required to form a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) or groundwater sustainability plan (GSP). Additionally, Mojave Water Agency is exempt from this requirement due to the adjudication. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

Hesperia’s primary water supply is pumped water from the Alto subarea of the Mojave Basin. The Project proposes a Specific Plan Amendment to chan ge the Project site’s MSFC -SP designation from NC to CIBP.

However, as discussed in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Hesperia only extracts as much groundwater as is necessary to meet customer demands. Additionally, the Mojave Basin is adjudicated, and groundwater is pumped and allocated based on the codified allocations. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a substantial decrease in water supplies and would not conflict with determinations of the UWMP.

Currently, the Project site is undeveloped and pervious which allows for groundwater recharge. The proposed Project would result in the addition of 1,149,815 SF of impervious surface area. According to the Mojave River Watershed Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans , LID infiltration BMPs must be used to capture and infiltrate the 85th percentile, 24-hour precipitation event. Runoff from the site would be collected via a proposed on -site private storm drain system (including catch basins and s torm drainpipes) and conveyed to the linear detention basin proposed within the northern portion of the Project site. The proposed storm water management system would consist of an above -ground hybrid infiltration/bioinfiltration basin. The stormwater infr astructure would capture and treat the 100 -year, 24- hour storm, an excess of the regional NDPES MS4 Permit requirement to capture and infiltrate the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm. In addition, vegetated landscaping has also been incorporated into the Proj ect design to capture, treat, and infiltrate stormwater. As specified in the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix K), the infiltration capability of the Project site is adequate based on applicable permit requirements. The Project would decrease the total pervious a rea and increase the infiltration rate within proposed pervious areas.

The proposed stormwater system would provide similar infiltration and groundwater recharge capabilities to existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not substantially impede gro undwater recharge of the Project site.

Compliance with the MS4 permit requirements, the City Code, and other applicable requirements implemented through the WQMP, which would be verified during the Project permitting process, would ensure that Project impacts related to groundwater depletion and recharge would be less than significant.

7.10.3 EROSION OR SILTATION
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (Draft EIR Page 5.9-13).

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 61
Findings of Fact
December 2023
Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction
Construction of the Project would require site clearing and grading. Excavatio n, grading, and other site preparation activities would loosen soils, which has the potential to result in erosion and the loss of topsoil.

Also, the Project site is generally flat and does not contain substantial slopes that could induce erosion or siltation. The existing NPDES Construction General Permit, included as PPP WQ-1, requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer for construction activities that disturb one acre or more of soil. The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to potential sources of sedimentation and erosion and would list the required BMPs that are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of erosion or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities.

Overall, with implementation of the existing construction regulations that would be verified by the City during the permitting approval process, impacts related to alteration of an existing drainage pattern during construction that could result in substantial erosion or siltation would be less than significant.

Operation
The existing drainage pattern for the site generally flows from the south to the north. Runoff from the site would be collected via a proposed onsite private storm drain system (including catch basins and storm drainpipes) and conveyed in the northerly dir ection to a proposed storm water management system. The detention basin would contain dry wells that would treat the stormwater collected from the Project site. In the post-project condition, the drainage characteristics would be maintained as similar to t he pre-Project condition.

The Project site would be mostly developed with impervious surfaces and undeveloped areas would be vegetated, minimizing the potential for erosion or siltation on site. As previously discussed, the Project would include implementation of BMPs designed to fully capture and infiltrate the Project’s DCV, reducing offsite stormwater flows. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage and water quality design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City Depa rtment of Public Works to ensure that they meet the County’s NPDES Permit and limit the potential for erosion and siltation. Therefore, impacts related to alteration of a drainage pattern and erosion/siltation from operational activities would be less than significant.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As previously listed.

PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As previously listed.

7.10.4 SURFACE RUNOFF
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site (Draft EIR Page 5.9-14).

Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would include activities that could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, for example by constructing foundations and paved areas, and could result in flooding on - or off -site if drainage is not properly controlled. However, as described previously, implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP that would address site-specific drainage issues related to

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 62
Findings of Fact
December 2023
construction of the Project and would include BMPs to eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. This includes diverting runoff from rooftops and other impervious surfaces to vegetated areas, when possible, to promote infiltration and controlling the perimeter of the site using sandbags, berms, and silt fencing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious area whic h would increase surface flows compared to existing conditions. However, installation of new stormwater facilities, including aboveground and underground stormwater basins, pervious landscaped areas, and new storm drains would be installed.

The proposed stormwater drainage system would collect onsite flows via a series of catch basins and storm drains.

Proposed onsite stormwater infrastructure has capacity to treat and detain 100 percent of the WQMP DCV.

In addition, stormwater runoff would be directed towards landscaped areas wherever possible for treatment and infiltration. The aboveground and underground storage facilities are expected to retain and infiltrate the 100-year 24-hour storm. The use of the detention basin and landscaping would regulate the ra te and velocity of stormwater flows and would control the amount of discharge into the offsite drainage system. As determined by the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix K) and Preliminary Hydrology Report (Appendix I), the proposed drainage improvements would sligh tly maintain peak flow rates for a 100 -year storm from existing conditions of 59.10 cubic feet per second (cfs). Proposed hydromodifications would be consistent with County requirements within the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual flow requirements. A s determined by the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix K) and Preliminary Hydrology Report (Appendix I), the proposed Project would not result in flooding conditions to upstream or downstream properties with the proposed improvements. As part of the permitting app roval process, the proposed drainage and water quality design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City Department of Public Works to ensure that they meet the County NPDES Permit requirements and would not result in flood impacts.

Overall, the drainage facilities proposed for the Project have been sized to be consistent with the County MS4 permit requirements. Thus, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, such that flooding would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
PPP WQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As previously listed.

PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As previously listed.

7.10.5 STORMWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (Draft EIR Page 5.9-15).

Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project would develop an undeveloped site, which would result in the addition of 1,149,815 SF of impervious surface area. Existing Project site drainages sheet flows from the south to the north of the Project site. Flows discharge to the Oro Grande Wash southeast of the Project site.

Use of the aboveground and underground storage chambers would r egulate the rate and velocity of stormwater flows and would control the amount of discharge into the off-site drainage system. As discussed

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 63
Findings of Fact
December 2023
above, stormwater runoff would be treated via biotreatment, and the Project would not result in significant impacts related to water quality. In addition, the drainage facilities proposed for the Project have been sized to adequately accommodate the stormwater flows from the proposed development and are consistent with the County drainage plans and MS4 permit requiremen ts. The proposed stormwater system would accommodate existing stormwater infrastructure capacity by holding the entire DCV and allowing high flows to discharge from the site at a reduced flowrate. The existing drainage pattern would be maintained, and peak flow rates would slightly maintain. However, the proposed drainage improvements would be consistent with County standards and permit requirements. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.

7.10.6 IMPEDE OR REDIRECT FLOOD FLOWS
Impact Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows (Draft EIR Page 5.9-16).

Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction
The Project site generally slopes south to north. Implementation of the Project would maintain existing drainage patterns of the Project site. Construction of the proposed Project would include activities that could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and could result in flooding on - or off-site if drainage is not properly controlled. However, as described previously, implementation of the Pr oject requires a SWPPP that would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the Project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. Compliance with the County’s NPDES Permit and a SWPPP, as verified by the City through the construction permitting process, would prevent construction-related impacts related to potential impediment or redirection of flood flows. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Per the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the Project is within Zone X, an area determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain (Map Number 06071C6475H). As described previously, the proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious areas. As a result, the Project would increase surface flows compared to existing conditions. However, installation of new stormwater drainage facilities, including aboveground and subsurface storage chambers, pervious landscaped areas, and new storm drains would be installed. The proposed drainage system would collect onsite flows via a series of catch basins and subsurface storm drains.

Proposed onsite drainage infrastructure has capacity to retain 100 percent of the site’s DCV. In addition, landscaped areas would accept runoff water from impervious surfaces. The use of the detention chambers and landscaping would regulate the rate and velocity of stormwater flows and would control the amount of discharge into the off -site drainage system. The proposed flowrate would be slightly greater than the existing flowrate; however, the drainage system would be designed consistent with County standards. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage and water quality design and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City Department of Public Works to ensure that they meet the County NPDES Permit requirements and would not result in flood impacts.

Overall, the drainage facilities proposed for the Project have been sized to be consistent with the County MS4 permit requirements. The Project site is not within an existing floodplain and would not contribute to increased flooding. Thus, implementation of the Project would not substantially impede or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 64
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.10.7 FLOOD HAZARD, TSUNAMI, OR SEICHE ZONES
Impact Finding: The Project would not be located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche ones, and risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation (Draft EIR Page 5.9-17).

Facts in Support of Finding: According to the FIRM, published by FEMA (06071C6475H), the Project site is located in “Zone X”, which is an area located outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood plains.

Tsunamis are large waves that occur in coastal areas; therefore, since the City is not located in a coastal area, no impacts due to tsunamis would occur. Addi tionally, the Project site does not contain and is not adjacent to any water bodies that could seiche. The nearest body of water is Mojave River, approximately nine miles to the east, which is not a contained body of water with seiche potential. Therefore, the Project would result in no impacts related to a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche or release of pollutants due to Project inundation.

7.10.8 CONFLICT WITH WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN OR SUSTAINABLE

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (Draft EIR Page 5.9-16).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is undeveloped, and the proposed Project would result in a substantial increase of imperviousness. The proposed storm drain system is sized to adequately accommodate increased stormwater flows from the Project area and would maintain the existing drainage pattern of the site. Runoff would discharge into the onsite deten tion basin, which would retain and slow runoff before its treated by the proposed biotreatment BMP, infiltrating, or being discharged offsite.

The Project would not conflict with SGMA. The City of Hesperia is within the jurisdiction of the Lahontan RWQCB (Region 8) which sets water quality standards for all ground and surface waters within its region through implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). This Basin Plan gives direction on the beneficial uses of the state waters within Region 8 , describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses, and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the established standards. The County’s NPDES Storm Water Permit, included as City of Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter

08.30, would require proposed projects in the Project area to prepare a WQMP, included as PPP WQ -2.

WQMPs are required to include BMPs for source control, pollution prevention, site design, and structural treatment control BMPs. As part of the permitting approval process, construction plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations to minimize the potential of the Project to result in a degradation of water quality. Plans for grading, drainage, erosion control and water qu ality would be reviewed by the City Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits to ensure compliance.

As discussed under Impact WQ -2, the Mojave River Basin is adjudicated and therefore is not subject to a sustainable groundwater managemen t plan. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
PPP WQ-2: WQMP. As listed previously.

7.10.9 CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality (Draft EIR Page 5.9-17).

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 65
Findings of Fact
December 2023
Facts in Support of Finding: The areas considered for cumulative impacts to h ydrology and water quality are the Mojave River Watershed for drainage and water quality impacts, and the Upper Mojave River Basin for groundwater impacts.

Water Quality: The geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality includes the Mojave River Basin watershed because cumulative projects and developments pursuant to the proposed Project could incrementally exacerbate the existing impaired condition and could result in new pollutant-related impairments.

Related developments within the watershed would be required to implement water quality control measures pursuant to the same NPDES General Construction Permit that requires implementation of a SWPPP (for construction), a WQMP (for operation) and BMPs to eliminate or reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater discharges, reduce runoff, reduce erosion and sedimentation, and increase filtration and infiltration. The NPDES permit requirements have been set by the SWRCB and implemented by the RWQCB (and Hesperia Municipal Code) to reduce incremental effects of individual projects so that they would not become cumulatively considerable. Therefore, overall potential impacts to water quality associated with present and future development in the watershed would not be cumulatively considerable upon compliance with all applicable laws, permits, ordinances and plans. As detailed previously, the proposed Project would be implemented in compliance with all regulations, as would be verified during the permitting process.

Therefore, cumulative impacts related to water quality would be less than significant.

Drainage: The geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to stormwater drainage includes the geographic area served by the existing stormwater infrastructure for the Project area, from capture of runoff through final discharge points. As described above the proposed Project includes installation of a detention basin that would retain, slow, filter, and infiltrate the 100 -year, 24-hour design stor m. These facilities would retain runoff and reduce erosion and siltation. In addition, pursuant to state and regional regulations that require development projects to maintain pre-project hydrology, no net increase of off-site stormwater flows would occur. As a result, the proposed Project would not generate runoff that could combine with additional runoff from cumulative projects that could cumulatively combine to impact erosion, siltation, flooding, and water quality. Thus, cumulative impacts related to drainage would be less than significant.

Groundwater Basin: The geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to the groundwater basin is the Upper Mojave River Basin. As described above, the proposed Project includes installation of an infiltration chamber that would recharge stormwater into the groundwater basin. In addition, the volume of water that would be needed by the Project is within the anticipated groundwater pumping volumes since the basin is adjudicated. Therefore, the Project would not result in changes to the projected groundwater pumping that would decrease groundwater supplies. As a result, the proposed Project would not generate impacts related to the groundwater basin that have the potential to combine with effects from other projects to become cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to the groundwater basin would be less than significant.

7.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

7.11.1 DIVISION OF AN EXISTING COMMUNITY
Impact Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community (Draft EIR Page 5.10-11).

Facts in Support of Finding: The physical division of an established community could occur if a major road (expressway or freeway, for example) were built through an existing community or neighborhood, or if a major development was built which was inconsistent with the land uses in the community such that it divided the community. The environmental effects caused by such a facility or land use could include lack of, or disruption of, access to services, schools, or shopping areas.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 66
Findings of Fact
December 2023
The Project site is currently vacant and is surrounded by existing roadways, vacant land, and industrial uses.

The Project site is currently designated for industrial and commercial uses, and with the implementation of a Specific Plan Amendment to redesignate the southern parcel to CIBP, the Project would be consistent with the planned land uses for the site. In addition, the Project does not involve development of roadways or other infrastructure that could divide a community. Therefore, the proposed Project would not divide the physical arrangement of an established community, and no impact would occur.

7.11.2 CONFLICT WITH LAND USE PLANS
Impact Finding: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Draft EIR Page 5.10-11).

Facts in Support of Finding:

The General Plan currently designates the Project site as Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (MSFC-SP). Within the MSFC -SP, the two northerly parcels of the site (APN 3064 -401-03 and -04) are designated Commercial/Industrial Park (CIBP) and the southerly parcel of the site (APN 3064 -401-05) is designated Neighborhood Commercial (NC). The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan designation of CIBP (with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), as discussed below). Furthermore, the Project involves modifying the southern portion of the Project site’s Specific Plan designation from NC to CIBP which would require a Specific Plan Amendment. Approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the CUP would make the Project consistent MSFC -SP. Therefore, in consistency with the MSFC -SP, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the General Plan contains several goals and policies that address land use and planning and are applicable to the Project. An analysis of the Project’s consistency with these goals and policies is provided in the Draft EIR Table 5.10-2 and demonstrates that the proposed Project would not conflict with the General Plan.

With approval of 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. Additionally, the MSFC-SP contains several goals and policies that address land use and planning and are applicable to the Pro ject. An analysis of the Project’s consistency with these goals and policies is provided in the Draft EIR Table 5.10-3 and demonstrates that the proposed Project would not conflict with the MSFC-SP.

SCAG’s RTP/SCS policies focus largely on regional transportation and the efficiency of transportation, which are implemented by counties and cities within the SCAG region, as part of the overall planning and maintenance of the regional transportation system. The policies are not directly applicable to the Project. As shown in the Draft EIR Table 5.10 -4, the Project would not conflict with the adopted RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

7.11.3 CUMULATIVE LAND USE IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to land use and planning.

Facts in Support of Finding: While the project requires a Specific Plan amendment to change the zoning of the site, the proposed Project would be consistent with the Specific Plan land use designation and zoning designation after th e amendment. Past and present cumulative projects do not involve amendments that would eliminate application of policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Determining whether any future project might include such amendments and determining the cumulative effects of any such amendments would be speculative since it cannot be known what applications that are not currently filed might request. Thus, it is expected that the land uses of cumulative projects would be consistent with policies that avoid an environmental effect; therefore,

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 67
Findings of Fact
December 2023
cumulatively considerable impacts from cumulative projects related to policy consistency would be less than significant.

7.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

7.12.1 LOSS OF KNOWN MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state (Initial Study Page 43).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project would develop the site with a one-story 655,468-SF industrial building. According to the Hesperia General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, the City of Hesperia currently has not identified any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. As a result, no impacts to mineral resources will occur, and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.12.2 LOSS OF RESOURCE RECOVERY SITES
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan (Initial Study Page 43).

Facts in Support of Findings: As stated above, the Project site does not include a locally important mineral resource. Therefore, impacts related to known mineral resources would not occur from implementation of the Project, and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.12.3 CUMULATIVE MINERAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to mineral resources.

Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to mineral resources. The proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Thus, the development of the proposed Project and cumulative projects would not result in a significant impact to mineral resources. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources would be cumulatively less than significant.

7.13 NOISE

7.13.1 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT NOISE IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (Draft EIR Page 5.11-3).

Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction
Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that can reach high levels when combined. Construction is expected to occur in the following stages: excavation and gradin g, building construction, architectural coating, paving.

Construction noise would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use.

The typical operating cycle for a piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 68
Findings of Fact
December 2023
Per City Municipal Code Section 16.20.125, noise sources associated with construction activities are exempt from the City’s established noise standards as long as the activities do not take place between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of any one day and to 7:00 a.m. of the next day, or on Sundays or federal holidays. The proposed Project’s construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations. Thus, the construction activities would be in compliance with the County’s construction-related noise standards.

The project construction composite noise levels at a distance of 50 feet would range from 82 dBA Leq to 88 dBA Leq with the highest noise levels occurring during the site preparation and grading phases, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5.11-4. While construction noise will vary, it is expected that composite noise levels du ring construction at the nearest residential uses southwest of the Project would reach 58 dBA Leq. These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously; and therefore, are conservative assumptions. While construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the Project area under existing conditions, the noise impacts would no longer occur once Project construction is completed. As shown on Draf t EIR Table 5.11-5, construction noise from the proposed Project at the nearby receptor locations would range from 54 to 58 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the 80 dBA Leq 8 -hour construction noise level criteria as established by the FTA for residential land uses. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant.

Operation
Traffic Noise Impacts: Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three p rimary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,941 daily trips, 187 a.m. peak hour trips and 231 p.m. peak hour trips.

As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.11-6, the increase in Project-related traffic noise would be no greater than

1.8 dBA during existing conditions and no greater than 1.6 during opening year conditions which is below the threshold of a 3.0 dBA noise level increase. Therefore, traffic noise impacts from project-related traffic on off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Off-Site Stationary Noise Impacts: Adjacent off-site land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary- source noise impacts from the proposed on-site heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment and truck deliveries and loading and unloading activities. To provide a conservative analysis, it is assumed that operations would occur equally during all hours of the day and that half of the 60 loading docks would be active at all times. Additionally, it is assumed that within the peak hour, consistent with the Project’s trip generation, 20 heavy trucks would maneuver to park near or back into one of the proposed loading docks.

Delivery trucks are anticipated to generate a noise level of 75 dBA Leq at 20 feet (see Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis [Appendix J] of the Draft EIR). Maximum noise levels that would occur during the docking process are anticipated to be 86 dBA Lmax at a distance of 20 feet (see Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis [Appendix J] of the Draft EIR). Tables 5.11-7 and 5.11-8 within the Draft EIR show the combined hourly noise levels generated by HVAC equipment and truck delivery activities at the closest offsite land uses. The Project-related noise level impacts would range from 32.4 dBA Leq to 35.4 dBA Leq at the surrounding sensitive receptors. These levels would be below the City’s exterior daytime and nighttime noise standards of 60 dBA Leq and 55 dBA Leq for residential land uses, respectively, as well as the 65 dBA Leq standard for office uses any time of day. Additionally, as shown in Tables 5.11-7 and 5.11-8, the existing daytime ambient noise level is 48.8 dBA Leq while the existing nighttime ambient noise level is 48.7 dBA Leq. As shown in Table 5.11-3 above, the existing ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity range between

68.4 dBA Leq during nighttime and 70.7 dBA Leq during daytime. Therefore, because Project noise levels would not exceed the current ambient noise level by 3 dBA or more, the impact would be less than significant.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 69
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.13.2 EXCESSIVE GROUNDBOURNE VIBRATION OR GROUNDBOURNE NOISE LEVELS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Draft EIR Page 5.11-17).

Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction
Construction activities for development of the proposed Project would include demolition, excavation, and grading activities, which have the potential to generate low levels of groundb orne vibration. Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the FTA and the equipment that would be used for the proposed Project, a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 PPV in/sec or 87 VdB of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 feet, as shown on Draft EIR Table 5.11-

9. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite structure (885 feet away) would be 0.0004 inch per second PPV (see Draft EIR Table 5.11-10), which is well below the City’s 0.2 PPV inch per second vibration threshold. Therefore, impacts related to construction vibration would be less than significant.

Operation
Operation of the proposed Project would include operation of heavy trucks, deliverie s, and moving trucks, and garbage trucks for solid waste disposal. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, vibration levels generated from Project -related traffic within the Project site and on the adjacent roadways are unusual for on -road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Vibration levels generated from Project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant.

7.13.3 EXPOSE PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN

TO EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS
Impact Finding: The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (Draft EIR Page

5.11-19).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located approximatel y 6.2 miles northwest of Hesperia Airport. According to Figure II-3, Hesperia Airport – 65 CNEL Noise Contour, of the Hesperia Airport CLUP, the Project site is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours. No other airports exist within the vicinity of the Project. Thus, implementation and development of the Project would not result in a safety hazard or exposure to excessive noise for people residing or working in the area, and impacts would be less than significant.

7.13.4 CUMULATIVE NOISE IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to noise (Draft EIR Page 5. 11- 19).

Facts in Support of Finding: Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the proposed Project in combination with ambient growth and other development projects within the vicinity of the Project area. As noise is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces in magnitude as distance from the source increases,

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 70
Findings of Fact
December 2023
only projects and ambient growth in the nearby area could combine with the proposed Project to result in cumulative noise impacts.

Development of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects would result in an increase in construction-related and traffic -related noise. However, City Municipal Code Secti on 16.20.125, Noise, requires construction activities to not occur between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or anytime on Sunday or a federal holiday. Also, construction noise and vibration is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise and vibration levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the proposed Project construction.

The closest cumulative project is the Hesperia Commerce Center II Project, which would be constructed directly to the west and north of the Project site. Construction of the Hesperia Commerce Center II Project was anticipated to commence in 2021 and last through 2023. However, as of February 2023, construction of the Hesperia Commerce Center II Project has not begun. Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to last approximately 14 months and would occur from Octob er of 2023 to November of 2024. Therefore, construction activities of the two projects could slightly overlap. However, cumulative noise increases due to construction would be temporary and localized. As discussed throughout this section, construction noise from the proposed Project at the nearby receptor locations would range from 54 to 58 dBA Leq, which is comparable to the existing ambient noise levels ranging between 58.1 dBA Leq during nighttime and 70.7 dBA Leq during daytime. Further, the distance from construction activities to nearby receptors is substantial, thus the combined noise levels are anticipated to be less than significant. Therefore, due to the distance from nearby receptors and timing differences between the projects, construction noise and vibration levels from the proposed Project would not combine to become cumulatively considerable, and cumulative noise and vibration impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.

Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed Project and related projects within the study area. Therefore, cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed Project traffic volumes on the roadways in the Project vicinity. The increase in noise levels associated with the traffic volumes of the proposed Project were previously identified. As detailed, development of the proposed Project would result in noise levels much lower than the 3 dBA threshold. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact when combined with existing and future development. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

7.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

7.14.1 INDUCEMENT POPULATION GROWTH
Impact Finding: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (Initial Study Page 45).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would develop the site with a one -story 655,468-SF industrial building and associated onsite and offsite infrastructure. No habitable structures exist on the site or are being proposed as part of the Project.

The Project would result in an increase in employment at the Project site that c ould lead to a potential population increase in the surrounding area. According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the generation rate for employees required for operation of an industrial project is 1 employee for every 1,195 SF of industrial space. Therefore, operation of the Project would require approximately 549 employees.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 71
Findings of Fact
December 2023
According to SCAG’s 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS population and household growth forecast for Hesperia, between 2016 and 2045, SCAG anticipates an employment increase of 23,600 additional jobs (from 22,500 to 46,100), yielding a 105 percent growth rate. SCAG also anticipates a population increase of 74,400 between 2016 and 2045 (from 93,700 to 168,100). The proposed Project would generate the need for approximately 549 employees, which represents approximately 0.74 percent of the forecasted population growth between 2016 and 2045 and approximately 2.33 percent of the forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045 for the City. Thus, although the Project would genera te additional long- term employment in the Project area, the new employment opportunities would be within the forecasted and planned growth of the City. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to inducement of substantial unplanned population growth, and this topic was not evaluated in the EIR.

7.14.2 DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING AND PEOPLE
Impact Finding: The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Initial Study Page 46).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped though it has been previously disturbed. No habitable structures exist on the Project site nor are they currently planned for future development of residential uses. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and this topic was not evaluated in the EIR.

7.14.3 CUMULATIVE POPULATION AND HOUSING IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to population and housing.

Facts in Support of Finding: Cumulative impacts regarding population and housing would occur from the development of a combination of projects that induce population growth. Although the Project would result in minimal population growth in the City, the proposed Project would not result in direct population growth as the use proposed is not residential and would not contribute to permanent residency on site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and this impact would be considered less than significant. The Project would not involve development of infrastructure or roadways that would indirectly lead to population growth.

The cumulative growth induced by the Project combined with other approved and proposed projects within the City, would not result in substantial population growth beyond that which the City and region has planned.

Therefore, impacts related to population and housing would be cumulatively less than significant.

7.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

7.15.1 FIRE
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services (Initial Study Page 46).

Facts in Support of Finding: The City of Hesperia contracts with the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) for all fire and emergency services. The closest fire station to the Project site is Station 305, located approximately 1.73 miles south of the Project site, at 8331 Caliente Rd, Hesperia, CA 92344. SBCFD operates two additional fire stations within the City: Fire Station 304 (15660 Eucalyptus Street) and Fire Station 302 (17288 Olive Street) (SBCFD 2022).

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 72
Findings of Fact
December 2023
According to the Hesperia General Plan, average SBCFD response times are approximately seven minutes and sixteen seconds (Hesperia 2010). Construction and operation of the proposed Project would increase the number of structures and employees in the Project area; however, as previously discussed, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the City.

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 ex isting 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 would be adequately served by the SBCFD without the construction of new, or the expansion of existing, facilities.

Overall, it is anticipated that the Project would be adequately served by existing SBCFD facilities, equipment, and personnel. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and this topic was not evaluated in the EIR.

7.15.2 POLICE
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other performance objectives for police services (Initial Study Page 47).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Law enforcement services within the City are provided via a contract with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department which serves the community from one police station. The Hesperia Police Department is located at 15840 Smoke Tree Street, Hesperia, CA 92345, appr oximately

4.74 miles east of the Project site. According to the City of Hesperia, the Hesperia Police Department is comprised of approximately 58 law enforcement personnel, including one captain, one lieutenant, seven sergeants, five detectives, and 44 deputy sheriffs (City of Hesperia 2022).

The Project is not anticipated to 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 greater increase in calls for service) and would not result in the need for new police protection facilities.

In summary, it is anticipated that the Project would be adequately served by existing San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department facilities, equipment, and personnel. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.15.3 SCHOOLS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause signific ant environmental impacts (Initial Study Page 47).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project consists of a warehouse facility that would not directly generate students. The Project is not anticipated to generate a new population, as the employees needed to operate the Project are anticipated to come from within the Project region and substantial in-migration of employees that could generate new students is not anticipated to occur. Thus, the Project would not generate the need for new or physically altered school facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 73
Findings of Fact
December 2023
1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. The Project would be required to contribute fees to the Hesperia Unified School District in accordance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (Senate Bill 50). Pursuant to Senate Bill 50, payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project‐related impacts to school services. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.15.4 PARKS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substanti al adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts (Initial Study Page 47).

Facts in Support of Finding: The site is served by the City of Hesperia Recreation and Parks District.

Typically, residential development increases the need for new parks and increases the use of existing citywide park facilities. The proposed Project involves development of an industrial warehouse and would not directly provide new housing opportunities and new residents to the area. Although new employees may occasionally use local parks, such increase in use would be limited and would not result in deterioration to facilities such that the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be necessary. Therefore, any increased demand on the public parks within the city would be considered a less than significant impact, and this topic and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.15.5 OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impac ts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other performance objectives for police services (Initial Study Page 48).

Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project involves construction and operation of a new warehouse facility and would not provide new housing opportunities to the area. The proposed Project is not likely to create a significant increase in the use of other public facilities such as libraries, community centers, post offices or animal shelters. Therefore, im pacts are considered less than significant, and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.15.6 CUMULATIVE PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to public services.

Facts in Support of Find ing: The proposed Project would have less -than-significant impacts on public services. Potential cumulative effects may arise from the aggregation of service demands from development of the proposed Project and with other approved and proposed projects within the City. However, projects within the City including the proposed would be required to contribute development fees specific to public services including fire and police services, schools, parks, and other facilities. As a result, the Project's cumulative impacts on public services are less than significant.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 74
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.16 RECREATION

7.16.1 EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that subst antial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Initial Study Page 49).

Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project would construct a warehouse facility. Implementation of the proposed Project would not directly increase housing or population, which typically cause an increase in the demand for, and use of, existing neighborhood parks and other citywide recreational facilities. Although new employees may occasionally increase the use of existing local parks, neighborhood and regional parks, employees’ limited use would not result in deterioration to facilities such that the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be necessary. Any impacts related to the physical deterioration of existing recreation parks or facilities would be less than significant, and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.16.2 EXPANDED AND NEW RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Impact Finding: The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (Initial Study Page 49).

Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project would construct a new warehouse facility. As described above, the indirect increase in popu lation as a result of new employment opportunities would not result in use of recreational facilities sufficient to cause deterioration such that the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be necessary. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts associated with recreational facilities, and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.16.3 CUMULATIVE RECREATIONAL IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to recreation.

Facts in Support of Finding: Combined projects would lead to a significant cumulative impact in the use of parks and recreational facilities. However, the indirect increase in population as a result of new employment opportunities from combined development including the proposed warehouse facility would not result in use of recreational facilities sufficient to cause deterioration such that the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be necessary. As previously discussed, the growth projection would be consistent with SCAG’s growth projections for the City. Thus, would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities or require expansion of recreational facilities. As a result, cumulative impacts related to recreation would be less than significant.

7.17 TRANSPORTATION

7.17.1 CONFLICT WITH CIRCULATION SYSTEM PLAN, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY Impact Finding: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (Draft Subsequent EIR at p.

5.8-13). Impacts are less than significant (Draft EIR Page 5.12-5).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element, the Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (MSFCSP), and the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) as shown in Draft EIR Figure 5.12-

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 75
Findings of Fact
December 2023

1. The Project would not hinder the City’s ability to develop a sa fe, efficient, convenient, and attractive transportation system throughout the community. The Project would include construction of ‘A’ Street which would extend from Phelan Road, approximately 630 feet south of the Project site, to Yucca Terrace Drive, approximately 930 feet north of the Project site. The roadways would be built to half width (35 feet). The proposed driveways off ‘A’ Street would be 40 feet wide and provide access for trucks, passenger vehicles, and emergency vehicles. Internal circulation would be provided via 40-foot drive aisles.

Additionally, the Project would be served by VVTA. This existing transit service would continue to serve its ridership in the area and may also serve employees of the Project site. The proposed Project would not alter or conflict with existing transit stops and schedules, and impacts relat ed to transit services would not occur.

There are currently no plans for future bicycle infrastructure within the Project area. The proposed Project would not conflict with plans to implement Class II facilities and impacts related to bicycle facilities would not occur. A 12 -foot sidewalk would be constructed along the proposed ‘A’ Street and Yucca Terrace Drive.

Sidewalk area would be dedicated to the City as part of the Project. There are currently no plans for future pedestrian infrastructure connections within the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing roadway circulation, and impacts would be less than significant.

7.17.2 DESIGN HAZARD
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (E.G., sharp curve or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (E.G., farm equipment). Impacts are less than significant (Draft EIR Page 5.12-5).

Facts in Support of Finding: Access to the Project site would be provided via two unsignalized full -access driveways along the proposed ‘A’ Street. Both driveways would accommodate trucks, passenger vehicles, and emergency vehicles. Internal circulation would be provided via 40-foot drive aisles. Trucks are expected to primarily utilize Phelan Road, US 395, I-15, and Joshua Road, which are all designated truck routes within the city.

Proposed roadway improvements as required by the Project are summarized below. All roadway improvements would be cons tructed in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal roadway standards and practices.
• 'A' Street would be built to a 35 -foot half width along the west side of the Project. The proposed roadway would extend from Phelan Road, approximately 630 feet south of the Project site, to Yucca Terrace Drive, approximately 930 feet north of the Project site. • Yucca Terrace Drive would be built to a 35-foot half width approximately 930 feet north of the Project site.
• The Project would construct 12-foot sidewalks along the proposed ‘A’ Street and Yucca Terrace Drive.

Roadway design would conform with City Development Design Standards for internal access and local roadway improvements. Future improvements related to Caltrans facilities (US 395 and I -15) would go through an additional process to ensure interchange and ramp configurations are consistent with Caltrans design standards. Design would be confirmed during the plan check process through the City prior to issuance of a grading permit and Project approval. The Project would not result in a non-standard geometric design feature or an incompatible use that could result in a traffic safety hazard. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

7.17.3 EMERGENCY ACCESS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access (Draft EIR Page 5.12-15).

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 76
Findings of Fact
December 2023
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site, and would not restri ct access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of new roadway extensions ('A' Street and Yucca Terrace Drive), driveways and offsite utility improvements that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of one side or portions of roadways for a short period of time (i.e., hours or a few days). However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Additionally, all potential road closures would be subject to review and approval by the City, including issuance of an encroachment permit. Once the offsite utility improvements are completed, all road conditions would be restored to normal. Operation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. Direct access to the Project site would be provided from ‘A’ Street, which is adjacent to the Project site. The Project applicant is also required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with Ci ty Ordinances. Additionally, City’s Fire Department would review the development plans prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in the International Fire Code and Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9). As part of internal emergency access, the Project includes a 40-foot-wide fire lane to ensure adequate emergency access. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses, and no impacts would occur.

7.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

7.18.1 REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WATER,

WASTEWATER TREATMENT, STORMWATER DRAINAGE, ELECTRIC

POWER, NATURAL GAS, OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
Impact Finding: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new water facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR Page 5.14-7 through 5.14-18).

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project includes the development of a one -story, 655,468 SF warehouse and manufacturing facility on the 29.61 -acre site. Additional improvements would include landscaping, sidewalks, utility connections, implementation of stormwater faciliti es, and pavement of parking areas and driveways.

Water. The Project site would be served by the HWD water utility. A 16-inch water line would be constructed within the proposed ‘A’ Street right-of-way to the west of the Project site, that would extend approximately 1,300 feet south toward Phelan Road. The proposed water main would then run adjacent to the existing water main within Phalen Road/Main Street for approximately 3,980 feet to Mesa Linda Street. The water main would then continue approximately 2,700 feet south and connect to the existing main at Sultana Street.

The proposed water line within Phelan Road/Main Street and Mesa Linda Street has been approved and will be constructed as part of the adjacent Hesperia Commerce Center II Project (SCH # 2019110418). The Project would be responsible for constructing the portion of water line from along Caliente Road from Phelan Road to Yucca Terrace Road and the connection to the proposed building. The new and existing onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed industrial uses, and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code for efficient use of water. Additionally, the District would have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years as shown in Table 5.14-2: HWD Projected Water Demand and Supply During Normal and Dry Years (AF). The UWMP provides conservative estimates of demand conditions over a five -year drought. The supply availability paired with the slightly increased demand conditions demo nstrate that the HWD has sufficient water supplies to meet five consecutive dry year conditions through 2045. Therefore, the

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 77
Findings of Fact
December 2023
proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater. Sewer services would be provided to the Project by HWD. Wastewater generated from the Project would be conveyed to the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA) via a 3 ‐ mile interceptor that runs along the northeast boundary of the City. VVWRA existing facilities would have sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new wastewater facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage. Proposed drainage improvements would include construction of onsite conveyance, including curbs and gutters. Runoff from the site will be collected via a proposed on-site private storm drain system (including catch basins and storm drainpipes) and conveyed north to a proposed stormwater management system. The proposed storm water management system would consist of a detention basin at the north end of the Project site.

The stormwater infrastructure would capture and treat the 100-year, 100-hour storm which would meet and exceed the MS4 General Permit San Bernardino County Phase II Small MS4 General Permit for the Mojave River Watershed requirements. Any excess runoff would follow existing drainage patterns north to Yucca Terrace Road. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new stormwater facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Solid Waste. The Project would be served by Advance Disposal Company solid waste services. Solid waste would be transported to the Victorville Sanitary Landfill at 18600 Stoddard Wells Road in Victorville as discussed above. The Project would comply with California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11; the California Green Building Code, which requires that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Existing solid waste facilities would have sufficient capacity to serve the Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new solid waste facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the con struction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Energy and Communications Utilities. Regulated electrical, gas and communication utilities would be extended to the site from existing facilities along Phelan Road. The Project would be served by Southern California Gas, Southern California Edison, and by several private telecommunication providers as requested. Utility providers have existing capacity to serve the Project site. Construction of utility connections to existing utility infrastructure along Phelan Road is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this Draft EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new utility services or expansion of existing utility facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

The construction activities related to the new water, sewer, infrastructure solid waste, energy, and communication infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed industrial building is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this Draft EIR. For example, construction emissions for excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 5.2, Air Quality and 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 78
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.18.2 SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLIES
Impact Finding: The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years (Draft EIR Page 5.14-7).

Facts in Support of Finding: Water service to the Project site would be provided by the Hesperia Water District (HWD). The Hesperia Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), adopted in June 2021, was prepared for the HWD and therefore accounts for the water usage that would be attributed to development of the Project site . As shown in the Draft EIR Table 5.14-2: HWD Projected Water Demand and Supply During Normal and Dry Years (AF), HWD has verified that it has the water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection that would meet the projected demand associated with the Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses.

Additionally, the 2020 UWMP detailed a 2020 water demand of 129 gallons per capita per day.

However, a Project specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the proposed Project and is included as Appendix X. The WSA states that the water demand rate for the proposed Project is 3,000 gallons per day per acre (Appendix X). . As described previously, the Project includes development of a

29.61-acre site. Thus, the Project would generate an increased water demand of 88,830 gallons per day or 95.5 AF per year, which is within the anticipated increased demand and supply for water from 2020 to 2025, as shown on Draft EIR Table 5.14-2.

It is anticipated that existing and future water entitlements from groundwater and purchased or imported water sources, plus recycling and conservation, would be sufficient to meet the Project's demand at buildout, in addition to forecast demand for HWD's entire service area. Therefore, water demand from the proposed Project would be within the HWD’s current and projected water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. In addition, all new developments that connect to the system are required to pay its applicable fair-share Development Impact Fee(s). Thus, impacts related to the need for new or expanded water supplies and entitl ements would be less than significant.

7.18.3 ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that would serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments (Draft EIR Page 5.14-10).

Facts in Support of Finding: VVWRA is the Regional Water Recycling Plant designated to service the City of Hesperia and has a treatment capacity of 18.0 million gallons per day (mgd) which is equivalent to 20,163 AFY (UWMP 2021). According to the UWMP, VVWRA collected and treated approximately 2.0 mgd or 2,240 AF. Under existing conditions, VVWRA has an excess treatment capacity of approximately 16 million gallons per day.

Industrial uses generate approximately 1,700 gallons per day (gpd) per acre of wastewater. Thus, the

29.61-acre Project site would generate approximately 50,337 gpd (0.050 mgd) of wastewater. Therefore, the proposed Project’s wastewater generation would be within the current capacity for the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Facility. As such, the wastewater treatment plant has ample capacity, and the Project would not create the need for any new or expanded wastewater facility (such as conveyance lines, treatment facilities, or lift stations) to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 79
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.18.4 GENERATION OF SOLID WASTE
Impact Finding: The Project 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 (Draft EIR Page 5.14-14).

Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction
Victorville Sanitary Landfill would serve the proposed Project and is permitted to accept 3,000 tons of solid waste per day. As of January 2023, Victorville Sanitary Landfill had an average disposal of 1,595.56 tons per day and an average remaining capacity of 1,404 tons per day (CalRecycle 2023).

Utilizing a construction waste factor of 3.89 pounds per square foot (EPA 1998), construction of the proposed Project would result in the generation of approximately 1,275 tons of waste during construction from packaging and discarded materials. However, the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code requires construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus, the construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfil l would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated. Therefore, construction activities would generate approximately 446 tons of waste. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, construction activities would occur over a 14-month period. This equates to approximately 1.05 tons of debris per day. Therefore, the Victorville Sanitary Landfill would be able to accommodate the addition of 1.05 tons of waste during construction.

Operation
The proposed Project would operate an approximately 655,468 square foot industrial building. Using the CalEEMod solid waste generation factor of 0.94 tons per 1,000 square feet per year, operation of the Project would generate approximately 616 tons per year, at least 75 percent of which is required by California law to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 154 tons per year, or 3.0 tons per week.

As discussed above, Victorville Sanitary Landfill is permitted to accept 3,000 tons of solid waste per day and as of Janu ary 2023 had an average remaining capacity of 1,404 tons per day (CalRecycle 2023).

The Project’s operational solid waste generation would represent a nominal percent of the landfill’s daily remaining capacity. Thus, the proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs and the Project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant.

7.18.5 SOLID WASTE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
Impact Finding: The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste (Draft EIR Page 5.14-15).

Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste -generating activities within the County is subject to the requirements set forth in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste.

Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through the County’s development project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with all solid waste statute and regulations; and impacts would not occur.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 80
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.18.6 CUMULATIVE UTILITY AND SERVICES SYSTEM IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to utility and service systems (Draft EIR Page 5.14-19).

Facts in Support of Finding: Cumulative water supply impacts are considered on a water purveyor basis and are associated with the capacity of the infrastructure system and the adequacy of the water purveyor’s infrastructure and primary sources of water that include groundwater, surface water, and purchased or imported water.

As described previously, the Project site would be served by the District’s water utility and connect to existing adjacent water infrastructure. The construction activities related to connecting to the existing water lines that would be needed to serve the proposed Project is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this Draft EIR. Additionally, the District has shown that they have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years as part of their UMWP planning efforts. Water facilities would not need to be expanded or created as a result of the Project and Project impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable water utility impacts.

The Project’s wastewater would be treated by VVWRA. The construction activities related to connecting to the existing sewer lines that would be needed to serve the proposed Project is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this Draft EIR.

The District has determined through their UWMP long term planning efforts that VVWRA would have sufficient capacity to serve wastewater flows generated by the Project. Wa stewater facilities would not need to be expanded or created as a result of the Project and Project impacts would be less than significant.

Thus, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable wastewater utility impacts.

The proposed storm water management system would consist of an above ground linear earthen basin. The treated controlled low-flow would be infiltrated, while the overflow would be pumped to the outlet at the northeast corner of the site where flows would then follow exiting drain age patterns. In the post -project condition, the drainage characteristics would be maintained as similar to the pre -Project condition. The Project would accommodate the 100-year storm, consistent with the DCV and the County’s stormwater permit.

The Project would not result in the addition of stormwater runoff and pollutants that would exceed capacity of existing stormwater facilities. Additional stormwater facilities would not need to be expanded or created as a result of the Project and Project impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable stormwater utility impacts.

Solid waste removal would be provided by Advance Disposal Company and solid waste would be transferred to the Victorville Sanitary Landfill. The landfill is anticipated to have sufficient long-term capacity to serve the Project. Solid waste facilities would not need to be expanded or created as a result of the Project and Project impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Project w ould not result in cumulatively considerable solid waste facility impacts.

The Project would be served by Southern California Gas and Southern California Edison for gas and electricity, respectively. Additionally, the Project may be served by one or several telecommunication utilities offered in the Project area. These providers would have sufficient capacity to serve the Project. Additional telecommunication facilities would not need to be expanded or created as a result of the Project and Project impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable telecommunication utility impacts.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 81
Findings of Fact
December 2023

7.19 WILDFIRE

7.19.1 IMPAIR AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
Impact Finding: The Project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Initial Study Page 53).

Facts in Support of Finding: According to the CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map for San Bernardino County and Exhibit SF-2 in the City’s Safety Element, the Project site is not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The proposed Project would provide adequate emergency access to the site via two driveways from the proposed public road (‘A’ Street) that would be constructed along the west side of the Project. In the event Project construction requires temporary roadway closures or obstructions, the applicant would be required to prepare and implement a temporary traffic control plan consistent with the 2012 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) per City requirements. Access to and from the Project site for emergency vehicles would be reviewed and approved by the San Bernardino County Fire Department and the City as part of the Project approval process to ensure the proposed Project is compliant with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergen cy vehicle access. Since the Project is required to comply with all applicable codes, as verified by the City, any potential impacts related to an emergency response or evacuation would be less than significant. This topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.19.2 EXACERBATE WILDFIRE RISK DUE TO SLOPE, PREVAILING WINDS, AND

OTHER FACTORS
Impact Finding: The Project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as a VHFHSZ, and would not involve slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, that could exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire (Initial Study Page 54).

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in the previous response, the Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Adjacent areas to the Project site are urbanized and do not contain hillsides or other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. This topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.19.3 EXACERBATE FIRE RISK FROM INSTALLATION OR MAINTENANCE OF

ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE
Impact Finding: The Project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as a VHFHSZ and would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment (Initial Study Page 54).

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and the Project does not include infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risks .

Additionally, the Project is located within an urban setting. Therefore, no impact would occur, and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.19.4 EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO SIGNIFICANT RISKS Impact Finding: The Project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands cl assified as a VHFHSZ and would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 82
Findings of Fact
December 2023
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes (Initial Study

Facts in Support of Finding: As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In addition, the Project site is located in a flat area that does not contain or is adjacent to large slopes, and the Project would not generate large slopes. Furthermore, the Project includes installation of onsite and off -site drainage facilities. Thus, the Project would not result in risks related to wildfires or risks related to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides after w ildfires, and this topic was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR.

7.19.5 CUMULATIVE WILDFIRE IMPACTS
Impact Finding: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to wildfire.

Facts in Support of Finding: Cumulative wildfire impacts associated with the proposed Project site includes the San Bernardino County area. The Project site and a djacent areas are relatively flat and urbanized in nature and do not contain factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. The Project, including combined projects in the area, would minimally increase the population and/or activities and potential ignition sources in the area, which may increase the potential of a wildfire. However, CAL FIRE has mapped the Project site and the surrounding area not within a VHFHSZ.

The proposed Project and all projects in the City would be subject to review by City and County building and fire officials and would be required to comply with the City and County Fire Code requirements and regulations related to fire safety, building construction, access, fire flow, and fuel modification. Furthermore, combined projects including the proposed are required to not conflict or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant.

8.0 FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to an alternatives analysis (Section 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below:
• The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly. • The “No Project” alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The “No Project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project is not approved.
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason”; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. • For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. • An EIR need not consider a n alternative if its effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and its implementation is remote and speculative.

8.1 RATIONALE FOR SELECTING POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives must include a no-project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while substantially lessening the

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 83
Findings of Fact
December 2023
potentially significant project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a “r ule of reason,” which the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3) defines as:
“. . . set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be sel ected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making.”
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 151 26.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acq uire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative if its effects could not be reasonably identified and its implementation is remote or speculative.

For purposes of the EIR analysis, the Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the Project.

8.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), an EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and therefore merit in-depth consideration, and which are infeasible and need not be considered further. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3)). This section identifies alternatives considered by the Lead Agency but rejected as infeasible and provides a brief explanation of the reasons for their exclusion. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the Project Objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects.

8.2.1 ALTERNATE SITE ALTERNATIVE
An alternate site for the Project was eliminated from further consideration. The Project’s focus is to provide for an industrial warehouse within an industrializing area of the City of Hesperia that benefits from the US 395 and I -15 corridor’s regional transportation network and generates employment opportunities in proximity to an available labor pool. There are no suitable sites within the control of the Pro ject applicant near the US 395 and I -15 transportation corridors. Therefore, analysis of an alternative site for the proposed Project is neither meaningful nor necessary because the impacts and need for mitigation resulting from the proposed Project would not be avoided or substantially lessened by its implementation.

8.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSES
The following three alternatives to the Project, No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) , No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative (Alternative 2) and Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 3), have been identified for further analysis as representing a reasonable range of alternatives that attain most of the Project Objectives, may avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impact, avoid the need for mitigation, or are feasible from a development perspective. These alternatives have been developed based on the criteria identified in Section 8.1, and are evaluated below.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 84
Findings of Fact
December 2023

8.3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT/NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Description
Under this alternative, the Project would not be developed, and no development would occur. The Project site would remain vacant and undeveloped . In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative for a development project on an identifi able property consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, “In certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.”
Accordingly, Alternative 1: No Project/No Build provides a comparison between the environmental impacts of the Project in contrast to the result from not approving, or denying, the Project. Thus, this alternative is intended to meet the re quirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) for evaluation of a no project alternative.

Finding
The City finds that the No Project/ No Build Alternative is infeasible because although it is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it does not meet any of the Project objectives and it would not realize the benefits of Project implementation.

In making this determination, the City finds that when compared to the alternatives described and evaluated in the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project, as mitigated, provides a reasonable balance between satisfying the Project objectives and reducing potential environmental impacts to an acceptable level.

Aesthetics
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development would occur within the Project site, and the visual character and quality of the site would be maintained in its existing condition, which includes undeveloped and mostly undisturbed conditions. No structures or landscaping would be introduced on the site. No additional lighting or sources of glare would be installed. No views across the Project site would change. Thus, implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in contrast or aesthetic incompatibilities with the existing enviro nment, and no MMs would be required. However, the visual improvements that would be introduced throughout the Project site that include: new and improved landscaping, providing a building of contemporary design, and improvements to the public realm by streetscaping would not be implemented by the No Project/No Build Alternative. Overall, the aesthetic impacts from this alternative would be less than significant and would be reduced in comparison to the Project.

Air Quality
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development would occur, which means that no grading, construction and building finishing activities and the related emissions would occur either. In addition, by maintaining the existing site as vacant and undeveloped, no new operational trips would occur, which would further reduce the less than significant air quality impacts from the proposed Project. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be reduced in comparison to the less than significant impacts of the Project.

Biological Resources
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the site would remain in its existing condition, which includes vacant and mostly undisturbed land. No grading or development would occur on the site under this alternative and there would be no potential impacts to Joshua Trees, special status wildlife species, or

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 85
Findings of Fact
December 2023
migratory and nesting birds. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not require implementation of mitigation, and impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.

Cultural Resources
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the site would remain in its existing condition, which includes vacant and mostly undisturbed land. No grading or development would occur on the site under this alternative and there would be no potential impacts to subsurface cultural, historical, or archaeological resources. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid site disturbances that could impact resources and would not require mitigation. Thus, Project impacts would not occur under this alternative, and would be reduced compared to the Project.

Energy
The Project site would remain vacant and mostly undisturbed under the No Project/No Build Alternative.

Therefore, there would be no increase in demand for energy. Although the Project demands for Energy were determined to be less than significant, the amount of energy used by the No Project/No Build Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.

Geology and Soils
No new construction activities, including grading, would occur under this alternative. Thus, there would be no potential for additional workers, building, and structures to experience seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse within the Project site. Additionally, as no grading activities would occur under this alternative, potential impacts from erosion, loss of topsoil, or to paleontological resources would not occur. While the Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, this alternative would result in less impacts and no MMs are required. Therefore, the No Project/No Build alternative would result in less impacts than the proposed Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development wou ld occur, which means no new development or operational activities would generate GHG emissions. Project impacts related to greenhouse gases would be significant and unavoidable; however, this alternative would not increase greenhouse gases above existing conditions. Therefore, overall GHG impacts would be reduced in comparison to the Project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No new construction activities would occur at the Project site or operation of new high -cube warehouse buildings that would generate, and result in transport of, hazardous materials. As there are no existing structures onsite, there would be no operation onsite that would generate hazardous materials. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not include major construction activities tha t would use typical construction-related hazardous materials. Thus, potential impacts related to use, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials would be avoided by this alternative. While this Draft EIR determined that the Project’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant, this alternative would result in less impacts since no grading or construction would occur. Therefore, the No Project/No Build alternative would result in less impacts than the proposed Project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Existing water quality conditions, groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, and runoff water amounts would remain “as is” under this Alternative as no new development would occur. This alternative would not introduce new sources of water pollutants from either the construction or operation phases of development to the Project site, because no new development would occur. Additionally, this alternative would not require the

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 86
Findings of Fact
December 2023
storm drain facility improvements that would be necessary with the Project. However, this alternative would not include installation of new low -impact development (LID) treatment control best management practices (BMPs) to minimize runoff, which would occur by the Project. Storm water leaving the site would continue to contain sediment associated with the existing conditions of the site. Due to the lack of urban activities that would occur by the No Project/No Build Alternative, a reduction in potential pollutants would result.

Therefore, the No Project/No Bu ild Alternative would reduce potential impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality, compared to those that could occur from the Project.

Land Use and Planning
This alternative would not result in new development, and as such, there would be no potential for land uses to be introduced that would indirectly result in environmental impacts due to a conflict with an existing land use plan. Under this alternative a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to the MSFC -SP would not be required.

Overall, this alternative would result in no impacts to land use and planning, and therefore, would be less than the Project’s impacts.

Noise
Under this alternative, no development would occur onsite, and no new sources of noise would be introduced.

Since no new development would occur and no traffic trips would be generated, this alternative would not contribute to an incremental increase in area-wide traffic noise levels. In addition, this alternative would not result in construction onsite and no construction noise or vibration would occur. As a result, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not generate any noise. Thus, impacts related to noise would be less than the proposed Project.

Transportation
This alternative would not result in new development, and as such, would not result in any vehicular trips or VMT related to operation of the Project site. As the Project site would not be developed and trips would not be generated, the No Project/No Development alternative would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact and reduce the Project’s VMT impacts so that mitigation would not be required.

Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in less impacts than the proposed Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not develop the Project site. No grading or excavation would occur under this alternative and there would be no potential impacts to subsurface Tribal Cultural Resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Therefore, the Project’s potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources would not occur and MMs would not be required. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be less than the Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
Under this alternative, existing conditions would remain, and no new development would occur. No additional domestic water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities would be needed under this alternative, and there would be no change in the demand for domestic water or wastewater treatment services. This alternative would also not result in increased demand for solid waste collection and disposal. Selection of this alternative would avoid all of the Project’s impacts to utilities and service system providers. While the Project would result in less than significant impacts, this alternative would result in less impacts due to no change in demand of these service systems. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in less impacts than the proposed Project.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 87
Findings of Fact
December 2023
Conclusion
Ability To Reduce Impacts
This alternative would reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT and GHG to no impact. The No Project/No Build Alternative would eliminate less than significant impacts related to the topical sections analyzed in this EIR and would not necessitate identified MMs related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology & soils, paleontological resources, traffic, and tribal cultural resources that would result in the identified impacts being reduced to a less than significant level under the Project.

Ability To Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative would not implement the proposed development on the Project site, and none of the Project objective s would be achieved under this alternative. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not add to the City’s employment -generating uses or new businesses, would not promote economic growth, would not reduce the need for commuting to employment and would not develop the site for industrial warehousing consistent with the City’s land use designation.

8.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: NO PROJECT/EXISTING LAND USE ALTERNATIVE Description
The No Project/Existing Land Use would reduce the intensity of the proposed industrial uses, locate the development on the northern portion of the site, and the remainder of the site would be left in its existing condition. Development under this alternati ve would be consistent with MSFC -SP designation of the two northerly parcels of the site (APN 3064 -401-03 and -04) as Commercial/Industrial Park (CIBP) and the southerly parcel of the site (APN 3064-401-05) as Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Under this alternative, the northern 21.06-acre portion of the site (APN 3064-401-03 and -04) would be developed at a FAR of

0.48 with a 440,339 SF warehouse building (shown on Figure 8-1). A proportional reduction in the amount of loading docks, surface parking area and commensurate number of parking spaces for vehicles and trucks also would occur in the No Project/Existing Land Use. This alternative would implement all offsite improvements proposed under the Project, including the construction of “A” Street along the west side of the Project site and proposed utility improvements. The remaining 8.55 acres (29 percent) of the Project site would remain undeveloped and in its existing condition.

Finding
The City finds that the No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative is inf easible because it would require a similar level of mitigation as the proposed Project. Additionally, although the Reduced Project Alternative would meet the Project objectives, they would not be met to the extent as would be achieved by the Project.

In making this determination, the City finds that when compared to the alternatives described and evaluated in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project, as mitigated, provides a reasonable balance between satisfying the Project objectives and reducing potential environmental impacts to an acceptable level.

Aesthetics
Under the No Project/Existing Land Use, the same type of light industrial warehouse development would occur on the Project site. However, the development would be limited to the northern 21.06-acre portion of the site and the aesthetics of the remaining 8.55 acres (29 percent) of the Project site would remain undeveloped and in its existing condition. The No Project/Existing Land Use would be visually less dense than the proposed Project. The No Project/Existing Land Use would include construction of a building with a smaller footprint, but of the same height and the same architectural character as the Project. Thus, the visual

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 88
Findings of Fact
December 2023
character and quality of the developed portion of the site would be slightly less, but similar to the Project, and impacts to visual character and quality would be less than significant.

Because 29 percent of the site would remain as undeveloped under this alternative, and fewer lights would be required to illuminate the exterior of a smaller building and parking lot, the No Project/Existing Land Use would result in fewer sources of light and glare. Overall, implementation of the No Project/Existing Land Use would result in a large area of undeveloped open space on the western portion of the Project site and requires the same MMs as the proposed Project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, aesthetic impacts from the No Project/Existing Land Use would be neutral in comparison to the proposed Project.

Air Quality
The No Project/Existing Land Use would reduce the proposed industrial development on the Project site by 29 percent. Therefore, a reduced volume of construction activities and related emissions would occur. In addition, the reduced amount of square footage that would be developed by this alternative would result in less stationary source emissions from equipment on -site, substantially less vehicular trips, and associated emissions than the Project. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be reduced in comparison to the less than significant impacts of the Project. Thus, this alternative and cumulative impacts under this alternative would be less than the Project.

Biological Resources
The No Project/Existing Land Use would reduce the amount of bu ilding area and associated parking stalls proposed for the Project site. This alternative would largely reduce the impacts to Joshua Trees. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.3, Biological Resources, 248 Joshua trees within the Project boundaries (Project site and offsite improvement areas) have the potential to be impacted. The development area of the No Project/Existing Land Use would avoid approximately 50 onsite Joshua trees. Therefore, under the No Project/Existing Land Use, the Project would result in an impact of 198 Joshua trees. Thus, this alternative would result in impacts to avoid impacts to 20 percent of the Joshua trees within the Project area. However, because some Joshua trees would still be impacted by this alternative, Mitigation Measures would continue to be required to reduce impacts to Joshua trees to a less than significant level. Similarly, the area of potential impacts to other sensitive wildlife species would be reduced; however, MMs BIO-1 through BIO-13 would continue to be required to be implemented. Thus, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, but fewer impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed Project.

Cultural And Paleontological Resources
The No Project/Existing Land Use wo uld result in similar impacts to potential undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources within the reduced construction area. Grading and excavation would still be required as part of the construction process; therefore, the same mitigation would be re quired to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to cultural and paleontological resources from the No Project/Existing Land Use would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Energy
Under the No Project/Existing Land Use, approximately 29 percent less building area would be developed within the Project site. This would result in an approximately 29 percent decrease in the demand for energy in comparison to the proposed Project, which was determined to be less than significant. Although the Project demands for energy were determined to be less than significant, the amount of energy used by the No Project/Existing Land Use would be 29 percent less and would comply with the same regulations/incorporate the same measures to ensure no wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Therefore, impacts to energy would

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 89
Findings of Fact
December 2023
be less under this alternative than the less than significant impacts that would occur from implementation of the Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project/Existing Land Use would develop the Project site with the same type of industrial warehouse use, but with a 29 percent reduction in square footage. Therefore, a reduction of construction and related production of GHG emissions would occur, compared to th e proposed Project. In addition, the reduced amount of square footage that would be developed by this alternative would result in less stationary source emissions from equipment on -site, and less vehicular trip associated GHG emissions than the Project. Th e increase in GHG emissions that would be generated from operation of this alternative would be approximately 29 percent less than the proposed Project, which would total approximately 7,514.2 MT CO2e per year. Additionally, proportionally, the Project wou ld still be anticipated to result in similar MT CO2e per year per service population as the Project ( 19.2 MT CO2e) since service population demand would proportionally decrease with building/operation scale. Therefore, the alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact, but less of an impact compared to the Project.

Hydrology And Water Quality
The No Project/Existing Land Use would result in a reduced area of impervious surfaces compared to the Project. However, like the proposed Project, this alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from warehouse development and operation activities. Additionally, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements, LID, source control, site design, and treat ment control BMPs that are similar to those that are included in the Project. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Land Use would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality that are similar to those that would occur from the Project. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant, and neutral in comparison to the Project.

Land Use and Planning
Under this alternative, approximately 29 percent less area would be developed within the Project site. Like the proposed Project, the Reduced Project alternative would develop the northern parcels zoned as CIBP with a 440,339 SF warehouse and the southern portion of the site designated as NC would remain vacant.

Under this alternative an SPA to the MSFC -SP would not be required. With implementation of measures to address other environmental issues (e.g., biological resources, etc.), potential impacts due to land use compatibility under both the Project and this alternative would remain less than significant. This al ternative would also not physically disrupt or divide the arrangement of an established community. Overall, impacts related to land use and planning from the No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative would be less than significant; and therefore, would be less due to the reduced requirement for an SPA, but consistent with the Project’s impacts.

Noise
Noise impacts would be reduced from the noise impacts of the Project because a smaller building would be constructed, and the construction timeline would be sho rter. Project operational noise impacts would be reduced because this alternative would result in fewer truck trips as the Project, and the stationary noise sources would be reduced in relation to the reduction in warehouse/logistics building square footag e.

Overall, noise impacts from the No Project/Existing Land Use would be less than the Project’s less than significant impacts.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 90
Findings of Fact
December 2023
Transportation
Construction and operation-related traffic and truck trips would be reduced under the No Project/Existing Land Use because this alternative would decrease the Project by 29 percent. Daily vehicular trips would be reduced in relation to the reduction of the building area. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Land Use would result in 911 daily tri ps (see Draft EIR Table 8-1), whereas the Project would result in 1,357 daily trips.

Although the project would be reduced by 29 percent, VMT is measured by employee; therefore, a reduction in project size would not be anticipated to proportionally reduce VMT impacts. T herefore, the Project’s mitigation for cumulative VMT impacts would be required under this alternative and impacts would be significant and unavoidable . Overall, impacts under the No Project/Existing Land Use would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation, and be slightly less in comparison to the Project due to reduced trips.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, the Project would be reduced by approximately 29 percent. Grading and excavation would still occur under this alternative, therefore, there could be similar impacts to tribal cultural resources and the same MMs would be required for the reduced construction area. Therefore, impacts that could occur by the No Project/Existing Land Use would be similar to those associated with the Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project/Existing Land Use would reduce the size of the Project by approximately 29 percent. This would reduce the number of employees on the Project site in relation to the reduction of building square footage; and would also reduce demand for utilities from the proposed building. Under this alternative, demand for regional water supplies would be less than that of the Project. Thus, impacts related to water supplies would be less than the l ess than significant impacts that would occur from implementation of the Project. Similarly, solid waste generation would be less than the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and require less landfill capacity. Therefore, impacts to utilities an d service systems under this alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts as the proposed Project.

Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
Implementation of the No Project/Existing Land Use would meet the Project objectives, but some of t hem would not be met to the extent as would be achieved by the Project, as listed in Draft EIR Table 8-3. The No Project/Existing Land Use would provide for development of a warehouse use on the site; however, the alternative provides approximately 29 percent less of warehouse space than the Project, and it would have the ability to attract less business activity, less economic growth, and fewer local employment opportunities to area residents, and less development of an underutilized site that is designated for development.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
The No Project/Existing Land Use would reduce the total graded and developed area which would decrease the impacts related to biological, cultural, paleontological, transportation, and tribal cultura l resources.

However, similar to the Project, this alternative would require MMs to ensure impacts are less than significant.

Consistent with the Project, the No Project/Existing Land Use would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled . However, the volume of impacts would be less with the No Project/Existing Land Use in comparison to the Project. Mitigation for biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, traffic, a nd tribal cultural resources would still be required to reduce the identified potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. This alternative

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 91
Findings of Fact
December 2023
would further reduce the less than impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas, energy, and n oise.

However, similar to the Project, no mitigation related to these environmental topics are required.

8.3.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Description
The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the intensity of the proposed industrial uses, loca te the development on the northern portion of the site, and the remainder of the site would be left in its existing condition. Development under this alternative would be consistent with MSFC -SP designation of the two northerly parcels of the site (APN 306 4-401-03 and -04) as Commercial/Industrial Park (CIBP) and the southerly parcel of the site (APN 3064-401-05) as Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Under this alternative, the northern 6.34-acre portion of the site (APN 3064-401-03) would be developed at a FAR of 0.48 with a 132,561 SF warehouse building (including manufacturing and cold storage as proposed under the Project) (see Figure 8 -2). A proportional reduction in the amount of loading docks, surface parking area and commensurate number of parking spaces for vehicles and trucks also would occur in the Reduced Project Alternative. This alternative would implement all offsite improvements proposed under the Project, including the construction of “A” Street along the west side of the Project site and proposed utility improvements. The remaining 23.29 acres (79 percent) of the Project site would remain undeveloped and in its existing condition.

Finding
The City finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative is infeasible because it would require a similar level of mitigation as the proposed Project. Additionally, although the Reduced Project Alternative would meet the Project objectives, they would not be met to the extent as would be achieved by the Project.

In making this determination, the City finds that when compared to the alternatives described and evaluated in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project, as mitigated, provides a reasonable balance between satisfying the Project objectives and reducing potential environmental impacts to an acceptable level.

Aesthetics
Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the same type of light industrial warehouse development would occur on the Project site. However, the development would be limited to the northern 6.32-acre portion of the site and the aesthetics of the remaining 23.29 acres (79 percent) of the Project site would remain undeveloped and in its existing condition. The Reduced Project Alternative would be visually less dense than the proposed Project. The Reduced Project Alternative would include construction of a building with a smaller footprint, but of the same height and the same architectural character as the Project. Thus, impacts to visual character and quality would be less than significant. Thus, aesthetic impacts from the Reduced Project Alternative would be slightly less proposed Project.

Air Quality
The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the proposed industrial development on the Project site by 79 percent. Therefore, a reduced volume of construction activities and related emissions would occur. In addition, the reduced amount of square footage that would be developed by this alternative would result in less stationary source emissions from equ ipment on-site, substantially less vehicular trips, and associated emissions than the Project. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be reduced in comparison to the less than significant impacts of the Project. Thus, this alternative and cumulative impacts under this alternative would be less than the Project.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 92
Findings of Fact
December 2023
Biological Resources
The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the amount of building area and associated parking stalls proposed for the Project site. This alternative would largely reduce the impacts to Joshua Trees. As detailed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, 248 Joshua trees within the Project boundaries (Project site and offsite improvement areas) have the potential to be impacted. The development area of the Reduced Project Alternative would avoid approximately 168 onsite Joshua trees. Therefore, under the Reduced Project Alternative, the project would result in an impact of 80 Joshua trees. Thus, this alternative would avoid impacts to 68 percent of the Joshua trees within the Project area. However, because some Joshua trees would still be impacted by this alternative, MMs would continue to be required to reduce impacts to Joshua trees to a less than significant level. Similarly, the area of potential impacts to other sensitive wil dlife species would be reduced; however, MMs BIO-1 through BIO-13 would continue to be required to be implemented.

Thus, this alternative would result in fewer impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed Project.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources
The Reduced Project Alternative would result in similar impacts to potential undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources within the reduced construction area. Grading and excavation would still be required as part of the construction process ; therefore, the same mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to cultural and paleontological resources from the Reduced Project Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Energy
Under the Reduced Project Alternative, approximately 79 percent less building area would be developed within the Project site. This would result in an approximately 79 percent decrease in the demand for energy in comparison to the proposed Project, which was determined to be less than significant. Although the Project demands for energy were determined to be less than significant, the amount of energy used by the Reduced Project Alternative would be 79 percent less and would comply with th e same regulations/incorporate the same measures to ensure no wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Therefore, impacts to energy would be less under this alternative than the less than significant impacts that would occur from implementation of the Project.

Geology and Soils
Under this alternative, approximately 79 percent less area would be developed within the Project site.

Potential impacts related to the potential for additional workers, building, and structures to experience seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse within the Project site would be similar to the Project. Soil erosion impacts would also be less than significant due to compliance with water quality standards, and new development would be required to comply with regulatory requirements regarding geologic considerations such as seismic hazards from ground shaking. The same MMs regarding paleontological resources would be required for this alternative. This alternative would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation to geology and soils, and therefore, would be consistent with the Project’s impact.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the Project site with the same type of industrial warehouse use, but with a 79 percent reduction in square footage. Therefore, a reduction of construction and related production of GHG emissions would occur, compared to the proposed Project. In addition, the reduced amount of square footage that would be developed by this alternative would result in less stationary source emissions from equipment on -site, and less vehicular trip associated GHG emissions than the Project. The increase in GHG emissions that would be generated from operation of this alternative would be

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 93
Findings of Fact
December 2023
approximately 79 percent less than the proposed Project; therefore, GHG would result in approximately 2,222.5 MT CO2e per year, which would be below be below the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. However, proportionally, the Project would still be antic ipated to result in similar MT CO2e per year per service population as the Project ( 19.2 MT CO2e) since service population demand would proportionally decrease with building/operation scale. Therefore, the alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact, but less of an impact compared to the Project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under this alternative, approximately 79 percent less area would be developed within the Project site. Like the proposed Project, construction of this alternative would be required to comply with existing regulations regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, this alternative would likely require the same utilization of hazardous materials during operation, including diesel particulate matter, as the proposed Project. Overall, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation on hazards and hazardous materials, and therefore, would be consistent with the Project’s impact.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Project Alternative would result in a reduced area of impervious surfaces compared to the Project. However, like the proposed Project, this alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from warehouse development and operation act ivities. Additionally, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements, LID, source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs that are similar to those that are included in the Project. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality that are similar to those that would occur from the Project. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant, and neutral in comparison to the Project.

Land Use and Planning
Under this alternative, approximately 79 percent less area would be developed within the Project site. Like the proposed Project, the Reduced Project alternative would develop the northern parcels zoned as CIBP with a 140,000 SF warehouse and the southern portion of the site designated as NC would remain vacant.

Under this alternative an SPA to the MSFC -SP would not be required. With implementation of measures to address other environmental issues (e.g., biological resourc es, etc.), potential impacts due to land use compatibility under both the Project and this alternative would remain less than significant. This alternative would also not physically disrupt or divide the arrangement of an established community. Overall, im pacts related to land use and planning from the Reduced Project Alternative would be less than significant; and therefore, would be consistent with the Project’s impacts.

Noise
Noise impacts would be reduced from the noise impacts of the Project because a smaller building would be constructed, and the construction timeline would be shorter. Project operational noise impacts would be reduced because this alternative would result in fewer truck trips as the Project, and the stationary noise sources would be r educed in relation to the reduction in warehouse/logistics building square footage.

Overall, noise impacts from the Reduced Project Alternative would be less than the Project’s less than significant impacts.

Transportation
Construction and operation -related traffic and truck trips would be reduced under the Reduced Project Alternative because this alternative would decrease the Project by 79 percent. Daily vehicular trips would be reduced in relation to the reduction of the building area. Therefore, the Re duced Project Alternative

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 94
Findings of Fact
December 2023
would result in 274 daily trips (see Draft EIR Table 8 -2), whereas the Project would result in 1,357 daily trips. Although the project would be reduced by 79 percent, the project would contribute more than 110 daily trips and would require VMT analysis per the City of Hesperia Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. VMT is measured by employee, therefore, a reduction in project size under this alternative would not be anticipated to substantially reduce VMT impacts. Therefore, the alternative would be anticipated to result in similar impacts as the proposed Project, and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, the Project would be reduced by approximately 79 percent. Grading and excavation would still occur under this alternative, therefore, there could be similar impacts to tribal cultural resources and the same MMs would be required for the reduced construction area. Therefore, impacts that could occur by the Reduced Project Alternative would be similar to those associated with the Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the size of the Project by approximately 79 percent. This would reduce the number of employees on the Project si te in relation to the reduction of building square footage; and would also reduce demand for utilities from the proposed building.

Under this alternative, demand for regional water supplies would be less than that of the Project. Thus, impacts related to water supplies would be less than the less than significant impacts that would occur from implementation of the Project. Similarly, solid waste generation would be less than the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and require less landfill capacity. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems under this alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts as the proposed Project.

Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the total graded and developed area which would decrease the impacts related to biological, cultural, paleontological, transportation, and tribal cultural resources.

However, similar to the Project, this alternative would require MMs to ensure impacts are less than significant.

The Reduced Project Alternative would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable GHG impact related to the SCAQMD 3,000 MT CO2e threshold (but would still be over SCAQMD’s per service population threshold). Overall, the volume of impacts would be less with the Reduced Project Alternative in comparison to the Project. However, mitigation for biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, paleontological resources, traffic, and tribal cultural resources would still be required to reduce the identified potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. This alternative would further reduce the less than impacts related to air quality, energy, and noise. However, similar to the Project, no mitigation related to these environmental topics are required.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative would meet the Project objectives, but some of them would not be met to the extent as would be achieved by the Project, as listed in Draft EIR Table 8-3. The Reduced Project Alternative would provide for development of a warehouse use on the site; however, the alternative provides approximately 79 percent less of warehouse space than the Project, and it would have the ability to attract less business activity, less economic growth, and fewer local employment opportunities to area residents, and less development of an underutilized site that is designated for development.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 95
Findings of Fact
December 2023

8.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also state that should it be determined that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives.

The Environmentally Superior Alternative (other than the No Project/No Build Alternative ) is the No Project/Exiting Land Use Alternative, which would reduce the building size by approximately 79 percent, to an approximate sized of 140,000 SF, with a reduction in parking area and parking spaces. Although some of the less than significant impacts would be reduced under the No Project/Existing Land Use in comparison to the proposed Project, all MMs would be applied . Additionally, under this alternative, the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled would be reduced but not eliminated.

Regarding Project Objectives, the No Project/Existing Land Use would result in less economic gain and fewer employment opportunities than the Project. This alternative would have the ability to attrac t less business activity and fewer employment opportunities to area residents. In addition, the smaller development would not fully develop an underutilized property. Fewer members of the local workforce would be able to obtain local employment.

CEQA does not require the Lead Agency (the City of Hesperia) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm.

9.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Hesperia is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the EIR for the KISS Logistics Center Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making this determination the County is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which states:
(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 proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environment al 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 less ened, 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 statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 96
Findings of Fact
December 2023
(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.

In addition, CEQA Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project.

Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable adverse impact s associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City has also examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which meet the Project objectives and are environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings.

The City of Hesperia, as the Lead Agency for this Project, and having reviewed the EIR for the KISS Logistics Center Project and reviewed all written materials within the City’s public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Projec t against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project.

9.1 PURPOSE AND NEED
Jobs and housing are in balance when an area has enough employment opportunities for most of the people who live there and enough housing opportunities for most of the people who work there. The region as a whole is, by definition, balanced. Job -rich subregions have ratios greater than the regional average; housing-rich subregions have ratios lower than the regional average. Ideally, job-housing balance would assure not only a numerical match of jobs and housing but also an economic match in type of jobs and housing.

SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs -housing ratio is 1.36; communities with more than 1.36 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs-rich; those with fewer than 1.36 are “housing rich,” meaning that more housing is provided than employment opportunities in the area (SCAG 2004). A job-housing imbalance can indicate potential air quality and traffic proble ms associated with commuting. The projected jobs -to- housing ratios, based on SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, for the City of Hesperia and San Bernardino County in 2045 are 1.15 and 1.22, respectively; that is, both the City of Hesperia and San Bernardino County are housing-rich.

Therefore, there is a demand for the creation of additional employment opportunities within the region.

Development within the High Desert region and City of Hesperia provides residents with local employment opportunities. As such, the Project would help meet the needs of the growing logistics sector while producing new jobs in a region that is typically viewed as housing rich and jobs poor for a more balanced economy.

9.2 OVERRIDING BENEFITS RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations, which ou tweigh the unavoidable, adverse

KISS Logistics Center Project
City of Hesperia 97
Findings of Fact
December 2023
environmental impacts of the Project, each of which standing alone is sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline Section 15093. • The Project enhances the local economy. The Project enhances the local economy by providing additional jobs, and business development opportunities commensurate with forecasted growth. • Project facilitates economic development. The Project is intended to facilitate the economic development of the City by creating an expanded employment base, providing new employment opportunities, and attracting new businesses.
• The Project provides both traditional and alternative transportation mode benefits. The Project would implement roadway, pedestrian, and infrastructure improvements that would provide social and other benefits to the City’s residents.
• The Project creates a high-quality development. The Project proposes a high-quality warehouse building within the Main Street Corridor Freeway Specific Plan that will attract businesses and provide a variety of employment opportunities in the community of Hesperia, thereby reducing the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment. • The Project would be deve loped in line with the City General Plan. The Project would result in development pursuant to the site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning , as well as the Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan.
• The Project would implement employment generating uses along the I-15 corridor. The Project would result in development of industrial warehouse uses along the I-15 corridor, which would facilitate goods movement in Southern California.

9.2.1 CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The Planning Commission declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require recirculation. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including but not limited to the findings and conclusions reached herein.

10.0 CONCLUSION
Implemented through the MMRP, the mitigation measures previously listed, in conjunction with the above findings, will eliminate or reduce Project related environmental impacts to a less -than-significant level. The Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts would be rendered acceptable by the specific economic and social benefits previously identified in Section 9, Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Collectively, the Final EIR, the PPP’s, the mitigation measures, and the MMRP provide an acceptable rationale for approval of the proposed Project.

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-1
DRAFT Final EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

4.1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or public agency that approves or carries out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been certified which identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects and w here findings with respect to changes or alterations in the project have been made, to adopt a “…reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6).

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented for the Mesa Linda Street Development Project (Project). The City of Hesperia is the Lead Agency for the Project and is responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the Project and identifies the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in the MMRP.

4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The MMRP for the Project will be active through all phases of the Project, including design, construction, and operation. The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for the KISS Logistics Project. The table identifies the Project Design Features (PDFs) and mitigation measures required by the City to mitigate or avoid significant adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, the timing of implementation, and the responsible party or parties for monitoring compliance.

The MMRP also includes a column that will be used by the compliance monitor (individual respons ible for monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual Plan, Program, Policies; and mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the MMRP, indicating that the required actions have been completed.

KISS Logistics Center Project

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Hesperia 4-2
Final EIR
August 2023
This page intentionally left blank.

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-3
DRAFT Final EIR
February 2024
TABLE 4-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

KISS LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT EIR
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO -1: Relocation of Desert Native Plants (Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter 16.24).

Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit an application and applicable fee paid to the City of Hesperia for removal or relocation of protected native desert plants under Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter 16.24 as required and schedule a preconstruction site inspection with the Planning Division and the Building Division. The application shall include certification from a qualified Joshua tree and native desert plant expert(s) to determine that proposed removal or relocation of protected native desert plants are appropriate, supportive of a healthy environment, and in compliance with the City of Hesperia Municipal Code. Protected plants subject to Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter 16.24 may be relocated on -site, or within an area designated as an area for species to be adopted later. The application shall include a detailed plan for the removal of all protected plants on the Project site. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified Joshua tree and native desert plant expert(s). Th e 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 permanen t 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 th e 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 Prior to grading permit
No longer required by
the Native Plant
Species Act pursuant to
the Western Joshua
Tree Conservation Act.

Locally, the City has
determined that
Mitigation Measure
BIO-2 fulfills the
requirements of this
measure. Therefore,
this action is no longer
required.

City of Hesperia Planning
Department.

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hesperia 4-4
Final EIR
August 2023
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
determined that the transplants have become established in the permanent relocation site(s) and no longer require supplemental watering.

Mitigation Measure BIO -2: Conservation of Western Joshua Tree Lands (CESA)
In the case that the California Fish and Game Commission lists western Joshua trees as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, the following measure will be implemented:
• Prior to the initiation of Joshua tree removal, obtain California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ITP under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code. The Project Applicant will adhere to measures and conditions set forth within the ITP.
• Mitigation for direct impacts to western Joshua trees shall be fulfilled through conservation of western Joshua trees at a 1:1 habitat replacement ratio, 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.

Additionally, no take of western Joshua tree will occur without authorization from CDFW in the form of an ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code 2081. • Name, qualifications, business address, and contact information of a biological monitor (designated botanist) shall be submitted to CDFW at least 30 days prior to Project activities. The designated botanist shall be responsible for monitoring Project activities to help minimize and fully mitigate or avoid incidental take of Joshua trees.
• The designated botanist shall have authority to immediately stop any activity that does not comply with the ITP, and/or to order any reasonable measure to avoid unauthorized take of an individual Joshua tree. • The Project analyzed impacts to western Joshua trees, which by applying the 186-foot buffer zone overlap with the adjacent proposed developments. Any impacts to overlapping Joshua trees will be analyzed by CDFW to ensure no Joshua trees are mitigated twice.
• The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act is currently unde r consideration has been approved by the California Fish and Game Commission. In the event that the The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act is now in effect, implemented, effectively replacing the function of species protection under which provides an alt ernative mitigation option to traditional CESA mitigation., a Alternative Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act habitat replacement mitigation mechanisms, providing equal or better function and Proof of approval from
CDFW regarding
compliance with
mitigation and/or
payment of in-lieu fees
per the Western Joshua
Tree Conservation Act.

Prior to grading permit.

City of Hesperia Planning
Department/CDFW/
Qualified Biologist

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-5
DRAFT Final EIR
February 2024
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
value to existing mechanisms under CESA, will be implemented in combination with traditional mitigation banking or in lieu of mitigation banking as required allowed under state law.

MM BIO-3 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 outside the permitted impact footprint. Weekly written observation and inspection records that summarize o versight activities and compliance inspections and monitoring activities required by the ITP shall be prepared.

Weekly submittal of
Joshua tree compliance
monitoring log. During
site clearing.

City of Hesperia Planning
Department/Qualified
Biologist
MM BIO-4 Education Program.

An education program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all persons employed or otherwise working in the Project area shall be administered before performing impacts. The WEAP shall consist of a presentation from the Designated Biologist that includes a discussion of the biology and status of western Joshua tree, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike; and other biological resources mitigation measures described in the 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.

During construction. City of Hesperia.

MM BIO-5 Construction Monitoring Notebook.

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

During construction. City of Hesperia.

MM BIO-6 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 Prior to commencement
of ground disturbing
activities
City of Hesperia

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-6
Final EIR
August 2023
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
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-7 Hazardous Waste.

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

During construction. City of Hesperia.

MM BIO-8 Herbicides.

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

During construction. City of Hesperia.

MM BIO-9: Pre-construction Nesting Bird Survey.

Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Project construction would be avoided during bird nesting season (typically February 1 through August 31). In the event construction is required to occur during bird nesting season, construction activities shall avoid the migratory bird nesting season, to reduce any potential significant impact to birds that may be nesting on the survey area. If construction activities must occur during the migratory bird nesting season, an avian nesting survey of the Project site and within 500 feet of all impact areas must be conducted to determine the presence/absence of protected migratory birds and active nests. The avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to the start of construction in accordance with the 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 appropri ate 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 Within 72 hours prior to
the start of construction
(if between February 1
through August 31).

City of Hesperia Planning
Department/Qualified
Biologist

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-7
DRAFT Final EIR
February 2024
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
buffer shall remain in place until is determined the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer considered active.

MM BIO-10: Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl.

One pre-construction burrowing owl survey shall be completed no more than 14 days before initiation of site preparation or grading activities, If ground- disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction surveys, the Project site shall be resurveyed. Surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in accordance with protocols established in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game [now California Departmen t of Fish and Wildlife] in 2012) or current version.

If burrowing owls are detected, the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan shall be implemented in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). As required by the Burrowing Owl Reloca tion Plan, disturbance to burrows shall be avoided during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Buffers will be established around occupied burrows in accordance with guidance provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation or current version. No Project activities shall be allowed to encroach into established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist.

The buffer shall remain in place until it is determined that occupied burrows have been vacated or the nesting season has completed.

Outside of the nesting season, passive 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. T hese 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.

First survey no more
than 14 days before
initiation of site
preparation or grading
activities.

Second Survey within
24 hours of the start of
site preparation or
grading activities.

City of Hesperia Planning
Department/Qualified
Biologist

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-8
Final EIR
August 2023
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
MM BIO-11: Pre-construction Surveys for Crotch Bumble Bee. In the event that grading starts between April and August, a pre -construction survey for Crotch bumble bee shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the construction area during the primary flight period (April through August) prior to the start of construction ac tivities. The survey shall ensure that no nests for Crotch bumble bee are located within the construction area. Crotch bumble bee is a habitat generalist, ground -nesting bee. For the purposes of this mitigation measure, nest resources are defined as small mammal burrows, bunch grasses with a duff layer, thatch, hollow trees, rock walls, and brush piles.

On June 6, 2023, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) released the “Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Ca ndidate Bumble Bee Species”. The pre -construction survey shall follow the guidance included within “Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species”.

If nest resources occupied by Crotch bumble bee are det ected within the construction area, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of the construction zone, or as determined by a qualified biologist through evaluation of topographic features or distribution of floral resources. The nest resources will be avoided for the duration of the Crotch bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31).

If the above measures are followed, it is assumed that the Project shall not need to obtain authorization from CDFW through the California Endangered Species Act ITP process.

If the nest resources cannot be avoided, as outlined in this measure, the project applicant will consult with CDFW regarding the need to obtain an ITP. Any measures determined to be necessary through the ITP process to offset impacts to Crotch bumble bee m ay supersede measures provided in this CEQA document and shall be incorporated into the habitat mitigation and monitoring plan. In the event an ITP is needed, mitigation for direct impacts to Crotch bumble bee will be fulfilled through compensatory mitigat ion at a minimum 1:1 nesting habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, or as otherwise determined through the ITP process. Mitigation will be accomplished either through off -site conservation or through a CDFW-approved mitigation bank.

Prior to the start of
construction (if between
April and August).

City of Hesperia Planning
Department/Qualified
Biologist

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-9
DRAFT Final EIR
February 2024
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
MM BIO-12: 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.

During construction. City of Hesperia.

MM BIO-13: Invasive Plant Management.

To reduce the spread of invasive plant species, landscape plants within 200 feet of native vegetation communities shall not be on the most recent version of the California Invasive Plant Council’s Inventory of Invasive Plants (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php). Post -construction, the Project applicant shall continually remove invasive plant species on site by hand or mechanical methods, as feasible.

During construction. City of Hesperia.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City Planning Division, or designee, from a qualified professional archeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Quali fications for Archaeology as defined at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A, stating that qualified archeologists have been retained and will be present at pre-grade meetings and for all initial ground disturbing activities, up to five feet in depth.

In the event that a resource is inadvertently discovered during ground - disturbing activities, work must be halted within 60 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the find is considered a “resource” the archaeologist shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4 in consultation with the City. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if unique archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage, and treatment shall be required at the developer/applicant’s expe nse. If significant pre-contact and/or historic -era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be pro vided to Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Retain archaeological
monitor and submit
letter. Prior to grading
permit.

City of Hesperia Planning
Department/Qualified
Archaeologist

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-10
Final EIR
August 2023
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
(YSMN) for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

GEOLOGY & SOILS
Mitigation Measure GEO -1: Incorporation of and Compliance with the Recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the Hesperia Building Department shall verify all recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project by Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., in March 2022 are incorporated into all design and engineering plans including, but not limited to site preparation, grading, fill placement, foundations, pavement des ign, seismic design, etc.

Verify completion of
recommendations prior
to grading.

City of Hesperia
Mitigation Measure PAL -1: Paleontological Resource Management Plan.

Prior to the start of construction, a Paleontological Resources Management Plan (PRMP) shall be prepared by a qualified Paleontologist and include the following procedures:
• Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Starting at the surface, monitoring will be conducted fulltime in areas of grading or excavation in undisturbed alluvial deposits.
• Development of an inadvertent discovery plan to expediently address treatment of paleontological resources should any be encountered during development associated with the Project. If these resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist.

Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as fossil collection and curatio n, may be warranted and would be discussed in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency(ies).

Prepare a PRMP. Prior
to grading permit.

City of Hesperia Planning
Department/Qualified
Paleontologist

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Hesperia shall identify project design details and specifications to document implementation and compliance with the following emission Prior to building permit
(construction-related
measures will be
City of Hesperia Planning
Department

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-11
DRAFT Final EIR
February 2024
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
reduction measures. Implementation of the following m easures will be required prior to building permits and is considered to be applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project:
• Use the cleanest technologies available and provide the necessary infrastructure t o support zero -emission vehicles and equipment that will be operating on site, including but not limited to running conduit to dock doors to allow for future plug-in of TRUs or truck charging.
• All loading/unloading docks and trailer spaces shall be equippe d with electrical hookups for trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) or auxiliary power units. This requirement will substantially decrease the amount of time that a TRU powered by a fossil-fueled internal combustion engine can operate at the proj ect site. Use of zero -emission all -electric plug -in TRUs, hydrogen fuel cell transport refrigeration, and cryogenic transport refrigeration shall be encouraged for operational fleets. • All TRUs operated by the owner/applicant entering the Project site be sh all plug-in capable.
• Operational fleets shall exclusively use zero -emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans when feasible.
• All heavy-duty trucks entering or operated by the owner/applicant on the Project site shall be model year 2014 or later.
• The Project Applicant shall be in, and monitor compliance with, all current air quality regulations for on-road trucks including CARB’s Heavy -Duty (Tractor- Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP), and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation.
• Trucks and support equipment shall be prohibited from idling longer than fivethree minutes while on site.
• On-site TRU diesel engine runtime shall be limited to no longer than 15 minutes.
• Include rooftop solar panels that and supply 100 percent of Project electricity from renewable energy resources.
• Implement a transportation demand program. Program measures may include free transit passes for employees, electric rideshare vehicle s for employees, and construction of additional transit infrastructure at the Project site (see Mitigation Measure T-1 of Section 5.12, Transportation). confirmed prior to
grading permit)

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-12
Final EIR
August 2023
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
• Implement a zero-waste program or other feasible waste reduction measures such as composting waste food scraps from employee activities and food waste processing.
• Install water -efficient fixtures (toilets, faucets, showers), water efficient landscape irrigation systems (drip irrigation with control panel and soil moisture sensors), and water efficient landscaping.
• Keep onsite and furnishing to the lead agency of other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classification. • Provide information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
• Provide information on nearby meal/dining destinations for construction workers.
• Run conduit to designated locations for future vehicle electric charging stations.
• Expand the electrical room by 1 0 percent to (25 percent total) to accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability. • Run conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a future increase in the number of electric light-duty charging stations. • The building shall have breakroom with food storage capabilities. • Signs shall be posted at every truck exist driveway to provide directional information to the truck route.
• The owner shall provide any future tenants with information on incentive programs, such a s Carl Moyer program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.

TRANSPORTATION
Mitigation Measure T-1: The Project applicant shall implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (CAPCOA Measure T -7), provide a Ridesharing Program (CAPCOA Measure T -8), and provide end of trip bicycle facilities (CAPCOA Measure T-10) to encourage employees carpooling, taking transit, and biking to work. 100 percent of employees would be eligible to Prior to occupancy City of Hesperia Planning
Department

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-13
DRAFT Final EIR
February 2024
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
participate in all identified measures. Each measure is discussed further below:

1. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (CAPCOA Measure T-7). A CTR Marketing strategy includes information sharing and marketing to promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location.

This measure would require an on -site employee transportation coordinator and commuter information services, and on-site or online transit pass sales.

2. Provide Ridesharing Program (CAPCOA Measure T -8). Incentives for carpooling or vanpooling such as priority parking spaces and/or a daily or monthly stipend for participants. Additional incentives for carpool and/or vanpool drivers could also be provided. Preferred parking for carpool or vanpool vehicles.

3. Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (CAPCOA Measure T-10). This measure includes installation and maintenance of end -of-trip facilities for employee use that facilitate bicycling to work. Facilities could include bike parking, bike lockers, personal lockers and shower facilities. Initially, the project shall provide secure bicycle parking (bicycle racks or lockers) for at least 9 bicycles (consistent with San Bernardin o County Code Section 83.14.030 which requires secure bicycle parking at a rate of one per 30 parking spaces).

To comply with components 1 and 2 of MM T -1, tenants of the Project could participate in the IE Commuter program (iecommuter.org) or alternative program. Monitoring of the program shall be conducted by the onsite transportation coordinator and an annual report shall be provided to the City.

The report shall include a summary of the current CTR program, the number of employees participating in the program, summary of any partnerships with outside agencies such as IE Commuter, and total amount of subsidies provided by type (if any). If project tenants choose to comply with MM T -1 via participation in the IE Commuter program, then the Commute Activity Report provided by IE Commuter shall be sufficient for annual reporting.

TRIBAL CULTURAL
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL -1, of any pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards During construction. City of Hesperia.

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-14
Final EIR
August 2023
Plans Programs and Policies
The following Plans Programs and Policies (PPPs) that are listed below would reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality. These actions will be included in the project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program:

TABLE 4-2: PLANS PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

KISS LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT EIR
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
PPP WQ -1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall provide the City Building and Safety Department evidence of compliance with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Prior to grading permit City of Hesperia
Regulatory Requirement /Project Design Feature/ Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the arc haeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

Mitigation Measure TCR -2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project.

During construction. City of Hesperia.

Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation included the following applicable mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure 6 ( from Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan): The landowner will relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition.

During construction. City of Hesperia.

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-15
DRAFT Final EIR
February 2024
Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. The Project applicant/proponent shall comply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site.

PPP WQ-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. The WQMP shall be submitted using the Mojave River Watershed Techn ical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans and shall identify all Post-Construction, Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters.

Prior to construction
permit
City of Hesperia

KISS Logistics Center Project 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Hesperia 4-16
Final EIR
August 2023

PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The following design features would be implemented as part of the Project and would reduce Project GHG emissions:

PDF-1 Renewable energy system/solar electricity generation and battery system – 90 kilowatt hours (kWh) generation and 38 kwh battery to allow for peak energy usage offset;
PDF-2 Automatic Light Switches;
PDF-3 Control receptacles (shut off after certain durations); PDF-4 The proposed building would be designed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification standards; PDF-5 EV chargers would be installed per Title 24 requirements day one; PDF-6 Low volatile organic compound (VOC) coatings and paint (less than 10 grams per liter); PDF-7 Vistacool layer and Solarban layer on exterior glazing which reduces energy consumption due to solar heat gain.

BEST PRACTICES
The Project would implement voluntary best practices which would include the following:
• “Use the cleanest technologies available”…
• Operational fleets shall exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans when feasible.

ORDINANCE NO. 2024-05

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

CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP

BY RECLASSIFYING CER TAIN REAL PROPERTY H EREIN DESCRIBED

WITHIN THE MAIN STRE ET AND FREEWAY CORRI DOR SPECIFIC PLAN

FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) TO COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL

BUSINESS PARK (CIBP) ON APPROXIMATELY NINE GROSS ACRES LOCATED WEST OF US HIGHWAY 395, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET NORTH OF PHELAN ROAD (SPLA24-00002)
WHEREAS, On January 5, 1998, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Resolution No. 250, thereby adopting the Hesperia Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, On September 2, 2008, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Resolution No. 2008-12, thereby adopting the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, Kiss Logistics Center (Applicant) has filed an app lication requesting approval of Specific Plan Amendment SPLA2 4-00002 described herein (hereinafter referred to as Application); and
WHEREAS, approximately 22.1 acres of the site is within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone of the Specific Plan and approximately nine acres is within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone of the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the project is located west of US Highway 395, approximately 600 feet north of Phelan Road and consists of Assessor's Parcel Number 3064-401-03, 04, and 05; and WHEREAS, the Application, as contemplated, proposes to change the zoning of approximately nine gross acres (APN 3064-401-05) within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has also filed an application requesting approval of CUP22-00017, to construct an approximately 655,468 square foot warehouse building on approximately 31.1 gross acres of vacant land. In conjunction with CUP22-00017 a Specific Plan Amendment has also been filed to change approximately nine acres of the project site from Neighborhood Commercial NC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP); and
WHEREAS, the subject site is vacant. Surrounding land uses primar ily consist of vacant land ; and
WHEREAS, the approximately nine acre parcel (APN 3064 -401-05) is currently within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone of the Specific Plan. The land to the north, east and west are within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone of the Specific Plan. The land to the south is within the Neighborhood Commercial zone of the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-11, adopting the environmental findings pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopt ing a Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ( SCH #2022110097), and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and

Ordinance No. 2024-05

WHEREAS, on March 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Hesperia conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the proposed Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council of the City of Hesperia conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the proposed Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

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

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

Section 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to th e City Council during the above-referenced April 16, 2024, hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, the City Council specifically finds as follows:
(a) Based on adoption of Resolution No. 2024-11, the Environmental Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting have been adopted and the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2022110097) has been certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project.
(b) The nine gross acres that are proposed to be changed from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Commercial Industrial business Park (CIBP) are suitable for the land uses allowed in the CIBP zoning classification, and adequate space exists which can meet the standards for setbacks, height, lot coverage, parking, and circulation within the proposed Specific Plan designation.
(c) The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting properties , or the permitted use thereof because the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. In addition, each of the uses envisioned under the proposed project is perm itted or conditionally permitted in the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) Zone of the Specific Plan. The project is within an area that is surrounded by properties that are also zoned CIBP and that contain truck-related uses. A Traffic Impact Anal ysis (TIA) was submitted as part of the land use application, which identifies improvements needed to mitigate the additional traffic from this project. Further, the developer shall participate in the City-wide industrial community facilities district (CFD) to pay for the ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure and services. The developer is also required to pay City Development Impact Fees.

Ordinance No. 2024-05

(d) The proposed project is consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City of Hesperia because an objective in the City’s General Plan seeks to “…Promote industrial development within the City which will expand its tax base and provide a range of employment activities, while not adversely impacting the community or e nvironment.” The proposed project will expand employment opportunities for City residents and is estimated to provide 549 jobs.
(e) Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council , including written and oral staff reports, the City Council specifically finds that the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the goals and objectives of the adopted General Plan. The subject parcel can utilize existing supporting infrastructure and municipal services, as directed by the City’s adopted General Plan.

Section 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in this Ordinance, the City Council hereby adopts Specific Plan Amendment SPLA24-00002, to change approximately nine gross acres of a 31.1 gross acre site within the Main Street and Freeway C orridor Specific Plan from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) as shown on in Attachment 2 and 3 of the staff report.

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

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

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 16th day of April 2024.
_______________________________________
Larry Bird, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Erin Baum, Assistant City Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-12

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP22-00017 TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 655,468 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE ON APPROXIMATELY 31.1 GROSS ACRES (CUP22-00017) WHEREAS, Kiss Logistics Center. (Applicant) has filed an app lication requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP22-00017 and Specific Plan Amendment SPLA24-00002 described herein (hereinafter referred to as "Application"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has also filed an application requesting approval of CUP22-00017, to construct an approximately 655,468 square foot warehouse building on approximately 31.1 gross acres of vacant land. In conjunction with CUP22-00017 a Specific Plan Amendment has also been filed to change approximately 9 acres of the project site fro m Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP); and WHEREAS, the proposed project consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 3064-401-03, 04, and 05; and
WHEREAS, the Application, as contemplated, proposes to construct an approximately 655,468 square foot warehouse building on approximately 31.1 gross acres of vacant land . The proposed use is consistent wit h the Specific Plan, upon approval of Specific Plan Amen dment SPLA24-00002 to chan ge approximately 9 acres of the site from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Commercial Ind ustrial Business Park (CIBP). Fur thermore, approval of a CUP is required to approve a distribution warehouse in excess of 200,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, approximately 22.1 acres of the site is within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone of the Specific Plan and approximately 9 acres is wi thin the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone of the Specific Plan. Properties to the north, east and west are zoned Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) in the Specific Plan and the properties to the south are zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) within the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the site is currently vacant. Land uses to the north, so uth and west also consist of vacant land. Highway 395 is located immediately to the east of the site followed by vacant land.

In 2022 e ntitlement applications were approved for three warehouse buildings totaling approximately 3,745,429 square feet immediately to the west of the site; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-11, making the environmental findings p ursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), adopt ing a Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ( SCH #2022110097), and approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and WHEREAS, on April 1 6, 2024 , the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2024-05, approving Specific Plan Amendment SPLA24-00002 to change approximately 9 acres of the 31.1-acre site from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP); and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Hesperia conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the proposed Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

Resolution No. 2024-12

WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the proposed Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

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

Section 2. Bas ed upon substantial evidence presented to the City C ouncil during the above-referenced April 16, 2024, hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, the City Council specifically finds as follows:
(a) Based on adoption of Resol ution No. 2024-11, the Environmental Findings, St atement of Overriding Consider ations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting h ave been adopted and the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2022110097) has been certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project.
(b) The sites for the proposed use s are adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses. The proposed project consists of the deve lopment of a 655,468 square foot warehouse building on approximately 31.1 gross acres. On-site improvements required by the Development Code can be cons tructed on the propert ies including the 377 conventional parking spaces and 74 truck/trailer spaces. The site can accommodate 40-foot-wide drive aisles, landscaping, trash enclosures, building setbacks, and maximum floor area ratio . The development also meets all of the San Bernar dino County Fire Department standards including fire lanes, two -points of access, fire truck turn -around, fire depart ment connection / post indicator valve (FDC/PIV), and fire hydrant requirements. The project is also designed with on -site retention facilities to retain the additional stormwater created by the development in a 100 -year storm event.
(c) The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting prop erties, or the permitted use ther eof because the proposed project is consi stent with the City’s General Plan and the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Spe cific Plan upon approval of Specific Plan Amendment SPLA24-00002 to change approximately 9 gross acres from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Comm ercial Industrial Busi ness Park (CIBP). In addition, each of the uses envisioned under the proposed project is p ermitted or conditi onally permitted in the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) Zone of the Specific Plan. The project is within an area that is zoned CIBP and contains truck-related uses. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted as part of the land use application, whi ch identifies

Resolution No. 2024-12

improvements needed to mitigate the ad ditional traffic from this project. Further, t he developer shall participate in the City-wide industrial co mmunity facilities district (CFD) to pay for the ongo ing maintenance of public infrastructure and services. The developer is also required to pay City Development Impact Fees.
(d) Upon approval of Specif ic Pla n Amendment SPLA2 4-00002 to change approximately 9 gross acres from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Commercial Indust rial Business Park (CIBP) the proposed project will be consistent with the goals, policies, standards and maps of t he adopted Zoning, Development Code , Ma in Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan and all applicable codes and ordinances adopted by the City of Hesperia because each o f the uses envisioned under the proposed project is permitted within the CIBP Zone. The development shall be constructed purs uant to the California Building and Fire Codes as well as adopted amendments.

Further, the project shall comply with the conditions of approval for both off-site and on -site improvements. The conditions o f approval shall be met based upon specific mileston es. Some conditions shall be met prior to grading, some prior to building construction and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
(e) The site will have adequate access . Primary access to the site will be provided from a new public roadway (Caliente Road) that will be constructed by the project. Caliente Road is planned as a 70 -foot- wide Industrial Collector that will provide public two-way access with a turn pocket and will form the connection between Yucca Te rrace Drive to the north and Phelan Road to the south. The intersection of Caliente Road and Phelan Road will be fully signalized. A secondary access will be provided at the intersection of Yucca Terrace Drive and Highway 395 . This intersection will be fully signalized and will allow full turning movements and controlled access to and from Highway 395 . Two 40-foot-wide driveway approaches will be provided off of Cal iente Road to provide ful l ac cess for trucks, passenger vehicles, and emergency vehicles into the site. (f) The proposed project is consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City of Hesperia because an objective in the City’s Genera l Plan seeks to “…Promote industrial development within the City which will expand its tax base and provide a range of employm ent activities, while not adversely impacting the community or environment .” The proposed project will expand employment opportunities for City residents and is estimated to provide 549 jobs.

Section 3. Based on the findings and conclusi ons set for th in this Resolution, the City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit CUP22-00017 subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in ATTACHMENT “A.”
Section 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Resolution No. 2024-12

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 16th day of April 2024.
_______________________________
_______________________________________
Larry Bird, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Erin Baum, Assistant City Clerk

ATTACHMENT "A"
List of Conditions for CUP22-00017
Approval Date:

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

This list of conditions applies to: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit CUP22-00017 to construct
a 655,468 square foot warehouse distribution building on 31.1 gross acres within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) and the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan located west of Highway 395, approximately 600 feet north of Phelan Road, in conjunction with Specific Plan Amendment SPLA24-00001 to change the zone for parcel 3064-401-05 from NC to CIBP and the adoption of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Applicant: KISS Logistics Center; APNs: 3064-401-03, -04, & -05)
The use shall not be established until all conditions of this land use approval application have been met.

This approved land use shall become null and void if all conditions have not been completed by the expiration date noted above. Extensions of time may be granted upon submittal of the required application and fee prior to the expiration date. (Note: the "COMPLETED" and "COMPLIED BY" spaces are for internal City use only).

CONDITIONS REQUIRED AS PART OF SUBMITTAL OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CONSTRUCTION PLANS. Five complete sets of construction plans prepared
and wet stamped by a California licensed Civil
or Structural Engineer or Architect shall be submitted to the Building Division with the required application fees for review. (B)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DRAINAGE STUDY. The Developer shall submit three (3) copies of
a Final Drainage Study which analyzes the
pre-project and proposed project hydrology, including flows from offsite, flows generated onsite, hydraulic properties of flows entering or exiting the project to and from natural or constructed conveyances, and capacity and function of any runoff management structures such as catch basins, inlets, outlets and detention or retention structures. The study must include all information specified in the City's hydrology study outline

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DRYWELLS. The Project may be permitted to install drywells to ensure the required drawdown time will be achieved.

A. Drywells shall
have a City-approved pretreatment
component equivalent to a 2-phase system with debris shield and filter element.

B. Drywells shall be constructed by a contractor qualified in the construction of drywells.

C. Drywells in retention basins shall include a secured grate to prevent unauthorized removal.

D. The excavation for the drywell shall penetrate a minimum of 10 continuous feet into a suitable permeable layer or when a depth of 60 feet has been reached, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.

DRAFT-PENDING APPROVAL

E. Drywells that cease to drain a basin or underground
system within 48 hours of the end of a storm event shall be replaced or refurbished by the owner. This requirement shall be written in the CC&Rs for all subdivisions where drywells are installed.

F. Drywell usage shall comply with all prevailing City, State, and Federal requirements, including the Underground Injection Control Regulations for Class V Injection Wells.

G. A Drywell Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the approval of a drywell installation at a project site.

H. The Drywell Maintenance Plan shall include the following:

1. Drywell(s) location, depth, type, installing
contractor, date of installation, owner, maintenance contractor, and emergency contact.

2. Settling chambers and interceptors to be
inspected annually;

3. Removal of sediment and debris when:
a. Sediment/debris level fills = 25% of the capacity;
b. Drywell ownership or maintenance
responsibility changes;
c. Material not resulting from stormwater/urban
runoff enters the settling chamber or interceptor
I. Submit inspection/maintenance reports to the City
(Building and Safety within 10 days of inspection.(E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY FINAL WQMP SUBMITTAL. Submit a final WQMP, prepared using
the applicable Mojave River Watershed Group
Regulated WQMP Template, which includes all required or proposed revisions, addresses any comments provided on the draft WQMP, provides final designs for best management
practices (BMP's), and includes calculations for BMP sizing.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY OFFSITE DRAINAGE IMPACT PREVENTION. The Project shall
provide safe conveyance for offsite runoff either routed through the project or around the project site. The Project shall ensure that the proposed conveyance of offsite flows will not increase adverse impacts to downstream properties and/or drainage facilities for the 1-hour design storm for the 100-year return frequency rainfall events.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY The Project shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts to downstream
properties and/or drainage facilities caused or
exacerbated by the project. The project shall demonstrate that runoff from the completed project site will not exceed 90% of the pre-project runoff discharge rates for the 24-hour design storm for the 100-year return frequency rainfall events.

A. Drawdown Time. All drainage facilities which are designed to percolate/infiltrate surface runoff (including basins, drywells, or infiltration-based low impact development features) shall not accumulate standing water for more than 48 hours. All
drainage facilities designed to provide detention storage shall recover 100 percent of their design detention volume within 48 hours.

B. Groundwater Protection. The Project shall ensure any

retention/infiltration or detention facilities will not adversely impact groundwater.

C. Underground Retention/Detention Systems. The Project shall demonstrate a minimum functional life span of 50 years for materials (e.g., polymer, metal, mineral-based, or other) used in underground retention/detention systems.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN. The
Project
shall submit to the City for approval two (2) copies of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as specified in the prevailing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board.

Prepare the SWPPP using or following the format of the most recent SWPPP Template in the Construction BMP Handbook
prepared by the California Stormwater Quality Association (requires subscription); see:
https://www.casqa.org/resources/bmp-handbooks
NPDES: The Project shall enroll under the prevailing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board and pay
applicable fees. The Project shall provide proof of such permit coverage including a copy of the Notice Of Intent Receipt Letter and the project WDID No. to the City.

Alternatively, projects from 1 to 5 acres with an approved Rainfall Erosivity Waiver authorized by U.S. EPA Phase II regulations certifying to the State Water Resources Control Board that construction activity will occur only when the Rainfall Erosivity Factor is less than 5 (R in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation), shall provide a copy of the projects Erosivity Waiver Certification and Waiver ID to the City.

NPDES-PERMIT TERMINATION: Upon completion of
construction, the Project shall ensure that all disturbed areas are stabilized and all construction waste, equipment, and unnecessary temporary BMPs are removed from the site. In addition, the Project shall file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the Lahontan Regional Water Board as required by the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION. The Developer shall
submit an Offer of Dedication to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. At time of submittal the developer shall complete the City's application for document review and pay all applicable fees. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY UTILITY NON INTERFERE/QUITCLAIM DOCS. The
Developer
shall provide non interference and or quitclaim
letter(s) from any applicable utility agencies for any utility easements that affect the proposed project. All documents shall be subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department and the affected utility agencies. The

improvement plans will not be accepted without the required documents and approval from the af
fected agencies. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. The Developer shall provide two copies
of the soils report to substantiate all grading building and public improvement plans. Include R value testing and pavement recommendations for public streets. (E B)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY PLAN CHECK FEES. Plan checking fees must be paid in conjunction
with the improvement plan submittal. All required
plans, maps, requested studies, CFD annexations, etc. must be submitted as a package. The Developer shall coordinate with the City's Engineering Analyst, Dena Alcayaga at (760) 947-1438 or [email protected], to obtain the fee calculation form which shall be completed and submitted, along with fee payment, at time of plan submittal. Any
outstanding fees must be paid before final inspection and the release of bonds.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY TITLE REPORT. The Developer shall provide a complete title report 90-days or newer from the date of submittal. (E) NOT

IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY EXPIRATION OF ENTITLEMENT. Unless the applicant has obtained
a grading permit and/or building permit and
commenced construction, this approval shall expire three (3) years from the date of action of the reviewing authority. Where no grading or building permit is required, the allowed use on the site shall have commenced prior to the expiration date in compliance with the approval and any applicable conditions of approval. An extension of time may be granted pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.12.060 if the applicant files an application and written request for an extension prior to the expiration of the permit.(P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY INDEMNIFICATION(1). To the furthest extent allowed by law, Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, damages and costs (including attorney's fees, litigation expenses and administrative record preparation costs) arising from, resulting from, or in connection with any Third-Party Action (as hereinafter defined). The term “Third Party Action” collectively means any legal action or other proceeding instituted by (i) a third party or parties, or (ii) a governmental body, agency or official other than the City, that:
(a) challenges or contests any or all of these Conditions of Approval or any approval associated with entitlements
associated with the project to which these conditions of approval apply (collectively “Approvals”); or (b) claims or alleges a violation of CEQA or another law in connection with the Approvals by the City, or the grant, issuance or approval by the City of any or all Approvals. Applicant’s obligations under this paragraph shall apply regardless of whether City or any of its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents or volunteers are actively or passively negligent, but shall not apply to any loss, liability, fines, penalties forfeitures, costs or damages caused solely by the active negligence or willful

misconduct of the City or any of its officers, officials, employees,
agents or volunteers. The provisions of this
section shall survive any termination, revocation, overturn, or expiration of an approval. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY INDEMNIFICATION(2). Nothing in this condition shall obligate the City to defend any claim and the City shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement arising from any such claim unless the City approves the settlement in writing. Additionally, the City shall not be prohibited from independently defending any claim, and whether or not the City does decide to independently defend a claim, the applicant shall be responsible for City’s attorneys’ fees, expenses of litigation, and costs for that independent defense, including the costs of preparing any required administrative record. Unless the City independently chooses to defend any Third Party Action on its behalf, Applicant shall control the conduct of the defense of any claim or action provided that: (1) the City shall have the right, prior to filing, to review and approve any and all pleadings or related documents filed with the court in connection with such defense and Applicant shall reimburse the City for review time for each draft brief or pleading to be filed on behalf of the City; and (2) the City shall review and reasonably approve any proposed settlement. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is not obligated to approve a proposed settlement requiring the City to pay or incur any monetary amount, take a future legislative action, render a future quasi judicial decision, or otherwise take a future discretionary government action. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY INDEMNIFICATION(3). The City may, at any time, require the applicant to reimburse the City for costs that have been, or which the City reasonably anticipates will be, incurred by the City during the course of processing or defending any
Third-Party Actions. The City shall provide Applicant with an invoice detailing all reasonable costs incurred. Applicant shall tender to the City payment in full of all reasonable and necessary costs within thirty (30) days from the date upon the invoice. Applicant further acknowledges and agrees that failure to timely tender payment in full to the City shall be considered a breach and non compliance with the conditions of approval for the project. Applicant shall also be required, upon request of the City, to deposit two month’s estimated costs anticipated by the City to be incurred, which may be used by the City as a draw down account to maintain a
positive balance pending tender of payment by Applicant as noted herein . (P)

CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITY

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. Pre-construction meetings
shall be held between the City the Developer grading
contractors and special inspectors to discuss permit
requirements monitoring and other applicable environmental mitigation measures required prior to ground disturbance and prior to development of improvements within the public
right-of-way. (B)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY SURVEY. The Developer shall provide a legal survey of the property.

All property corners shall be staked and the property
address posted. (B)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CFD ANNEXATION. The applicant shall annex the property into Community Facilities District CFD 94-01. (F)
NOT

IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY. A pre-construction survey for the burrowing owl shall be conducted by a City approved and licensed biologist, no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY PROTECTED PLANTS. Three copies of a protected plant plan shall
be submitted to the Building Division showing the present location and proposed treatment of all smoke tree, species in the Agavacea family, mesquite, large creosote bushes, Joshua Trees, and other plants protected by the State Desert Native Plant Act. The grading plan shall be consistent with the approved protected plant plan. No clearing or grading shall commence until the protected plant plan is approved and the site is inspected and approved for clearing. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY CFD ANNEXATION. The applicant shall annex into the site into
the Community Facilities District CFD-2022-1 (Non
Residential Maintenance and Services).(P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PERCOLATION TEST. The applicant shall provide percolation test
data which are adequate to substantiate the hydrologic
performance of all proposed basins, underground retention systems, drywells, or other features requiring percolation of surface water:

A. Projects shall provide site-specific percolation test data to substantiate the performance and effective drawdown
time of all proposed surface retention basins.

B. Projects shall provide site-specific, depth-appropriate percolation test data for the proposed subsurface
infiltration/retention system; and/or for any proposed
drywells.

C. Percolations tests shall be performed in accordance with the procedures in Appendix A of the Riverside County
Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best
Management Practices; available online at:
http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/NPDES/LIDBMP.asp x

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION. All of the requirements of the City-approved
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be
implemented prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit, and shall be maintained until construction is complete and all disturbed areas are fully stabilized. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS. All required improvement
plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer per City standards and per the City's improvement plan checklist to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Five sets

of improvement plans shall be submitted to the Development Services
Department and Engineering Department for plan
review with the required plan checking fees. All Public Works plans shall be submitted as a complete set. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DEDICATION(S). The Developer shall grant to the City an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Caliente Road, Yucca Terrace Street and HIghway 395. The right of way full width for Caliente Road and Yucca Street shall be seventy (70') feet.

The right of way half width for Highway 395 shall be sixty-five (65') feet. It is the Developer's responsibility to obtain any additional right of way dedication needed to satisfy the 26' minimum paving requirement at no cost to the City. Corner cut off right of way dedication per City standards is required at all intersections, including interior roadways. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY TRAFFIC SIGNAL(S). The Developer shall design to construct traffic signal at the intersection of Phelan Road and the new proposed Industrial Collector (Caliente Road) and at the intersection of Highway 395 and Yucca Terrace Drive. As part of traffic signal improvements at the intersection of Highway 395 an Yucca Terrace Drive additional right of way may be required to satisfy dedicated turning movements and transition tapers to the satisfaction of City Engineer and Caltrans. Traffic signal preemption devicw for emergency vehicle operation shall be included. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY UTILITY NON INTERFERENCE/QUITCLAIM. The Developer shall provide non interference and or quitclaim letter(s) from any applicable utility agencies for any utility easements that affect the proposed project. All documents shall be subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department and the affected utility agencies. Grading permits will not be issued until the required documents are reviewed and approved by all applicable agencies. Any fees associated with the required documents are the Developers responsibility. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED

COMPLIED BY PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL / COLLECTOR (CALIENTE
ROAD):

Developer shall design to construct an Industrial /
Collector roadway as shown on the approved site plan per City standards. These improvements shall consist of (E)
A. 8 Curb and Gutter per City standards.

B. Sidewalk (width = 6 feet) per City standards.

C. Roadway drainage device(s).

D. Streetlights per City standards.

E. Commercial drive approac per City standards.

F. Pavement transitions per City Standards.

G. Design roadway sections per existing approved street sections and per R value testing with a traffic index of 10 and per the soils report.

H. Cross sections every 50-feet per City standards.

I. Traffic control signs and devices as required by the traffic study and or the City Engineer.

J. Provide a signage and striping plan per City standards.

K. It is the Developers responsibility to obtain any off-site dedications for transition tapers including acceleration

deceleration tapers and to satisfy the 26 minimum paving requirement per City standards.

L.

Relocate existing utilities. The Developer shall coordinate with affected utility companies.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY GRADING PLAN. The Developer shall submit a Grading Plan with
existing contours tied to an acceptable City of Hesperia benchmark. The grading plan shall indicate building footprints and proposed development of the retention basin(s) as a minimum. Site grading and building pad preparation shall include recommendations provided per the Preliminary Soils Investigation. All proposed walls shall be indicated on the grading plans showing top of wall (tw) and top of footing (tf) elevations along with finish grade (fg) elevations. Wall height from finish grade (fg) to top of wall (tw) shall not exceed 6.0 feet in height. Grading Plans are subject to a full review by the City of Hesperia and the City Engineer upon submittal of the Improvement Plans. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY OFF-SITE GRADING LETTER(S). It is the Developers responsibility
to obtain signed Off-Site Grading Letters from
any adjacent property owner(s) who are affected by any
Off-Site Grading that is needed to make site work. The
Off-Site Grading letter(s) along with the latest grant deed(s) must be submitted and appropriate fees paid to the City's Engineering Department for plan check approval. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY STREET IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall design street
improvements in accordance with City standards and
these conditions. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL / COLLECTOR (CALIENTE ROAD AND YUCCA TERRACE) OFF-SITE: Developer shall design
to construct 26' min. paving on proposed Caliente Road from south project boundary to Phelan Road and from the northerly project boundary to Yucca Terrace Drive and from Yucca
Terrace Drive to Highway 395. Tie-in to Highway 395 will need to be reviewed and approved by CalTrans and a CalTrans
encroachment permit will be required. These improvements shall consist of:

A. Pavement transitions per City Standards.

B. Design roadway sections per approved street sections and per "R" value testing presented in the project soild report with a traffic index of 10.

C. Traffic control signs and devices as required by the City Engineer.

D. Provide a signage and striping plan per City and CalTrans standards.

E. It is the Developers responsibility to obtain any off-site dedications for transition tapers including acceleration deceleration tapers and to satisfy the 26' minimum paving requirement per City standards.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY UTILITY PLAN. The Developer shall design a Utility Plan for service
connections and / or private hydrant and sewer
connections. Any existing water, sewer, or storm drain
infrastructures that are affected by the proposed development

shall be removed / replaced or relocated and shall be
constructed per City standards at the Developers expense. (E) A.

A remote read automatic meter reader shall be added on all meter connections as approved by the City Engineer.

B. The Developer shall design a Utility Plan for service connections and / or private water and sewer connections.

Domestic and fire connections shall be made from the
proposed 16" PVC water line per City Standards.

C. It is the Developers responsibility to connect to sewer and pay the appropriate fees. The Developer will be required to connect to the proposed sewer main per City standards.

D. Complete V.V.W.R.A.s Wastewater Questionnaire for
Commercial / Industrial Establishments and submit to the Engineering Department. Complete the Certification Statement for Photographic and X ray Processing Facilities as required.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY WATER/SEWER IMPR. PLAN. The Developer shall design water and sewer improvements in accordance with City
standards, and as indicated below. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The Developer shall design to
construct a sewer system that includes a force main, lift station, and gravity sewer. Alignment to be approved by the City Engineer. Design shall consist of plan and profile per CIty standards. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY WATER IMPR. PLAN. The Developer shall design to construct a 16" PVC water main extension. Alignment to be approved by City Engineer. Design shall consist of plan and profile per City standards. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY HIGHWAY 395. Saw-cut (2-foot min.) and match-up asphalt pavement on Highway 395 across the project frontage, based on City’s 130-foot Special Street Section for U.S. Highway 395. The curb face is to be located at 53’ from the approved centerline unless otherwise noted in approved Traffic Analysis.

The design shall be based upon an acceptable centerline profile extending a minimum of three hundred (300) feet beyond the project boundaries where applicable and the
design shall be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval, as well as the City of Hesperia, before the City will approve street plan. These improvements shall consist of:

A. 8” Curb and Gutter per City standards.

B. Curb adjacent sidewalk (width = 6 feet) per City standards.

C. Roadway drainage device(s) and relocation of existing storm drain structures.

D. Streetlights per City standards.

E. Intersection improvements including handicapped ramps per City standards.

F. Commercial driveway approaches per City standards.

G. Pavement transitions per City Standards.

H. Design roadway sections per existing, approved street sections and per “R” value testing with a traffic index to be determined by Caltrans.

I. Cross sections every 50-feet per City standards.

J. Traffic control signs and devices as required by the traffic

study and / or the City Engineer.

K. Provide a signage and striping plan per City standards.

L.

It is the Developer’s responsibility to obtain any off-site dedications for transition tapers including acceleration / deceleration tapers per City standards.

M. Relocate existing utilities as required. The Developer shall coordinate with affected utility companies.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY LOT MERGER. A lot merger shall be submitted, approved, and
recorded. The lot merger and the required application and fees shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to review and approval by the City for recordation. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY CULTURAL RESOURCES. If cultural resources are found during
grading then grading activities shall cease and the
applicant shall contract with a City approved archaeologist or paleontologist to monitor grading prior to resuming grading. All cultural resources discovered shall be handled in accordance with state and federal law. A report of all resources discovered as well as the actions taken shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY FISH AND GAME FEE. Within five days from approval of the entitlement,
the applicant shall file a Notice of Determination
with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board and pay the filing fee of $4,101.25 payable to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County. A copy of the stamped NOD from the County shall be provided to the Planning
Division when completed. Additionally, an electronic copy of the stamped NOD shall be filed with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and posted on the CEQAnet Web
Portal. (P)

CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY AQMD APPROVAL. The Developer shall provide evidence of acceptance
by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
District. (B)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY CONSTRUCTION WASTE. The developer or builder shall contract
with the City's franchised solid waste hauler to provide bins and haul waste from the proposed development. At any time during construction, should services be discontinued, the franchise will notify the City and all building permits will be suspended until service is reestablished. The construction site shall be maintained and all trash and debris contained in a method consistent with the requirements specified in Hesperia Municipal Code Chapter 15.12. All construction debris,
including green waste, shall be recycled at Advance Disposal and receipts for solid waste disposal shall be provided prior to final approval of any permit. (B)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY DEVELOPMENT FEES. The Developer shall pay required development fees as follows:

A. School Fees (B)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT. All rofftop equipment shall be screened
from view from the right-of-way and architecturally
integrated into the design of the building. All roof-mounted mechanical equipment proposed on the roof shall be shown on a cross-section of the building, as well as a line of site study, evidencing that the equipment will be screened from view and will not be visible from the right-of-way. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY LANDSCAPE PLANS. The Developer shall submit three sets of
landscape and irrigation plans including water budget
calculations, required application fees, and completed
landscape packet to the Building Division. Plans shall utilize xeriscape landscaping techniques in conformance with the Landscaping Ordinance. The number, size, type and
configuration of plants approved by the City shall be
maintained in accordance with the Development Code. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY SOLID MASONRY WALLS AND FENCES. The Developer shall
submit four sets of masonry wall/wrought iron fencing
plans to the Building Division with the required application fees for all proposed walls. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY FENCING PLANS. A combination four-foot high wrought iron fence and two- foot high split-face masonry wall shall be constructed on private property along the boundary of the retention basin in accordance with City standards. In addition, the 8-foot heigh concrete screenwalls across the east and west sides of the property shall incorporate the use of pilasters spaced at 50-foot intervals and include a minimum 2-foot change in horizontal plane for at least 10-feet. Two complete sets of engineered construction plans for the required fencing shall be submitted to the Building and Safety counter. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY TRASH ENCLOSURE. All trash enclosures shall be in conformance
with Municipal Code Section 16.16.360 and City
approved construction details. The enclosure shall be
enclosed on three sides by a minimum six-foot tall decorative masonry wall with split face block on the viewable side and a decorative cap. The masonry wall shall be earth tone in color; solid grey block is not allowed. The enclosure shall have non-transparent metal gates and a solid roof-cover that is architecturally compatible with the primary building onsite and that serves to protect the refuse area from inclement weather, as well as prevents unauthorized entry into the enclosure. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY OFFICE AREAS: As shown on the approved site plan, the o
ffice area shall not exceed 16,000 square feet. The office areas can be distributed among the four corners of the
building, however regardless of how the office spaces are distributed, a maximum of 16,000 square feet of office area may be allowed. Approval of a revised site plan shall be required if the office area exceeds 16,000 square feet to ensure that sufficient parking is avaiable. (P)

CONDITIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY DEVELOPMENT FEES. The Developer shall pay required Page
11 of 13

NOT IN COMPLIANCE development fees as follows:

A. Development Impact Fees (B)
B. Utility Fees (E)
NO

T IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY UTILITY CLEARANCE AND C OF O. The Building Division will
provide utility clearances on individual buildings after required permits and inspections and after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on each building. Utility meters shall be permanently labeled. Uses in existing buildings currently served by utilities shall require issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy prior to establishment of the use. (B)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED

COMPLIED BY EXECUTED AND RECORDED WQMP MAINTENANCE
A
GREEMENT. The WQMP Maintenance Agreement:

Covenant and Agreement Regarding Water Quality
Management Plan and Stormwater Best Management
Practices Transfer, Access, and Maintenance, must be (1) prepared using the WQMP Maintenance Agreement Template
provided as Attachment A to the City of Hesperia WQMP
Templates, and (2) the complete WQMP Maintenance
Agreement, with the Property Owners notarized signature(s) and suitable for recordation by the City, must be received before the City will authorize the final inspection or issue a Certificate of Occupancy.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY WQMP PERMIT. The Property Owner shall apply for a City WQM
P Permit with the Building and Safety Department and
pay the applicable permit fees. The WQMP Permit shall be renewed annually. To comply with the WQMP Permit, the
Property Owner shall certify on an annual basis that all of the post-construction best management practices (BMPs)
described in the approved project WQMP have been
inspected and maintained as specified and required by the BMP Inspection and Maintenance Form and Operation and
Maintenance Plan. The Property Owner shall provide proof of the WQMP Permit before the City will issue a Certificate of Occupancy.

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY AS BUILT PLANS. The Developer shall provide as built plans. (E)
NO

T IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. All public improvements shall be completed
by the Developer and approved by the Engineering
Department. Existing public improvements determined to be unsuitable by the City Engineer shall be removed and
replaced. (E)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE

COMPLETED
COMPLIED BY LANDSCAPE/IRRIG ATION. The Developer shall install the landscaping and irrigation as required by the Planning
Division. (P)

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS. All on site improvements as recorded
in these conditions, and as shown on the approved
site plan shall be completed in accordance with all applicable Title 16 requirements. The building shall be designed
consistent with the design shown upon the approved materials

board and color exterior building elevations identified as Exhibit
A. Any exceptions shall be approved by the Director of
Development Services. (P)
Others

NOT IN COMPLIANCE
COMPLETED COMPLIED BY MITIGATION MEASURES: All applicable mitigation measures identified
in the Final EIR shall be met prior to the required
milestones identified in the MMRP. (P)
(B) Building Division 947-1300
(E) Engineering Division 947-1476
(F) Fire Prevention Division 947-1603
(P) Planning Division 947-1200
(RPD) Hesperia Recreation and Park District 244-5488
NOTICE TO DEVELOPER: IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE REGARDING

THESE CONDITIONS, PLEASE CONACT THE
APPROPRIATE DIVISION LISTED BELOW:

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

City of Hesper ia

STAFF REP ORT
DATE: April 16, 2024
TO: Mayor and Council Members
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Housing Authority
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Community Development Commission FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Melinda Sayre, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
Jacquelyn Castillo, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: AB1684 Impact on Commercial Cannabis Enforcement

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended th at the City Council introduce and place on first reading Ordinance No. 2024-04 amending Title 1 – General Enforcement Procedures, Title 8 – Public Nuisances, and Title 16 – Land Uses, of the Hesperia Municipal Code related to illegal commercial can nabis activities.

Adopt Resolution No. 20 24-09 amending the City-Wide bail schedule related to administrative enforcement of cannabis activities.

BACKGROUND
In October 2023, California Governor N ewsom signed Assembly Bill 1684. The bill enacts the following:
o Expands authorization for ordinances providing f or immediate imposition of administ rative fines or penalties to include all illegal commercial cannabis activity (in cluding cultivation, manufacturing, processing, distribution, or retail sale of cannabis). o Authorizes ordinances to declare illegal commercial cannabis activity a public nuisance. o Prohibits ordinances from imposing immediate administrative fines or pena lties exceeding $1,000 per violation and $10,000 per day.
o Authorizes ordinances to impose administrative fines or penalties on property owners a nd each owner of occupant business entities engaging in illegal commercial cannabis activity, and to hold them jointly and severally liable.
o Authorizes local agencies adopting or dinances a uthorized by this law to refer a case involving illegal commercial cannabis activity to the Attorney General.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
California Government Code, Section 53069.4 is now amended to limit fines to $1,000 per violation and $10,000 per day. Hesperia currently imposes a $15,000 per violation fine (for illegal commercial cannabi s) which will no longer comply with the stat e’s law. Staff is recommending an amendment to the City’s bail schedule to comply with the state law.

Staff Report to the City Council
AB 1684 Impact on Commercial Cannabis Enforcement
April 16, 2024
There is also new language that appears to limit who can be cited. Currently, the City can cite any person that fits the City’s definition for “responsible person” which is a broad definition. This means that the City will cite anyone located on t he property that appears to be allowing the cultivation (e.g. , gardener, roommates, etc.) . Staff recommends amending the City’s enforcement laws to declare all illegal commercial cannabis activity a public nuisance , and to more specifically define “responsible perso n” as the property owner and each owner of the occupant business entity engaging in illegal commercial cannabis activity.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of this resolution will allow the City to continue to collect fees that adequately recover costs based on services provided and align with State requirements.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Ordinance No. 2024-04

2. Exhibit “A” Title 1 - Chapter 1.04, Section 1.04.050 – Definitions

3. Exhibit “B” Title 8 – Chapter 8.32 Public Nuisances

4. Exhibit “C” Title 16 – Article XIV – Cannabis Related Uses and Prohibited Activities

5. Resolution No. 2024-09

6. Bail Schedule with Exhibit “A” attached

01071.0011/473404.2
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-04

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 1 – GENERAL ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, TITLE 8 – PUBLIC NUISANCES, AND TITLE 16 – LAND USES OF THE HESPERIA

MUNCIPAL CODE, RELATED TO ILLEGAL COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, in Octo ber 2023, California Governor N ewsom signed Assembly Bill 1684 “AB 1684”; and
WHEREAS, AB 1684 expands authorization for ordinances providing for immediate imposition of administ rative fines or penalties to include a ll unlicensed commercial cannabis activity (including cultivation, manufacturing, processing, distribution, or retail sale of cannabis); and WHEREAS, AB 1684 authorizes ordinances to declare illegal commercial cannabis activity a public nuisance; and
WHEREAS, AB 1684 authorizes ordinances to impose administrative fines or penalties on the property owner and each owner of occupant business entity engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity; and
WHEREAS, AB 1684 authorizes the City to refer a case involving unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to the Attorney General; and
WHEREAS, Title 1 of the Hesperia Municipal Code contains regulations related to enforcement procedures; and
WHEREAS, Title 8 o f t he Hesperia Munici pal Code contains regulati ons related to public nuisances; and
WHEREAS, Title 16 of the Hesperia Munici pal Code contains regulati ons related to the prohibition of illegal commercial cannabis activities; and WHEREAS, modifications to these sections of the Hesperia Munici pal Code are necessary to declare all illegal commercial cannabis activity a public nuisance, and to more specifically define “responsible perso n” in re lation to ille gal commercial cannabis activity in order to a lign with Assembly Bill 1684; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

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

Section 1 . All of the facts set forth in the forgoing recitals are true, corre ct and are adopted as findings.

Section 2. Title 1, Chapter 1.04 of the Hesperia Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto.

Section 3. Title 8, Chapter 8.32 of the Hesperia Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto.

Ordinance No. 2024-04

01071.0011/473404.2
Section 4. Title 16, Article XIV of the Hesperia Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit “C”, attached hereto.

Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect on May 16th, 2024.

Section 6. The C ity Council of the City of Hesperia hereby declar es that should any provision, sectio n, paragraph, sentenc e, or word of this Ordinance hereby adopted be rendered or declared in valid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by any reason of any pree mptive legislation, the remaini ng provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Ordinance and shall cause the same to be po sted in three (3) public places within the City o f Hesperia pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 93-78.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 16th day of April, 2024
Larry Bird, Mayor
ATTEST
Erin Baum
Assistant City Clerk

Exhibit A: Title 1 - Chapter 1.04, Section 1.04.050 - Definitions

1.04.050 - Definitions.
"Responsible person" means the per son, who a city official believes, is causing, performing, permitting to exist or otherwise maintaining, a public nuisance and includes the owner of the real property involved and tenant, occupan t or user thereof, or any other person in real or apparent charge or control of said real property .
“Responsible person is it relates to commercial cannabis activity ” – means the property owner and each owner of the occupant business entity engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity.

Attachment 2