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.