Hesperia City Council
July 15, 2025

We welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with the City to discuss any additional measures beyond the Fire Code that would help preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the community. We would also like to engage with concerned citizens. PLA views fire safety as critical to its operations, and on behalf of the owner of the property, CIRE has also required strict compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Until the Planning Commission has conducted a meaningful study of the situation, including examining the existing Fire Code requirements and engaging with stakeholders including CIRE and PLA, we urge the Planning Commission to refrain from adopting Resolution No. PC-2025-07.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Yaara Siler
Portfolio General Counsel

CIRE EQUITY

ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION 2810

OUTDOOR STORAGE OF PALLETS AT PALLET

MANUFACTURING AND RECYCLING FACILITIES

2810.1 General.

The outside storage of wood pallets and wood composite pallets on the same site as a pallet manufacturing or pallet recycling facility shall comply with Sections 2810.2 through 2810.11.

2810.2 Site plan.

Each site shall maintain a current site plan. The site plan shall be submitted to the fire code oicial for approval and contain all of the following:

1. Lot lines.

2. Utilities.
3 . Size, location and type of construction of the build ings on the property.

4. Presence of the fi re protection systems.

5. Water supply sources for fire-fighting purposes.
6 . Location of hazardous material storage areas.
7 . Location of pallet storage.
8 . Equipment protected with a dust collection system.

9. 9.F ire apparatus access roads.

10. 10.Designated smoking areas.
1 1. 11.Location of fire alarm control panels.

2 810.3 Fire prevention plan.

The owner or owner’s authorized representative shall submit a fire prevention plan for review and approval by the fire code oicial that includes all of the following:

1. Frequency of walk-through inspections to verify comp liance with the plan.

2. Hot work permit program in accordance with Chapter 35.

3. Preventative maintenance program for equipment assoc iated with pallet activities.

4. Inspection, testing and maintenance of fi re protection systems in accordance with Chapter 9.

2810.4 Fire safety and evacuation plan.

The owner or owner’s authorized representative shall prepare and train employees in an approved fire safety and evacuation plan in accordance with Chapter 4.

2810.5 Security management plan.

The owner or owner’s authorized representative shall prepare a security management plan based on a security risk assessment and shall make the plan and assessment available to the fire code oicial upon request.

2810.6 Clearance to property line.

Stacks of pallets shall not be stored within 0.75 times the stack height or 8 feet (2438 mm) of the property line, whichever is greater, or shall comply with Section 2810.11.

2810.7 Clearance to important buildings.

Stacks of pallets shall not be stored within 0.75 times the stack height of any important building on site, or shall comply with Section 2810.11.

2810.8 Height.

Pallet stacks shall not exceed 20 feet (6096 mm) in height.

2810.9 Fire flow.

Fire-flow requirements for the site shall be determined by the fire code oicial.

2810.10 Portable fire extinguishers.

Portable fire extinguishers shall be selected, installed and maintained in accordance with Section 906.

2810.11 Alternative approach.

Where approved by the fire code oicial, pallet stacks are permitted to be located closer to a property line or structure than as required by Sections 2810.6 and 2810.7 where additional fire protection is provided, includ ing, but not limited to, the following:

1.The storage yard areas and materials-handling equipment selection, design, and arrangement are based on an approved risk assessment.

2.Automatic fire detection that transmits an alarm to a supervising station in accordance with NFPA 72.

3.Fire apparatus access roads around all storage areas.

315.7 Outdoor pallet storage.

Pallets stored outdoors shall comply with Sections 315.7 through 315.7.7. Pallets stored within a building shall be protecte d in accordance with Chapter 32.

315.7.1 Storage beneath overhead projections from buildings.

Where buildings are equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system, the outdoor storage of pallets under eaves, canopies or other projections or overhangs are prohibited except where automatic sprinklers are installed under such eaves, canopies or other projections or overhangs.

315.7.2 Distance to lot line.

Pallet storage shall not be located within 10 feet (3048 mm) of a lot line.

315.7.3 Storage height.

Pallet storage shall not exceed 20 feet (6096 mm) in height.

315.7.4 Pallet pile stability and size.

Pallet stacks shall be arranged to form stable piles. Individual pallet piles shall cover an area not greater than 400 square feet (37 m2).

3 15.7.5 Pallet types.

Pallets shall be all wood, with slatted or solid top or bottom, with metal fasteners, or shall be plastic or composite pallets, listed and labeled in accordance with UL 2335 or FM 4996. Plastic pallets shall be both solid and gridd ed deck, independent of the pallet manufacturing process, type of resin used in fabrication or geometry of the pallet.

315.7.6 Pile separation distances.

In addition to the other requirements of this section, pallet stacks and piles shall be separated in accordance with Sections 315.7.6.1 and 315.7.6.2.

TABLE 315.7.6(1)

SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN WOOD PALLET STACKS AND BUILDINGS WALL CONSTRUCTION OPENING TYPE WOOD PALLET SEPARATION DISTANCE (feet)

≤ 50
Pallets
51 to 200
Pallets
> 200
Pallets
Masonry None 2 2 2
Masonry Fire-rated glazing with open
sprinklers 2 5 20
Masonry Fire-rated glazing 5 10 20
Masonry Plain glass with open sprinklers 5 10 20
Noncombustible None 5 10 20
Wood with open
sprinklers — 5 10 20
Wood None 15 30 90
Any Plain glass 15 30 90
For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm.

TABLE 315.7.6(2)

SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN PLASTIC PALLET STACKS AND BUILDINGS

WALL CONSTRUCTION OPENING TYPE

PLASTIC PALLET SEPARATION DISTANCE
(feet)
≤ 50 Pallets 51 to 200
Pallets > 200 Pallets
Masonry None 2 2 2
Masonry Fire-rated glazing with open
sprinklers 10 20 50
Masonry Fire-rated glazing 15 40 100
Masonry Plain glass with open sprinklers 15 40 100
Noncombustible None 15 40 100
Wood with open
sprinklers — 15 40 100
Wood None 30 80 150
Any Plain glass 30 80 150
For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm.

TABLE 315.7.6(3)

SEPARATION FROM OTHER PALLET PILES AND ON-SITE STORAGE (WOOD PALLETS)

WOOD PALLET SEPARATION DISTANCE (feet)
≤ 50 Pallets 51 to 200 Pallets > 200 Pallets
Between pallet piles 7.5 15 45
Other on-site storage 7.5 15 45

1. For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm.

T
ABLE 315.7.6(4)

SEPARATION FROM OTHER PALLET PILES AND ON-SITE STORAGE (PLASTIC PALLETS)

PLASTIC PALLET SEPARATION DISTANCE (feet)
≤ 50 Pallets 51 to 200 Pallets > 200 Pallets
Between pallet piles 15 40 75
Other on-site storage 15 40 75

2. For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm.

3 15.7.6.1 Building separation.

3. Pallet stacks and piles shall be separated from buil dings in accordance with Table 315.7.6(1) for wood pallets and Table 315.7.6(2) for plastic pallets.

315.7.6.2 Separation from other pallets and on-site storage.

4. Pallets shall be separated from other pallet piles a nd other storage in accordance with Table 315.7.6(3) for wood pallets and Table 315.7.6(4) for plastic pallets.
315.7.7 Prohibited locations.

5. Pallets shall not be stored underneath high-voltage transmission lines, elevated roadways or elevated railways.

June 9, 2025

The City of Hesperia, CA
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345

RE: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS DCA24-00003
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SPLA24-00005

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION
PROJECT NO. C114-01

Dear Planning Commission:

Koffel Associates, Inc. has provided fire protection engineering and code compliance services to the National Wooden Pallet and Container Association (NWPCA) for approximately nine years. The relationship started when it was determined that the International Fire Code (IFC) lacked requirements for the storage of wood pallets at manufacturing and recycling facilities. We helped develop those requirements along with revising the requirements in NFPA 1 regarding the storage of wood pallets at manufacturing and recycling facilities. In addition, to facilitate compliance with the requirements we authored the NWPCA Fire Code Compliance Manual designed to help facility operators and code officials apply the requirements that were new to the 2018 Editions of the IFC and NFPA 1 (https://www.palletcentral.com/page/compliancemanual). In this instance, we have also been contacted by CIRE Equity to provide code consulting services regarding the proposed resolution.

We have reviewed the Staff Report dated June 12, 2025 but released to the public on Friday, June 6, 2025.

While we plan to offer more detailed comments, at this time we will offer the following general comments:

1. In the Background Section a statement is made that “Pallet yards often stack wooden pallets at considerable heights. Without adequate regulation of stacking height, spacing and volume, improperly stored pallets can pose a falling hazard, endangering employees, visitors, and nearby properties.” It should be noted that the California Fire Code contains two sections that address the outside storage of wood pallets, both of which address storage heights and clearances from important buildings and lot lines:
a. Section 2810 Outdoor Storage of Pallets at Pallet Manufacturing and Recycling Facilities b. Section 315.7 Outdoor Pallet Storage

2. In the Issue/Analysis section the issue is expanded to include indoor pallet manufacturing facilities indicating that there are “no specific regulations tailored to outdoor or indoor pallet facilities.” As noted above, the California Fire Code addresses the outdoor storage of wood pallets based upon whether the pallets are stored at manufacturing or recycling facilities or at other locations. The California Building Code classifies indoor manufacturing facilities as either ATTACHMENT 2

The City of Hesperia Planning Commission June 9, 2025

a Group F-1 occupancy or a Group H-2 occupancy, depending on the quantity of combustible dust that is generated. In most cases, such facilities would be required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system and if pallets are stored inside, the sprinkler system density would be one of the higher densities required by NFPA 13 and NFPA 13 severely restricts the height of storage of pallets in such buildings.

3. In a subsequent analysis we will address the allegation that pallet facilities have a “well- documented history of contributing to severe fires…” It should be noted that we are not aware of a single severe fire incident at a facility that complies with the above-referenced codes.

4. The Proposed Resolution has numerous general flaws including:
a. The failure to recognize the difference between pallet storage at manufacturing and recycling facilities, idle pallet storage, and the unauthorized storage of pallets. As noted above, the California Fire Code recognizes those differences. b. The focus on wood pallets when in fact, plastic pallets can, depending on their construction, represent a more severe challenge.
c. The failure to consider the relative risk of compliant pallet storage facilities as compared to other uses permitted in the Limited Manufacturing (I1) and General Manufacturing (I2) zones.

SUMMARY

Given that the Proposed Resolution is based upon incorrect background information, fails to recognize the different types of pallet storage facilities, fails to address plastic pallets, and fails to consider the relative risk of such facilities as compared to other allowable uses we recommend that City Council vote “no” to adopt the Proposed Resolution presented by the Planning Commission.

Respectfully submitted,

William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE, SASHE
Director, Special Projects
Licensed in AZ, DC, HI, MD, NY, OH, PA, VA, WA

ATTACHMENT 2

EXHIBIT “A”
DCA24-00003 and SPLA24-00005

The following are modifications to Chapter 16.16.320 of the City of Hesperia Municipal Code and Chapter 9 of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (additions are in underlined red text and deletions are shown with red and strikethrough):

1) The following are modifications to Chapter 16.16.320- Commercial and industrial uses of the City’s Municipal Code.

Land Use Designations
Land Uses C1 C2 C3 I1 I2
KK. Pallet manufacturing facilities
completely within an enclosed building

NP NP NP NP NP
LL. Pallet yard facilities with outdoor
storage

NP NP NP NP NP
MM KK. Parking/storage of recreational
vehicles
R R R
NN LL. Personal services (e.g., spas, salons,
tattoo shops and massage facilities) 8
R R R
OO MM. Planetarium, aquarium, botanical
garden and zoo
R
PP NN. Publishing and printing R R R
QQ OO. Processing (recycling) facility 4 NP NP NP CUP CUP RR PP. Recreational facility — Commercial R R R
SS QQ. Recycling center — Large collection
facility 4

NP NP NP CUP CUP
TT RR. Repair shop — Small items R R R R R
UU SS. Restaurant (sit down and takeout),
including outdoor dining 2
R R R
VV TT. Retail sales (not including off-sale
alcohol7 or single price overstock/discount
stores (SPODS).

R R R R6 R6
WW UU. School — Trade, community
college, university

R R R R
XX VV. School — Specialty non-degree (e.g.,
dance and martial arts)

R R R R R
YY WW. Semi-truck repair and storage

CUP CUP
ZZ XX. Shopping center (not including off-sale
alcohol 7 )
R R R

Attachment 4

AAA YY. Single price overstock/discount
stores (SPODS).

CUP CUP CUP

BBB ZZ. Outdoor storage of shipping
containers and semi-truck trailers as a primary
use 2

NP NP NP CUP CUP
CCC AAA. Trucking facilities including truck
terminals, bus terminals, and truck storage
yards 2

CUP CUP
DDD BBB. Theater NP NP NP NP NP
EEE CCC. Upholstery and furniture
repair/refinishing

R R R R
FFF DDD. Vehicle fuel station 2 CUP CUP CUP

GGG EEE. Vehicle parts and accessories
sales

R R

HHH FFF. Vehicle repair facility — Major (not
including semi-truck repair)

CUP CUP R R
III GGG. Vehicle repair facility — Minor

CUP CUP R R
JJJ HHH. Vehicle sales/rentals and leasing —
new and used 2

R

KKK III. Vehicle wash facility 2

CUP CUP CUP

LLL JJJ. Veterinary services — Clinics and
small animals hospitals (short term boarding)
R R R

MMM KKK. Warehousing and wholesale
distribution center

R R
NNN LLL. Wrecking yard 2 NP NP NP NP CUP

2) The following are modifications to Chapter 9- Non-Residential Zones of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan.

Chapter 9, Subsection (G) – Commercial Industrial Business Park Zone shall be amended to read:

3. Prohibited Uses

The following uses are prohibited in the Commercial/Industrial Business Park zone:
a) Pallet manufacturing facilities completely within an enclosed building. b) Pallet yard facilities with outdoor storage.
a c) Residential uses.
b d) Other uses not specifically authorized or determined by the Development Services Director or his/her designee to be detrimental to the public welfare by reason of emission of odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise, vibration or other causes.

Chapter 9, Subsection (H) - General Industrial Zone shall be amended to read:

3. Prohibited Uses

The following uses are prohibited in the General Industrial zone:
a) Any residential use.
b) Pallet manufacturing facilities completely within an enclosed building. c) Pallet yard facilities with outdoor storage.
b d) Other uses not specifically authorized or determined by the Development Services Director or his/her designee to be detrimental to the public welfare by reason of emission of odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise, vibration or other causes.

ORDINANCE NO. 2025-03

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

CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A

DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT

TO PROHIBIT THE ESTA BLISHMENT OF NEW, OR THE EXPANSION OF

EXISTING, OUTDOOR PALLET Y ARDS AND INDOOR PALL ET
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES (DCA24-00003 AND SPLA24-00005)

WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Ordinance No. 250, thereby adopting the Hesperia Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, On September 2, 2008, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Ordinance No. 2008-12, thereby adopting the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, on August 20, 2024, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2024 -10, implementing a 45-day moratorium on establishing or expanding pallet yard facilities within the City; and

WHEREAS, on September 17, 2024, the City Council extended the moratorium for ten months and fifteen days, bringing the total duration to one year , to a llow staff to analyze the potential issues associated with pallet yard facilities; and

WHEREAS, there are no specific development standards directly regulating outdoor pallet yards or indoor pallet manufacturing facilities.

WHEREAS, staff analyzed poten tial issues and determined that to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare, the establishment, expansion and operation of outdoor pallet yards and indoor pallet manufacturing facilities shall be prohibited in all industrial zoning d esignations within the City. Pallet facilities pose significant fire hazards due to the high combustibility of stacked wooden pallets. The excessive vertical stacking of pallets presents a clear risk of fire, safety hazard s, and obstruction of emergency access. Additiona lly, these uses generate excessive noise, attract rodents, create visual blight , and contribute to environmental impacts through improper storage and stormwater runoff contamination; and

WHEREAS, the City finds that it is necessary to amend the Hesperia M unicipal Code and the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan to prohibit pallet yard facilities; and

WHEREAS, the City proposes to amend Chapter 16.16.320 – Commercial and Industrial Uses of the Municipal Code to prohibit the establishment of new , or the expansion of existing outdoor pallet yards and indoor pallet manufacturing facilities; and

WHEREAS, the City proposes to amend Chapter 9 – Non-Residential Zones of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan to prohibit the establishment of new, or the expansion of existing outdoor pallet yards and indoor pallet manufacturing facilities; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Development Code Amendment DCA24-00003 and Specific Plan Amendment SPLA24-00005 (DCA24-00003 & SPLA24 -00005) are exempt from t he California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no significant effect on the environment. The proposed Amendments are also exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Q uality Act by Section 16.12.415(B)(10)

of the City’s CEQA Guidelines, as the Amendments are exempt if they do not propose to increase the density or intensity allowed in the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, on June 12, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Hesperia conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the proposed amendment and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, on July 15, 2025, the City Council of the City of Hesperia conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the proposed Amendment and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

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

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

Section 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council, including written and oral staff reports, the City Council specifically finds that the proposed Ordinance is consistent with the goals and objectives of the adopted General Plan as it will enhance the quality of life by preserving a calm environment and eliminating the risk of future adverse impacts to neighborhoods within the City.

Section 3. The proposed development code amendment is necessary because the existing regulations do not contain any development standards as to the operational characteristics of pallet yard facilit ies. These facilities pose serious fire and safety risks due to the high flammability of stacked pallets and the obstruction of emergency access due to improper separation of pallets. They also contribute to noise, attract pests, create visual blight, and raise environmental concerns, including stormwater contamination and airborne health hazards . Fires at these sites are well -documented, often burning for extended periods and endangering nearby homes, businesses, and infrastructure.

Poorly maintained facilities may also invite illegal dumping and i ncreasing public costs for enforcement and cleanup. The prohibition on pallet yard facilities city wide, is intended to enhance public safety and promote responsible development that balances economic activity with community well-being.

Section 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in this Ordinance, the City Council hereby adopts Development Code Amendment DCA24-00003 and Specific Plan Amendment SPLA24-00005 to prohibit the establishment of new, or the expansion of existing outdoor pallet yards and indoor pallet manufacturing facilities as shown on Exhibit “A.”

Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) public places within the City of Hesperia pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 2007-101.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED on this 5th day of August 2025.

__________________________________ _______________________________ Allison Lee, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 12, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nathan R. Freeman, Director of Development Services BY: Ryan Leonard, Principal Planner
Edgar Gonzalez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment DCA2 4-00003 and Specific Plan Amendment SPLA24-00005; Applicant: City of Hesperia; Area Affected: City-wide

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC -2025-07, recommending that the City Council introduce and place on first reading an ordinance approving Development Code Amendment DCA24-00003 and Specific Plan Amendment SPLA24-00005 to prohibit the establishment of new, or the expansion of existing, outdoor pallet yards and indoor pallet manufacturing facilities.

BACKGROUND
On August 20, 2024, the City Council recognized the need for regulations on pallet yard facilities due to their potential negative impacts. Consequ ently, the Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2024-10, implementing a 45-day moratorium on the establishment or expansion of pallet yard facilities within the City (Attachment 1).

On September 17, 2024, the City Council extended the moratorium for ten months and fifteen days, bringing the total duration to one year (Attachment 2).

The purpose of the moratorium was to allow staff time to analyze the potential issues associated with pallet yard facilities and propose regulations to mitigate their impact on the community. The primary concerns related to pallet yards include:
 Fire Risk: Outdoor pallet storage yards pose a significant fire hazard due to the accumulation of large quantities of highly combustible wood. In recent years, multiple fires at outdoor pallet yards in nearby cities have resulted in millions of dollars in damages.  Stacking Hazards: Pallet yards often stack wooden pallets at considerable heights. Without adequate regulation of stacking height, spacing, and volume, improperly stored pallets can pose a falling hazard, endangering employees, visitors, and nearby properties. Improper stacking may also increase fire risk.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Existing Regulations: Under the Hesperia Municipal Code (Section 16.16.320), outdoor pallet yards and indoor pallet manufacturing facilities are currently permitted in the Limited Manufacturing (I1) and General Manufacturing (I2) zones. These facilities are classified as general manufacturing uses and are subject to development standards regulating outdoor storage Att achment 6

Staff Report to the Planning Commission
DCA24-00003 and SPLA24-00005
June 12, 2025

(for outdoor pallet yards only). However, there are no specific regulations tailored to outdoor or indoor pallet facilities.

Similarly, the Main Street and Freeway Co rridor Specific Plan permits these uses in the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) and General Industrial (GI) zones. While they are classified as general manufacturing uses, the Specific Plan also lacks explicit regulations for pallet facilities.

Proposed Regulations: As noted, there are no specific development standards directly regulating outdoor pallet yards or indoor pallet manufacturing facilities. The proposed Development Code Amendment seeks to prohibit the establishment, expansion, and operation of these facilities in all industrial zoning designations within the City.

These uses present significant fire hazards due to the high combustibility of stacked wooden pallets. The excessive vertical stacking of pallets also creates safety risks and can hinder emergency access. In addition to fire and safety concerns, pallet facilities often generate excessive noise, attract rodents, create visual blight, and contribute to environmental issues, including improper material storage and potential stormwater runoff contamination.

Pallet facilities have a well-documented history of contributing to severe fires, many of which have resulted in extensive property damage, environmental degradation, and public safety risks.

Numerous incidents, both locally and nationally, have involved fires burning for hours or days, demonstrating how quickly stacked pallets can ignite and how intensely they burn. Their high combustibility, coupled with inadequate emergency access, often results in uncontrollable fires that threaten surrounding businesses, residential neighborhoods, and critical infrastructure.

Facilities lacking proper oversight or maintenance often contribute to urban decline by facilitating illegal dumping and exposing surrounding communities to airborne he alth hazards. These negative impacts frequently lead to increased costs for cities, which must allocate resources to code enforcement, fire response, and environmental cleanup. Additionally, pallet facilities typically provide minimal economic return, representing an inefficient use of industrial space, especially in communities focused on sustainable growth, workforce development, and long -term economic resilience.

The proposed prohibition aims to preserve the quality of life in residential, commercial, a nd industrial zones, reduce fire risk to adjacent properties, and promote more compatible and sustainable land uses.

Environmental: Approval of the Development Code Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no significant effect on the environment. The proposed Development Code Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment are also exempt under Section

16.12.415(B)(10) of the City’s CEQA Guidelines, as they do not propose to increase the density or intensity allowed by the General Plan.

Conclusion: The proposed ordinance prohibits new and expanded outdoor pallet yards and indoor pallet manufacturing facilities. This action is intended to enhance public safety and promote responsible development that balances economic activity with community well-being.

Staff Report to the Planning Commission
DCA24-00003 and SPLA24-00005
June 12, 2025

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Future Development: Facilitate balanced growth to ensure cohesive community development and pursue economic development.

FISCAL IMPACT

There are no identified fiscal impacts associated with this action.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. The Planning Commission may provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Ordinance 2024-10 (45-day Moratorium)

2. Ordinance 2024-11 (10 months & 15-day Extension to Moratorium)

3. Exhibit A – Amended language for DCA & SPLA

4. Resolution No. PC-2025-07

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 15, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Nathan R. Freeman, Director of Development Services Ryan Leonard, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: 2025 General Plan Update

RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Resolutions Nos. 2025 -28 and 2025-29 to: 1) Certify the Addendum as being complete and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2) Adopt the updated Land Use Element and Health and Safety Element.

BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted Hesperia’s last General Plan update on September 7, 2010. Since then, state legislation has evolved, requiring specific revisions to maintain legal compliance. In 2024, the City engaged PlaceWorks, Inc. (Placeworks) to update the Land Use, Circulation, and Safety Elements and prepare an Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). PlaceWorks was also contracted to draft Objective Design Standards in support of the City's recently adopted Housing Element. These standards will be advanced separately at a future date.

To prepare for the update, the City and Place works hosted several public meetings and workshops. In 2024, four public meetings and two study sessions were held with the Planning Commission (Commission) and City Council (Council). The Commission and Council reviewed and discussed critical components of each element, as well as the Objective Design Standards.

The project team also consulted stakeholder groups and distributed a public survey to gather input, particularly for the Health and Safety Element.

On June 12, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (with Commissioner Steeno absent) to forward the item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. During the hearing, one resident, Bill Jens en, provided public comment. He recommended that the City preserve commercially zoned properties along the Main Street freeway interchange and avoid converting prime commercial properties near the Main Street on and off ramps to industrial uses. However, he expressed support for changing the zoning of properties along Amargosa Road, north of the “Heilig Meyer” building, from commercial to industrial.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The General Plan is the City’s “Constitution” and guide for development, outlining the City’s vision for itself, how it will develop over time, and how it will maintain quality of life. All decisions made

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
2025 General Plan Update
July 15, 2025

by the City, from the adoption of the annual budget and implementation of capital improvements to the issuance of building permits, must be consistent with the General Plan.

Since the last General Plan update in 2010, the City’s population has increased from approximately 90,000 to over 100,000, and employment has grown from 11,000 to 17,000.

Ongoing development interest has helped sustain this economic growth, which is expect ed to continue. The updated General Plan must also respond to new laws, regulations, and conditions that have emerged since 2010. For instance, recent state legislation on climate adaptation and resiliency requires cities to take steps to better withstand extreme weather events. Additionally, new mandates have been enacted by the State Legislature to address community health, education, and economic equity.

General Plan Goals

As a focused update, the primary objective of the project team was to integrate new policies and programs that comply with State law while preserving the overall vision and direction established by the 2010 General Plan. Throughout the process, input from community members, stakeholders, and City staff consistently reaffirmed that the goals set forth in the original plan remain relevant today. The focused General Plan Update supports the following goals:

 Preserve existing neighborhoods;
 Enhance the quality of residential areas across a variety of densities, with landscap ing and architectural standards;
 Reinforce efforts to build a local job base and establish sales-tax-producing businesses along Bear Valley Road, Main Street and the Freeway Corridor;  Preserve lot sizes and prevent premature subdivision of land;  Enhance the quality of life in higher residential density developments with paseos, parks, and other amenities;
 Establish a circulation system of arterial and connector streets to carry traffic efficiently within and across the City;
 Support the urban design framework, which includes two new greenways to link the freeway corridor with the downtown area;
 Dedicate housing units for senior citizens as well as for all income levels; and  Permit mixed-use developments in the downtown area and along the freeway corridor.

General Plan Elements

The General Plan Update consists of three chapters, or elements. A summary of each element and the associated issues are as follows:

Land Use: The motivating force behind updates to the Land Use Element stems from programs contained within the City’s adopted Housing Element. Crucially, the update process focused on revising development standards for the R -3, C-2, and R -C designations that more c learly and concisely communicate the City’s intent for these areas. The changes are summarized as follows:

 R-3 Multiple Family Residence : The R-3 land use designation is amended to increase the maximum density of residential development from 15 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre and to conditionally permit group homes for seven or more persons.

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
2025 General Plan Update
July 15, 2025

 C-2 General Commercial : The C2 l and use designation is amended to allow 100 percent residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre and to permit group homes for six or fewer persons.

 R-C Regional Commercial: The RC zone (part of Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan) is amended to increase the maximum density of residential development from 25 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre. The zone is also amended to allow 100 percent residential development and to permit group homes for six or fewer persons. The development of residential uses is limited primarily to the east side of Interstate 15.

The most frequently referenced part of the General Plan is the Land Use Map. This map shows the location of residential, commercial, industrial uses, as well as sc hools and parks. The map also shows other features such as railroads, the airport, and the California Aqueduct. Residential uses are classified by density in dwelling units per acre. The proposed Land Use Map does not propose new changes beyond reflecting all General Plan Amendments processed since the 2010 General Plan was adopted.

The text of the Land Use Element includes a description of the City’s existing development pattern, infrastructure, and public services. In addition, the intent for each land use designation is described alongside general density and intensity standards. The goals intended to guide future growth and development include:

 Ensuring compatibility between adjacent uses;
 Preserving and enhancing residential areas;
 Promoting balanced, efficient commercial development to generate sales taxes;  Providing for industrial development to increase opportunities for local employment;  Investing in high-quality public facilities;
 Sustainable development measures, including water conservation , energy efficient design and Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED) building certification;  Improving the quality of life for all community members; and  Ensuring that future growth is fiscally sustainable.

Circulation: The Circulation Element was presented to the Planning Commission at its June 12, 2025 meeting. However, it will be presented to the City Council at a later date. Staff is currently analyzing potential changes to the roadway network to ensure it supports the City’s long -term growth and mobility needs.

Health and Safety: The Health and Safety Element includes both safety and environmental equity components pursuant to the California Government Code sections 65302(g) and 65302(h).

The safety components focus on natural ly occurring and human-induced hazards, as well as emergency preparedness and response to protect the community from the effects of natural disasters and environmental hazards. The healthy community components focus on strategies to improve health and environmental equity.

Safety Topics
In Hesperia, the key safety issues include seismic and geological hazards, flood risk and water inundation hazards, wildfires, hazardous waste and materials, emergency preparedness and response, and climate change resilience. The Safety Element works in tandem with the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Emergency Operations Plan to provide a coh esive safety approach for Hesperia.

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
2025 General Plan Update
July 15, 2025

Since the previous update to the Safety Element in 2010, several new laws have taken effect, requiring updates to the Safety Element:

 AB 2140 (2006): Allows for the incorporation of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in to the Safety Element;
 SB 1241 (2012): Requires the review and update of the flood and wildfire sections to minimize risk to new buildings and essential facilities and identify responsible agencies and ensure coordination among agencies;
 SB 379 (2015): Re quires the preparation of a climate change vulnerability assessment that identifies risks to hazards, and develops goals, policies, and implementation actions to build resilience in the community;
 SB 99 (2019): Requires the identification of residential ar eas in hazard zones with less than two ingress/egress routes; and
 AB 747 (2019)/1409 (2021): Requires the identification of evacuation route capacity, safety and viability, and evacuation locations under a range of hazard scenarios.

Following extensive te chnical analysis, staff updated the Safety Element hazard descriptions, goals, and policies to meet current Government Code requirements. The key changes are summarized as follows:

 Incorporate the Hesperia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by reference , as sup ported by AB 2140;
 Update hazard background information and mapping with the most current data from federal, state, and local sources;
 Update policies in the seismic and geologic hazards, flooding hazards, fire hazards, hazardous materials, and emergency preparation and response sections, based on the technical Background Report and California Government Code requirements;  Address climate change vulnerability and adaptation as directed by SB 379 through a new Climate Change Resilience section, including a goal and policies based on the findings of the Climate Vulnerability Assessment; and
 Provide a matrix of actions for implementing the goals and policies of the Safety Element.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302.5(b), the California Depa rtment of Forestry and Fire Protection reviewed the draft Safety Element and consulted with the City from December 2024 to January 2025. The State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Resource Protection Committee reviewed the Safety Element on March 4, 2025, during its regular meeting and granted approval for the City to proceed with the public hearings and adoption of the Safety Element without revisions.

Healthy Community Topics
With the passage of S B 1000, the Planning for Healthy Communities Act, a City’s general plan must incorporate goals, policies, and actions to improve health and environmental equity. In addition to SB 1000, the 2021-2029 City’s Housing Element contained commitments to address issues within the built environment as a condition for its certification by the State of California. As a result, the City’s General Plan Safety Element contains a Healthy Communities section that addresses both requirements and builds upon the City’s Resolution 2010-030, which affirms the commitment to promoting and developing a safe and healthy Hesperia for all residents.

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
2025 General Plan Update
July 15, 2025

To shape goals, policies and programs in the Health and Safety Element, a Healthy Community Technical Report was prepared, supported by information gathered from community workshops, stakeholder interviews, and a public survey. Based on the findings and as required by Section 653902(h) of the Government Code, the Element provides goals, policies, and programs that address the following topics:

 Reduction of pollution exposure;
 Improvement in air quality;
 Opportunities for physical activity;
 Access to healthy food;
 Affordable, safe, and sanitary homes;
 Access to public facilities and services; and
 Increasing opportunities for civic involvement.

Addendum to the 2010 Environmental Impact Report: PlaceWorks prepared the Addendum to the 2010 Certified Environmental Impact Report ( Certified EIR) for Hesperia’s General Plan.

The Addendum evaluates whether the General Plan Update (proposed project) would modify the existing General Plan in such a way that it would create new environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, potentially requiring further environmental review. The Addendum, in conjunction with the Certified EIR, serves as the environmental review for the proposed modifications to the existing General P lan, ensuring compliance with CEQA. The Addendum evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the existing General Plan as modified by the General Plan Update.

The proposed project will update the Land Use and Health and Safety elements, as well as the environmental equity policies to address state laws and support projected growth over the next 25 years. The proposed project is a focused update of the current General Plan to conform with new State laws related to community health, climate adaptation, resiliency, and mobility, and to bring long -term growth projections into alignment with current economic co nditions and state mandates. Differences in population, jobs, housing units, and non-residential square feet between the existing General Plan and General Plan Update at buildout are shown in the following table.

Comparison of Buildout Conditions for Existing General Plan and General Plan Update Existing General Plan1
(2050)
General Plan Update
(2050) Difference
Population 144,538 162,835 +18,297
Jobs 48,527 48,502 -25
Housing Units 54,430 61,570 +7,140
Non-Residential
Square Feet
67,613,266 66,733,917 -879,349
1 The 2010 Certified EIR did not include a planning horizon, and therefore, the buildout under the existing General Plan was adjusted to account for a 2050 horizon year. The buildout under the proposed project is within the overall buildout as envisioned in the 2010 Certified EIR.

Addendum Process: Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared under specific circumstances. The Addendum process

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
2025 General Plan Update
July 15, 2025

allows for the documentation of minor project changes or technical updates that do not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts.

The proposed project qualifies for an Addendum under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, as the proposed changes are consistent with the scope of the previously Certified EIR and do not meet any of the conditions outlined in Section 15162(a) and Section 15163(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, that would require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. The environmental impacts remain within the range analyzed in the Certified EIR, and no new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of impacts have been identified. Therefore, preparation of a full Subsequent EIR is not warranted, and the Addendum process is both appropriate and compliant with CEQA requirements.

Tribal Consultation: In compliance with Senate Bill 18 (Government Code Section 65352.3), the City of Hesperia initiated tribal consultation by contacting California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. Notification letters were sent on May 21, 2024, to the Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel. The Yuhaaviatam of the San Manuel tribe responded on May 24, 2024, and requested formal consultation with the City. The City indicated that the proposed project would not allow for any ground-disturbing activities that would preclude a project from going through the standard CEQA requirements, and the Tribe concluded consultation on October 30, 2024. In addition, since the proposed project is being evaluated through a CEQA Addendum and not a new EIR, consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (Public Resources Code Sections 21073 to 21084.3) does not apply in this instance.

Significant Impacts: CEQA requires that the EIR identify the impacts o f a project and propose mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. CEQA also requires disclosure of any impacts that cannot be mitigated to a non -significant level, even if all feasible mitigations are required. The Certified EIR determined that implemen tation of the existing General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, noise, and transportation. The Addendum determined that these impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable as part of the proposed project, as summarized:

 Air Quality

o Results in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
o Results in operational emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; and
o Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applic able federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

 Noise

o Results in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
2025 General Plan Update
July 15, 2025

 Transportation1

o Causes an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; and
o Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

No new significant environmental impacts have been identified beyond those already assessed in the Certified EIR. While the proposed project may result in physical impacts due to future improvements, the analysis and mitigation measures from the Certified EIR will still apply. While the project involves physical impacts, it does not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. The analysis and mitigation measures from the previously Certified EIR remain applicable to the proposed project.

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Future Development - Facilitate balanced growth to ensure cohesive community development and pursue economic development.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of the General Plan Update will bring the City’s primary policy document into compliance with new state laws and mandates and ensure continued compliance with CEQA . The update will also address the changes the City has experienced in the previous 15 years since the General Plan was last updated. The update will provide guidance to the City’s decision makers and staff to carry out the overall vision for the City of Hesperia. The Addendum substantiates that the proposed changes do not in troduce any new significant environmental impacts beyond those already addressed by the 2010 General Plan EIR.

ALTERNATIVE

1. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1) Resolution No. 2025-28 (Certifying the Addendum in compliance with CEQA) 2) Resolution No. 2025-29 (Adoption of the 2025 General Plan Update) 3) Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR
4) Land Use Element
5) Health and Safety Element
6) June 12, 2025, Planning Commission Packet

1 The 2010 Certified EIR found impacts to Level of Service (LOS) to be significant and unavoidable.

However, since CEQA no longer uses LOS as a threshold standard, and has replaced it with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), the LOS significance is no longer applicable to CEQA.

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-28

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE
CITY’S 2010 GENERAL PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT (EIR) PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) IN SUPPORT OF THE
2025 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.

WHEREAS, on September 7, 2010, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Resolution No. 2010-057 certifying the Final EIR for the City’s 2010 General Plan, which also remains applicable to development within the City; and

WHEREAS, 15 years have passed since the City of Hesperia adopted the 2010 General Plan and changes to t he City’s size and population, as well as new laws, regulations, and circumstances that did not exist when the original General Plan was adopted, requires an update to the General Plan described herein (hereinafter referred to as "2025 General Plan Update" or “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the 2025 General Plan Update is a focused update to the two mandatory elements required by the State of California, including the Land Use and Health and Safety Elements; and

WHEREAS, the Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 to evaluate whether the proposed 2025 General Plan Update would result in any new significant impacts, substantially more severe impacts, or trigger the need for a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Sections 15162 or 15163; and

WHEREAS, the 2010 Genera l Plan EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic , the significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to traffic would no longer apply as Level of Service (LOS) was replaced with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, and VMT has been determined to be the applicable metric for analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA, thereby rendering LOS-based impacts no longer applicable; and

WHEREAS, the Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR reflects this change in CEQA law and confirms that this transition from LOS to VMT does not result in new or more severe environmental effects; and

WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that all impacts remain within t he scope of analysis in the certified 2010 General Plan EIR, and that none of the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or Section 15163 are met; and

WHEREAS, on June 12, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Hesperia conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR in connection with the 2025 General Plan Update and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, on July 15, 2025, the City Council of the City of Hesperia conducted a public hearing pertaining to the 2025 General Plan Update, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Resolution No. 2025-28

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

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

Section 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this City Council during the above referenced July 15, 2025, hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, this City Council specifically finds as follows:

(a) An Addendum to the 2010 Gene ral Plan EIR has been prepared for the 2025 General Plan Update. The 2025 General Plan Update qualifies for an Addendum under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, as the proposed project is consistent with the scope of the 2010 General Plan EIR and does not meet any of the conditions outlined in Section 15162(a) and Section 15163(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, that would require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. The environmental impacts remain within the range analyzed in the 2010 General Plan EIR, an d no new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of impacts have been identified. Therefore, preparation of a full Subsequent EIR is not warranted, and the Addendum process is both appropriate and compliant with CEQA requirements.

(b) The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Addendum and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the City Council, and that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may result in new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of impacts that were previously identified.

Section 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby certifies the Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR as being complete pursuant to Resolution No. 2025-28.

Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

Resolution No. 2025-28

ADOPTED AND APPROVED on this 15th day of July 2025

___________________________________
Allison Lee, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-29

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 2025 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.

WHEREAS, on September 7, 2010, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted the City’s General Plan, currently applicable with regard to development within the City; and

WHEREAS, On September 2, 2008, the City Council of the City of Hesperia adopted Resolution No. 2008-12, thereby adopting the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, almost 15 years have passed since the City of Hesperia adopted its 2010 General Plan and changes to the City’s size and population as well as new laws, regulations, and circumstances that did not exist when the original plan was adopted, requires an update to the General Plan described herein (hereinafter referred to as "General Plan Update" or “Project”); and

WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023 the City Council adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element (6th Cycle Housing Element Update) which includes several program actions that require the City to amend the Development Code and update the General Plan to allow for up to 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) in the Multi-Family (R3) zone ; to allow for 100 percent residential development ranging from 20 to 30 du/ac in the General Commercial (C -2) zone; and to allow for up to 30 du/ac in the Regional Commercial (RC) zone within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan.

WHEREAS, the General Plan Update establishes the City’s overall policy to guide development framework for the City to help realize the community’s vision t o the year 2050 planning horizon; and

WHEREAS, the General Plan Update is a focused update to the Land Use and Health and Safety Elements of the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the City of Hesperia, as the lead agency, prepared an Addendum to the 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Qual ity Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and determined that no new significant environmental impacts would occur beyond those previously analyzed in the 2010 General Plan EIR, and that the existing analysis and mitigation measures remain applicable to the proposed project; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held five workshops on April 11, 2024, May 23, 2024, July 11, 2024, August 8, 2024, and September 26, 2024 to review and discuss critical components of each element; and

WHEREAS, on November 18, 2024, the City Council held a workshop to review and discuss the 2025 General Plan Update; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302.5(b), the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection reviewed the draft Safety Element and consulted with the City from December 2024 to January 2025. The State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Resource Protection Committee reviewed the Safety Element on March 4, 2025, during its regular meeting and approved the City to move forward with the public hearings and adoption of the Safety Element without revisions; and

Resolution No. 2025-29

WHEREAS, the City of Hesperia Health and Safety Element of the General Plan integrates and incorporates by reference the current Hesperia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, approved b y the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in accordance with California Government Code Sections 8685.9, 65302, and 65302.6; and

WHEREAS, on June 12, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Hesperia conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the proposed 2025 General Plan Update and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, on July 15, 2025, the City Council of the City of Hesperia conducted a public hearing pertaining to the 2025 General Plan Update, and concluded said hearing on that date; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

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

Section 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this City Council during the above-referenced July 15, 2025, hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, this City Council specifically finds as follows:

(a) An Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR has been prepared for the 2025 General Plan Update . The 2025 General Plan Update qualifies for an Addendum under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, as the proposed project is consistent with the scope of the 2010 General Plan EIR and does not meet any of the conditions outlined in Section 15162(a) and Section 15163(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, that would require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. The environmental impacts remain within the range analyzed in the 2010 General Plan EIR, and no new significant impacts or substantial increases in the se verity of impacts have been identified. Therefore, preparation of a full Subsequent EIR is not warranted, and the Addendum process is both appropriate and compliant with CEQA requirements.

(b) The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Addendum and finds that it reflects the independent judgment of the City Council, and that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may result in new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of impacts that were previously identified.

(c) Adoption of the 2025 General Plan Update will achieve the following goals:

 Ensuring compatibility between adjacent uses;
 Preserving and enhancing residential areas;

Resolution No. 2025-29

 Promoting balanced, efficient commercial development to generate sales taxes;
 Providing for industrial development to increase opportunities for local employment;
 Investing in high-quality public facilities;
 Sustainable development measures, including water conservation, energy efficient design and Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED) building certification;
 Improving the quality of life for all community members;  Ensuring that future growth is fiscally sustainable;
 Ensuring a safe and efficient roadway network;
 Facilitating goods movement without negatively impacting sensitive areas;  Providing opportunities for non-motorized alternatives to vehicular travel;  Supporting safe and convenient regional transit;
 Reducing pollution exposure;
 Improving air quality;
 Opportunities for physical activity;
 Access to healthy food;
 Affordable, safe, and sanitary homes;
 Access to public facilities and services; and
 Increasing opportunities for civic involvement

Section 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in this Resolution, this City Council hereby adopts the 2025 General Plan Update and certifies the Addendum to the 2010 General Plan EIR.

Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED on this 15th day of July 2025.

_______________________________
Allison Lee, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk

July 2025 | Focused General Plan Update Addendum
State Clearinghouse No. 2010011011
City of Hesperia Focused General Plan
Update Addendum
City of Hesperia
Prepared for:

City of Hesperia
Contact: Ryan Leonard, Principal Planner
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, California 92345
760.947.1224
Prep
ared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Mark Teague, AICP, Managing Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
Attachment 3

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA
Table of Contents
July 2025 Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF AN ADDENDUM ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................ 4

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................................................... 5

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 12

3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................................................. 12

3.2 MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2010 CERTIFIED EIR .............................................................................. 14

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 15

4.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 15

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 19

5.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................................... 20

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................................................. 23

5.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................................. 25

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................ 36

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 41

5.6 ENERGY ........................................................................................................................................................... 45

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................... 51

5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................ 58

5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................................... 65

5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................ . 71

5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................................... 77

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 79

5.13 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................................ 81

5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................ 86

5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 88

5.16 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................................. 91

5.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................. 94

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 100

5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 103

5.20 WILDFIRE ..................................................................................................................................................... 110

5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................ 114

6. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 117

6.1 PLACEWORKS ............................................................................................................................................. 117

6.2 CITY OF HESPERIA ................................................................................................................................... 117

7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 118

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks

APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Appendix B Noise Modeling
Appendix C Traffic Impact Assessment
Appendix D Water Supply Evaluation

List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2 Planning Area ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3 Aerial Map ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 4 Proposed General Plan Land Use/Zoning Designations ............................................................ 13

List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Focused General Plan Buildout ........................................................................................................ 12 Table 2 Net Change in Maximum Regional Operation Emissions ........................................................... 30 Table 3 Net Change in Energy Consumption .............................................................................................. 49 Table 4 Net Change in Annual GHG Emissions ........................................................................................ 60 Table 5 Consistency Analysis with the Hesperia Climate Action Plan ..................................................... 62 Table 6 Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise, dBA CNEL at 50 Feet ........................................... 83 Table 7 Project-Level VMT Assessment ....................................................................................................... 97 Table 8 Cumulative-Level VMT Assessment ............................................................................................... 97 Table 9 2020 UWMP Current and Projected Water Demands for the City of Hesperia .................... 105 Table 10 Water Demand – Proposed Project ............................................................................................... 105 Table 11 2020 UWMP – Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand ............... 107

July 2025 Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 PURPOSE OF AN ADDENDUM
This document is an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2010011011) for the Hesperia General Plan, which was certified on September 8, 2010 (referred to as the “existing General Plan”). The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the proposed update to the General Plan (“General Plan Update” or “Proposed Project”) would modify the existing General Plan in such a way as to result in new environmental impacts or a substantial increase i n the severity of previously identified significant effects or would otherwise trigger a need for subsequent environmental review.

The primary purpose of a general plan is to integrate components of city governance documents into a single guidance system that shapes the community 20 years or more into the future. All future development and redevelopment in a city must be consistent with the general plan.

The City of Hesperia released a Draft EIR in May 2010 for the General Plan. The 2010 Certified EIR and the 2010 Final EIR are collectively referred to as the 2010 Certified EIR.

The 2010 Certified EIR, in conjunction with this Addendum, serve as the environmental review for the proposed modifications to the existing General Plan, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000–15387). This Addendum evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the existing General Plan as modified by the General Plan Update.

1.1.1 Environmental Procedures
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum focuses on whether implementation of the Proposed Project would require major revisions to the 2010 Certified EIR due to the potential for new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identifie d significant effects;

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

1. Introduction

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a]) A supplement to an EIR (supplemental EIR), which is narrower in scope than a subsequent EIR, may be prepared if any of the above criteria apply, but “[o]nly minor changes or additions would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(a)). In the absence of the need to prepare either a subsequent or supplemental EIR, an addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared. Section 15164 states:
(a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

1. Introduction
July 2025 Page 3
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164)
This Addendum to the 201 0 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan has been prepared because the evaluation of the General Plan Update, also known as the Proposed Project, has not indicated any of the circumstances requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR. As demonstrated in Section 5 , Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts that would substantially differ from the existing General Plan , and it would not trigger the need for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under the criteria in Sections 15162(a) and 15163(a). This Addendum demonstrates that no substantial changes are proposed to the existing General Plan or have occurred in the City that would require major revisions to the 2010 Certified EIR or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects. Therefore, the impacts of the Proposed Project are within the levels and types of environmental impacts disclosed in the 2010 Certified EIR.

1.1.2 Scope and Analysis for this Addendum
This Addendum analyzes the changes and potential impacts of the Proposed Project and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the City certified the EIR in 2010 . It also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the City approved the 2010 Certified EIR. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent or supplemental EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the Proposed Project. This Addendum relies on the environmental analysis (see Section 5, Environmental Analysis), which addresses environmental checklist issues section by section.

As the Proposed Project is a focused update to the existing General Plan, the Proposed Project would propose changes to growth compared to the buildout evaluated as part of the 2010 Certified EIR. However, as demonstrated in Section 5, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, these buildout differences would not result in substantial changes in circumstances under Section 15162(a)(2) in comparison to the 2010 Certified EIR that would indicate new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant impacts previously identified. The background environmental conditions have not significantly changed since the certification of the 2010 EIR. The City of Hesperia has received no information indicating a substantial change in any circumstances that would result in a new or substantially greater significant impact.

Given the nature of the Proposed Project (i.e., an update to the 2010 General Plan), no information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the 2010 Certified EIR preparation has been revealed that shows new or substantially greater significant impacts would result (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]). There are no new or different mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of the existing General Plan but that are not adopted. The Proposed Project does not identify or require the adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those provided in the 2010 Certified EIR.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

1. Introduction

Since this Addendum does not identify new or substantially greater significant impacts, circulation for public review and comment is not necessary (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[c]). However, the Hesperia City Council will consider this Addendum at a public meeting prior to the adoption of the Proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[d]). If the Hesperia City Council approves this Addendum, it shall be required to make findings by way of a resolution, including a finding that this Addendum provides the basis and substantial evidence for the decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[e]).

1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
This Addendum relies on environmental analysis in the 2010 Certified EIR and 2010 Final EIR, collectively referred to in this Addendum as the 2010 Certified EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this Addendum incorporates the 2010 Certified EIR (and its constituent parts) by reference. A summary of the 2010 Certified EIR and how it relates to this Addendum is provided below. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at the City of Hesperia Planning Department at 9700 Seventh Ave, Hesperia, CA 92345.

1.2.1 2010 Certified EIR for Hesperia General Plan Update The City of Hesperia circulated the 2010 Certified EIR for public review on May 26, 2010, and 17 topics were evaluated in detail.

The following 12 environmental topical areas were considered less than significant without incorporating mitigation in the 2010 Certified EIR:
 Aesthetics
 Agriculture
 Geology and Soils
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Mineral Resources
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Utilities
 Climate Change

Two environmental categories were identified as having potentially significant impacts that could be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened.
 Cultural Resources
 Biological Resources
Three environmental categories were considered to have significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be alleviated by incorporating mitigation.
 Air Quality
 Noise
 Transportation

July 2025 Page 5

2. Environmental Setting

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Hesperia (City) is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, situated northeast of the Cajon Pass, and transected by the Interstate 15 (I-15) Freeway in the western portion of the City. The City and its unincorporated Sphere of Influence (SOI) is surrounded by the Cities of Adelanto and Victorville to the north, the City of Apple Valley and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east, unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west, and the San Bernardino National Forest to the south. The City and SOI (Planning Area) are approximately 118 square miles in size. Regional access to the Planning Area is provided by I-15 and U.S. Highway 395. Access from the south through the San Bernardino Mountains is provided by State Route (SR) 138. The Mojave River traverses the southeastern portion of the Planning Area. Figure 1, Regional Location, shows the Planning Area’s location within the region.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.2.1 Existing Land Use
The City of Hesperia encompasses approximately 46,498 acres, and its SOI consists of an additional 28,806 acres, for a total of 75, 304 acres across the entire Planning Area. The primary housing type in the City is detached housing on lots of one-half acre or larger. Commercial, industrial, and office uses primarily exist along Main Street, I-15, Bear Valley Road, and Santa Fe Avenue. Figure 2, Planning Area, shows the City of Hesperia and SOI (Planning Area) boundaries.

2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use
As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Map, Hesperia is surrounded by the Cities of Adelanto, Victorville, Apple Valley, unincorporated San Bernardino County, and San Bernardino National Forest.

Hesperia
Victorville
Riverside
Ontario
Apple Valley
AdelantoPalmdale
Fontana
Chino
Yucaipa
Jurupa Valley
Moreno Valley
Norco
San Bernardino
Redlands
Rialto
Chino Hills
Pomona
Banning
Colton
Brea
Upland
Glendora
HighlandRancho Cucamonga
Lancaster
Whittier
Calimesa
Barstow
Azusa
Beaumont
Eastvale
San Dimas
Monrovia
Industry
Arcadia Claremont
West Covina
Walnut
Diamond Bar
El Monte
Covina
Irwindale
Duarte
La Verne
La Habra
Loma Linda
Montclair
Pico Rivera
Baldwin Park
Big Bear Lake
Norwalk
La Habra Heights
La Puente
Desert Hot Springs
Grand Terrace
Palm SpringsYorba Linda
Source: Generated using ArcMap 2024.

PlaceWorks

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA
Figure 1 - Regional Location
0 Scale (Miles)
8 County of Los Angeles
County of Orange
County of San Bernardino
County of Riverside
County of Kern
Sphere of In/f_luence
City Boundary
15 395
138

CALIFORNIA
173

CALIFORNIA
138

CALIFORNIA
15 15
County Boundary
247

CALIFORNIA
40 138

CALIFORNIA
18 CALIFORNIA
39 CALIFORNIA
2 CALIFORNIA
2 CALIFORNIA
215
215
91 CALIFORNIA
38 CALIFORNIA
18 CALIFORNIA
18 CALIFORNIA
18 CALIFORNIA173

CALIFORNIA
60 CALIFORNIA
60 CALIFORNIA
10 10
60 CALIFORNIA
57 CALIFORNIA
605
215
210

PROJECT NAME HERE

CITY OF PROJECT HERE
Figure XX - Figure Title Here

1. Introduction
PlaceWorks
Source: ESRI, 2022
0 8
Scale (Miles)

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

2. Environmental Setting
July 2025 Page 7
This page intentionally left blank.

Figure Title
Source: The City of Hesperia

CITY OF

VICTORVILLE TOWN OF

APPLE VALLEY
Source: Generated using ArcMap 2024.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA
Figure 2 - Planning Area
Rail Network
Sphere of In/f_luence
City Boundary
395
15 15
138

CALIFORNIA
Hesperia
Apple ValleyVictorville
0 Scale (Miles)
1 Figure X-X

LA ND US E
0 5,000 10,0002,500
FT
City_Boundary
Sphere
Rail Network
Date: 6/20/2024
The City of Hesperia
General Plan Update
PlaceWorks
Figure Title
Source: The City of Hesperia

CITY OF

VICTORVILLE TOWN OF

APPLE VALLEY
Figure X-X

LA ND US E
0 5,000 10,0002,500
FT
City_Boundary
Sphere
Rail Network
Date: 6/20/2024
The City of Hesperia
General Plan Update

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

2. Environmental Setting
July 2025 Page 9
This page intentionally left blank.

Hesperia
Victorville
Apple Valley
I Ave
7th Ave
C Ave
Phelan Rd
Main St
Maple Ave
Kiowa Rd
Mariposa Rd
Ranchero Rd
Cottonwood Ave
Summit Valley Rd
Peach Ave
Hesperia Rd
Bear Valley Rd
Arrowhead Lake Rd
Baldy Mesa Rd
Balsam Ave
Lime St
Lemon St
Danbury Ave
Eucalyptus St
Mauna Loa St
Deep Creek Rd
Choiceana Ave
Tussing Ranch Rd
Rock Springs Rd
Balsam Rd
Rocksprings Rd
Ridgecrest Rd Apple Valley Rd
Ranchero St
Service Rd
Main St
Hesperia Rd
Ranchero Rd
Bear Valley Rd
Main St
MariposaRd
Source: Generated using ArcMap 2024.

PlaceWorks

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA
Figure 3 - Aerial Map
0 Scale (Miles)
1 15
15 15
15 395
395
138

CALIFORNIA
138

CALIFORNIA
173

CALIFORNIA
138

CALIFORNIA
Sphere of In/f_luence
City Boundary

PROJECT NAME HERE

CITY OF PROJECT HERE
Figure XX - Figure Title Here

1. Introduction
PlaceWorks
Source: ESRI, 2022
0 1
Scale (Miles)

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

2. Environmental Setting
July 2025 Page 11
This page intentionally left blank.

July 2025 Page 12

3. Project Description

3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of Hesperia has initiated the process to update the Land Use and Health and Safety Elements, as well as the Environmental Justice policies of its General Plan. The Focused General Plan Update (Proposed Project) will provide the long-term planning framework needed to accommodate the City’s growing population over the 25-year planning horizon. The Proposed Project is a focused update of the current General Plan to conform with new State laws related to community health, environmental justice, climate adaptation, and resiliency, and to bring long-term growth projections into alignment with current economic conditions and state mandates.

3.1.1 Planning Area Buildout
During the 25-year planning horizon (referred to as “buildout” throughout this addendum) of the Proposed Project, the City could potentially grow by 7,140 housing units and 18,297 residents, and could result in a decrease of 25 jobs and 879,349 square feet of non-residential uses, compared to the existing General Plan, as shown in Table 1, Focused General Plan Buildout.

Table 1 Focused General Plan Buildout
Population Housing Units Jobs Non-Residential Square Feet existing General
Plan (2050)1 144,538 54,430 48,527 67,613,266
Proposed Project
(2050) 162,835 61,570 48,502 66,733,917
Net Change 18,297 7,140 -25 -879,349
1 The 2010 Certified EIR did not include a planning horizon, and therefore, the buildout under the existing General Plan was adjusted to account for a 2050 horizon year.

The buildout under the Proposed Project is within the overall buildout as envisioned in the 2010 Certified EIR.

Given that the 2010 Certified EIR’s analysis did not provide a planning horizon year, the Proposed Project’s horizon year of 2050 represents a point-in-time on the City’s longer-term growth trajectory (as analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR). As such, Table 1 shows that the Proposed Project is generally consistent with the analysis in the 2010 Certified EIR.

3.1.2 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Changes The following provides a summary of the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning changes proposed as part of the Proposed Project. Figure 4, Proposed General Plan Land Use/Zoning Designations, shows the proposed land use/zoning designations.

Source: City of Hesperia 2024.

PlaceWorks

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA
Figure 4 - Proposed General Plan Land Use/Zoning Designations City Boundary
City SOI
General Plan / Zoning
A2 0.0 - 0.2 du/ac)
A1-2 1/2 (0.21 - 0.4 du/ac)
A1 (0.41 - 1.0 du/ac)
RR-2 1/2 (0.0 - 0.4 du/ac)
RR (SD) (0.0 - 0.4 du/ac)
RR-1 (0.41 - 1.0 du/ac)
RR-20000 (1.1 - 2.0 du/ac)
R1-18000 (2.1 - 2.4 du/ac)
R1 (2.5 - 4.5 du/ac)
R1-4500 (4.6 - 8.0 du/ac)
R3 (8.1 - 15.0 du/ac)
C1 - Convenience Commercial (0.0 - 0.5 FAR)
C2 - General Commercial (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
C3 - Service Commercial (0.0 - 0.5 FAR)
I1 - Limited Manufacturing (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
I2 - General Manufacturing (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
P-SCHOOL - Public School (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
P-GOVT - Government Facility (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
P-PARK/REC - Park & Recreation (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
AU - Airport Use
Rec-Com - Recreational Commercial
RC - Resource Conservation/Oak Hills Community Plan
RRC Railroad Corridor
AQ Aqueduct
UC - Utility Corridor
SP-2013-01 - Silverwood Specific Plan
SP-91-003 - Summit Valley Ranch Specific Plan
SP-89-01 - Rancho Las Flores Specific Plan
MSFC-SP - Main Street/Freewy Corridor Specific Plan
Sphere of In/f_l uence
395
15 15
138

CALIFORNIA
0 Scale (Miles)
1 Hesperia
Apple Valley
Victorville
Date: 9/16/2024Source: The City of Hesperia
General Plan Update
The City of Hesperia
Proposed General Plan/Zoning

LAND USE
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
FT
City Boundary
City SOI
General Plan / Zoning
A2 0.0 - 0.2 du/ac)
A1-2 1/2 (0.21 - 0.4 du/ac)
A1 (0.41 - 1.0 du/ac)
RR-2 1/2 (0.0 - 0.4 du/ac)
RR (SD) (0.0 - 0.4 du/ac)
RR-1 (0.41 - 1.0 du/ac)
RR-20000 (1.1 - 2.0 du/ac)
R1-18000 (2.1 - 2.4 du/ac)
R1 (2.5 - 4.5 du/ac)
R1-4500 (4.6 - 8.0 du/ac)
R3 (8.1 - 15.0 du/ac)
C1 - Convenience Commercial (0.0 - 0.5 FAR)
C2 - General Commercial (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
C3 - Service Commercial (0.0 - 0.5 FAR)
I1 - Limited Manufacturing (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
I2 - General Manufacturing (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
P-SCHOOL - Public School (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
P-GOVT - Government Facility (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
P-PARK/REC - Park & Recreation (0.0 - 1.0 FAR)
AU - Airport Use
Rec-Com - Recreational Commercial
RC - Resource Conservation/Oak Hills Community Plan
RRC Railroad Corridor
AQ Aqueduct
UC - Utility Corridor
SP-2013-01 - Silverwood Specific Plan
SP-91-003 - Summit Valley Ranch Specific Plan
SP-89-01 - Rancho Las Flores Specific Plan
MSFC-SP - Main Street/Freewy Corridor Specific Plan
Date: 9/16/2024Source: The City of Hesperia
General Plan Update
The City of Hesperia
Proposed General Plan/Zoning

LAND USE
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
FT

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

3. Project Description

 R3 Multiple Family Residence. The R3 land use designation and zone would be amended to increase the maximum density of residential development from 15 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre and to conditionally permit group homes for seven or more persons.  C2 General Commercial. The C2 land use designation and zone would be amended to allow 100- percent residential development ranging from 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre and to permit group homes for six or fewer persons.
 RC Regional Commercial. The RC zone (part of Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan) would be amended to increase the maximum density of residential development from 25 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre. The zone would also be amended to allow 100-percent residential development and to permit group homes for six or fewer persons. The development of residential uses would be limited to the east side of Interstate 15 and north of El Centro Street.

3.2 MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2010 CERTIFIED EIR
The following text is modified to indicate changes to the 2010 Certified EIR using underline for revised or new language or strikeout for deletions.
 Global edits throughout 2010 Certified EIR – the buildout in the 2010 Certified EIR does not include a planning horizon. In order to compare the existing General Plan and Proposed Project, the buildout from the 2010 Certified EIR was adjusted to reflect a 2050 planning horizon. o Population: 243,465 144,538
o Employment: 76,149 48,527
o Dwelling Units: 79,855 54,430
o Industrial/Office: 2,702 acres
o Commercial: 3,762 acres
o Non-residential square footage: 67,613,266

July 2025 Page 15

4. Environmental Checklist

4.1 BACKGROUND

1. Project Title:

City of Hesperia Focused General Plan Update Addendum

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, California 92345

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Contact: Ryan Leonard, Principal Planner
Tel: 760.947.1224

4. Project Location:

The City of Hesperia is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, situated northeast of the Cajon Pass, and transected by the Interstate 15 (I-15) Freeway in the western portion of the City. The City and its unincorporated Sphere of Influence (SOI) is surrounded by the Cities of Adelanto and Victorville to the north, the City of Apple Valley and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east, unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west, and the San Bernardino National Forest to the south.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345

6. General Plan Designation: Not Applicable, project applies citywide.

7. Zoning: Not Applicable, project applies citywide.

8. Description of Project:

The Proposed Project is a focused update to the City’s General Plan. The Proposed Project would provide the long-term planning framework for the improvements needed to accommodate the City’s growing population over the 25-year planning horizon, and would conform with new state laws. The Proposed Project would result in an increase in 18,297 residents and 7,140 housing units, and a decrease in 25 jobs and 879,349 square feet of non-residential uses.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Hesperia is surrounded by the Cities of Adelanto, Victorville, Apple Valley, unincorporated San Bernardino County, and San Bernardino National Forest.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

4. Environmental Checklist

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

N/A

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?:

NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Pursuant to Senate Bill 18, the City of Hesperia contacted the California Native American tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission on May 21, 2024. The City sent notification letters to the Desert Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel tribe responded on May 24, 2024, and requested consultation.

Since an addendum is being prepared for the Proposed Project, tribal consultation under Assembly Bill 52 is not required.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

4. Environmental Checklist
July 2025 Page 17

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

4. Environmental Checklist

This page intentionally left blank.

July 2025 Page 19

5. Environmental Analysis
This Section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. Each section briefly summarizes the conclusions of the Certified EIR and discusses the following three conditions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:

Condition 1. Whether or not the Proposed Project represents a substantial change that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Condition 2. Whether or not substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Proposed Project is being undertaken will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
Condition 3. If new information shows that the Proposed Project would have one or more new significant effects; that significant effects would be substantially more severe than previously described; that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would be feasible and substantially reduce impacts, but project proponents decline to adopt them; or that new or previously rejected mitigation measures or alternatives would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more project impacts, but project proponents decline to adopt them.

Condition 4: If changes to a project or new information arise after the adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency must prepare a subsequent EIR if required by specific conditions.

Otherwise, the lead agency will determine whether a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation is necessary. Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is complete unless further discretionary approvals are needed. If new conditions occur after the approval, only the agency granting the next discretionary approval is responsible for preparing a subsequent EIR or negative declaration. In this case, no other agency can approve the project until the subsequent EIR is certified or a subsequent negative declaration is adopted. Additionally, any subsequent EIR or negative declaration must go through the same public notice and review process required for the original document, and it must specify where the previous document is available for review.

Whether the Proposed Project results in a No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, meaning that there are no significant environmental effects or the effects do not warrant the preparation of an EIR or MND. In this case, there are no new circumstances or information that would trigger the need for a major revision of the Certified EIR or MND. Therefore, if none of the above conditions is met, the analysis identifies where impacts of the Proposed Project would result in a Less Than Significant or No Impact, confirming that the project does not create new significant effects or require major revisions to the Certified EIR or MND.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

5.1 AESTHETICS

5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that compliance with the General Plan policies and City’s Municipal Code would reduce impacts to trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings, and state scenic highways to less than significant. Nothing contained in the proposed project changes the location of the development evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, or change the policies and development standards associated with future development.

5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
X
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that development in accordance with the existing General Plan would not substantially alter nor damage scenic vistas and a less than significant impact would occur.

Although changes to the land use densities as described in the project description, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in 7,140 housing units and a decrease in 879,349 square feet of non-residential square uses compared to the existing General Plan which would change the development of the Planning Area . The

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 21
proposed project does not change the location of land uses from those evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The proposed project also does not alter any policy or ordinance that addresses aesthetic impacts.

As with the existing General Plan, future development under the Proposed Project would not substantially alter scenic vistas in the Planning Area because future development would be required to show consistency with applicable policies related to the preservation of scenic vistas and resources such as existing General Plan Policy OS-2.3 which calls for utilizing natural open space to preserve natural resources such as historical, biological and scenic resources. Furthermore, the City of Hesperia’s Municipal Code Chapter 16.20, General Regulations, provides regulations that guide development, such as height and placement of buildings and structures, setback requirements, and landscaping. By enforcing these standards, the City ensures that the Proposed Project would maintain the visual character and scenic quality of the Planning Area, preserving its scenic vistas despite the increased housing and reduced non-residential space. Therefore, with adherence to the City of Hesperia Municipal Code and implementation of the existing General Plan policies. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on scenic vistas.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . No changes proposed by the Proposed Project compared to the existing General Plan analyzed in the 201 0 Certified EIR would result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts concerning adverse effects on scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR stated there are no scenic highways in the Planning Area and the nearest eligible scenic highways are State Route 173 (SR-173) and SR-138 within the southern portion of the City. The 2010 Certified EIR stated that impacts would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project would include development that would occur within proximity to SR-173 and SR -138 which are both designated as eligible scenic highways. The areas proximate to SR -173 and SR-138 are zoned the Tapestry Specific Plan, Rural Residential, and Agricultural. Because no changes to these zones are being proposed as part of the Proposed Project, impacts of the Proposed Project would be like the existing General Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusi ons substantially damaging scenic resources near a state scenic highway.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . No changes proposed by the Proposed Project compared to the existing General Plan analyzed in the 201 0 Certified EIR would result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts concerning adverse effects on scenic resources within a scenic highway. Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that a lthough new development would alter the visual appearance of the City , it would not degrade Hesperia’s visual character or quality given the incremental increases in buildout.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

Future development under the Proposed Project could be visible from public rights- of-way, but all new development would require a permit from the City and undergo further design review, if applicable, on a project-by-project basis to ensure the visual quality of the surrounding environment is not compromised.

Specifically, Chapter 16.20, General Regulations, of the City’s Municipal Code includes general development standards that help regulate development in the City, such as maximum height limits, density limits, lot and yard setbacks, and several performance standards related to reducing environmental impacts, including but not limited to light and glare. In addition, Chapter 16.40, Hillside Development Regulations, of the City’s Municipal Code establishes standards and guidelines for reviewing and approving development on hillsides and other slopes to ensure they are developed in a way that maintains their natural charter and aesthetic values. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on scenic quality. The Proposed Project would not change the conclusions of the 2010 Certified EIR c) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the buildout of the existing General Plan would generate new sources of light and glare that could potentially degrade and diminish daytime and nighttime views of visual resources such as ridgelines, vegetation, watercourses, and coastlines. However, the 2010 Certified EIR determined that adherence to the General Plan policies would reduce new light and glare to less than significant.

Future development under the Proposed Project would need to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code Section

16.20.135, Glare, which requires that light and glare from industrial districts do not exceed 0.5 -foot candles when measured in residential districts/lots. Section 16.36.050, Prohibited Signs, of the City of Hesperia Municipal Code, states that signs shall be designed to avoid undue glare or reflection of light. Additionally, City of Hesperia Municipal Code Section 16.16.405, Site D esign Standards and G uidelines, states that residential uses should be buffered from incompatible commercial development to reduce impacts related to light, glare, and aesthetics. Adherence to the development standards of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure light and glare impacts are minimized. Therefore, the proposed project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on light and glare from new development.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . No changes proposed by the Proposed Project compared to the existing General Plan would result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to adverse effects on light and glare..

5.1.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant aesthetic impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 23

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the existing General Plan resulted in land use changes to Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to correspond to the existing zoning (Rural Residential, General Agricultural, and Flood Way), which are appropriately zoned to protect agricultural uses. Therefore, the existing General Plan was not considered to contribute to the loss of farmlands and the General Plan policies would further reduce impacts as a result of the conversion of farmland to non-farmla nd. The 2010 Certified EIR stated that the Williamson Act Contract lands in the SOI were designated Rural Residential Special District which is consistent with the zoning of the City. Therefore, the existing General Plan did not change the zoning of areas under a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the existing General Plan did not reduce the total designated agricultural land uses, according to the 2010 Certified EIR. The 2010 Certified EIR indicates that although a decline in agricultural practices in the City is anticipated, the existing General Plan designated 7,094 acres for agricultural uses, and that the General Plan policies would preserve farmland.

5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the Proposed Project:

Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the existing General Plan would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural land upon buildout. However, the 2010 Certified EIR determined that the designated zoning within these agricultural lands was appropriately zoned to protect agricultural uses.

There are lands designated Prime Farmland in Hesperia, within the eastern portion of the City limits, as well as in the southern portion in the SOI (DOC 2024). These lands are designated Floodplain and Agriculture (A2).

The Proposed Project does not include land use designation or zoning changes that could affect these properties, and any new potential development because the Proposed Project would not convert any new agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on farmland.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Proposed Project does not change the land use designation or zoning beyond what was evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR. Therefore the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. Because there is no timberland or forestland in the Planning Area, the 2010 Certified EIR did not analyze impacts to forestland or timberland. The proposed project would not expand the land use pattern to include any timber or forestland. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on forestland.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 25
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR did not analyze the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non- forest use. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on the loss of forestland.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As noted in Impact 5.2.2 a) and Impact 5.2.2 d) of the 2010 Certified EIR, there is limited agricultural land and no forestland in the Planning Area. In addition, the Proposed Project would not result in land use changes that would convert farmland. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on Farmland conversions.

5.2.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant agricultural resources impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified.

5.3 AIR QUALITY

5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The following provides a summary of the air quality impacts identified in the 2010 Certified EIR:
 Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan. The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the existing General Plan would not conflict with the 2004 Ozone Attainment Plan (OAP), because the 2010 update included minor incremental increase in population and employment growth compared to the previous general plan, and implementation of the goals and policies established within the existing General Plan would ensure that impacts generated by substantial population growth would be avoided or minimized.
 Regional Air Quality Emissions. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that construction and operation of individual projects under the existing General Plan may exceed the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) thresholds and would cumulatively contribute to the Mojave Desert Air Basin’s (MDAB) nonattainment designations, including ozone (O3). Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 and the general plan policies would reduce impacts; however, impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable.
 Localized Air Quality Emissions. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that buildout of the existing General Plan did not produce the volume of traffic required to generate carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots, even at the most congested and highest volume traffic intersections. However, toxic air

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

contaminants (TACs) were identified as a potential significant impact in the 2010 Certified EIR.

Impacts were reduced to less than significant levels with Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ- 4 and AQ-5.1
 Odors. The 2010 Certified EIR found that the development under the existing General Plan could generate odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles, application of architectural coatings, cooking from restaurant uses, and trash receptacles from residences, in addition to other typical odor-generating land uses. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-6.

5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
Impacts of the Environmental on a Project
In 2016, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000), Planning for Healthy Communities Act, to incorporate Environmental Justice into the local land use planning process. SB 1000 requires local governments to address pollution and other hazards that disproportionately impact low -income communities and communities of color in their jurisdictions. SB 1000 mandates that general plans address environmental

1 The 2010 Certified EIR also identified air quality impacts from siting sensitive uses proximate to major sources of air pollution that generate toxic air contaminants (TACs) and indoor air pollution. However, CEQA does not require analysis this type of analysis (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478)).

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 27
justice but does not require CEQA analyses to address E nvironmental Justice issues. The Proposed Project addresses air quality and health risk impacts of implementing general plan to sensitive land uses.

Buildout of the proposed land use plan under the Proposed Project could result in siting sensitive uses (e.g., residential) near sources of emissions (e.g., freeways, industrial uses, etc.). Developing new sensitive land uses near sources of emissions could expose persons that inhabit these sensitive land uses to potential air quality- related impacts. However, the purpose of this environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the proposed project. California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478). Thus, CEQA does not require analysis of the potential environmental effects from siting sensitive receptors near existing sources, and this type of analysis is not provided in this Section.

However, the Proposed Project includes policies that would minimize expose of sensitive receptors to air quality impacts as well as reduce potential long-term air quality emissions impacts:

Health and Safety Element
 Policy HC-1.1: Create and maintain land use patterns that protect residences and other sensitive receptors from exposure to pollution, dust, noise, odor, vibration, and other detrimental conditions to public health.
 Policy HC-1.2 Require new commercial and industrial projects west of the I-15 Freeway Corridor area to prepare a cumulative health risk assessment and appropriate mitigation plan prior to approval.  Policy HC -2.1 Create an integrated system of bike, trail, and pedestrian routes that connect neighborhoods, corridors, recreation and other major facilities.  Policy HC-5.3 Work with the Victor Valley Transit Authority to establish, maintain, and increase the frequency of transit routes to all areas of the community.  Policy SF-6.13: Work with local contractors and community-based organizations to help low-income households and community service providers obtain or upgrade indoor air filtration systems Land Use Element
 Policy LU-2.5 Permit density transfers and clustering as a means of achieving more efficient housing construction and providing areas of usable common open space, in addition to payment of development impact fees.
 Policy LU-2.6: Require new development in areas planned for mixed use to incorporate high -quality and innovative design with walkable environments, human- scale, gathering spaces, and vibrant businesses that competitively attract consumers and consumer spending in the evolving retail sales and services market.
 Policy LU-4.3: Encourage the development of logistics warehousing in areas designated Commercial Industrial Business Park west of Interstate 15 to leverage direct and convenient access to the freeways.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

 Policy LU-6.1: Prioritize growth that furthers a regional balance of jobs and housing to reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase job opportunities and household income, and improve quality of life.  Policy LU -6.5: Promote the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), or other equivalent programs, in both private and public projects.

Impact Analysis
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the existing General Plan would not conflict with the 2004 Ozone Attainment Plan (OAP). Since the certification of the 2010 EIR, the MDAQMD has adopted a number of attainment plans for nonattainment pollutants that are applicable within the project area. A wide variety of control measures are included in these air quality management plans (AQMPs), such as reducing or offsetting emissions from construction and operations associated with land use developments. Future development projects accommodated under the Proposed Project would be required to adhere to the MDAQMD control measures, as outlined in the air quality plans and implemented through MDAQMD rules and regulations.

A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMPs. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals in the AQMP . Regional growth projections are used by MDAQMD to forecast future emission levels in the MDAB. For Southern California, these regional growth projections are provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and are partially based on land use designations in city/county general plans.

Changes in population, housing, or employment growth projections have the potential to affect SCAG’s demographic projections, and therefore, the assumptions in AQMPs prepared for the region. Both the projected population and housing growth under the Proposed Project exceeds SCAG projections for the City.

However, when compared to the existing General Plan , it would also result in an overall decrease in land use square feet from the reduction in industrial, institutional, and office land uses.

Even though the 2050 horizon estimates are greater than evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, the potential air quality impacts are offset by the reduction in industrial land by the proposed project and shown in Table 1 of this addendum. Further, with the additional policies included as part of the Proposed Project designed to reduce VMT, no new significant impact or substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the 2010 Certified EIR would occur.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 29
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the future construction and operation of individual projects under the existing General Plan may exceed the MDAQMD thresholds and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the MDAB. Impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation and policies designed to reduce overall emissions.

Construction
Construction of future development projects under the Proposed Project, like the existing General Plan, would have the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutant emissions through the use of heavy- duty construction equipment, such as excavators, cranes, and forklifts, and through vehicle trips generated from workers and haul trucks traveling to and from project sites, or coating operations such as painting or striping.

In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and various soil-handling activities.

Regardless of land use, the process of construction is largely the same with land being cleared, vegetation removed, trenching, paving, etc. While the Proposed Project forecasts a net increase in housing units and a net decrease in non -residential square f ootage, it would not be possible to compare the scale and phasing of individual projects under the existing General Plan and Proposed Project since the details of these prospective projects are unknown. However, the Proposed Project is not expected to indu ce more or larger scale construction activities when compared to the existing General Plan.

Therefore, like the existing General Plan , construction emissions under the Proposed Project would be significant, requiring the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2. While these mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with construction emissions, impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable. However, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR.

Operation
Operation of future development under the Proposed Project, like the existing General Plan , would generate criteria pollutant emissions from transportation (i.e., vehicle trips), area sources (e.g., landscaping equipment, architectural coating), and energy (i.e., natural gas used for heating and cooking). When compared to the buildout of the existing General Plan, the Proposed Project would result in a net increase in housing units, but a net decrease in non-residential square footage.

To compare the change in operational emissions between the Proposed Project and existing General Plan, the respective net increases and net decreases of the buildouts in these land use categories were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1. Mobile source emissions were estimated using emissions data from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Emission F actor database (EMFAC2021 Version 1.0.3) for the San Bernardino County, Mojave Desert Air Basin subarea and vehicle miles

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

traveled (VMT) data from Fehr and Peers.2 Table 2, Net Change in Maximum Regional Operation Emissions, shows the daily and annual emissions from the net change in buildout between the existing General Plan and Proposed Project and compares the net change in emissions to the MDAQMD significance thresholds.

Table 2 Net Change in Maximum Regional Operation Emissions Source
Net Increase in Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2010 Certified EIR
existing General Plan 117,089 8,184 146,018 NA 20,836 18,453 Net Change 2010 EIR 64,226 -5,485 63,205 NA 10,833 9,923 Net Change Proposed Project
Mobile1 2 -85 283 <1 -4 -3
Area1 285 43 386 <1 3 3
Energy2 1 23 <1 <1 2 2
Total 290 -84 803 1 -4 -1
Regional Threshold 137 137 548 137 82 65
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No Yes No No No
Source
Net Increase in Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2010 Certified EIR
existing General Plan 2,655 1,198 4,226 NA 679 361
Net Change 2010 EIR 1,147 -1,179 -1,132 NA 215 114
Net Change Proposed Project
Mobile1 <1 -15 49 <1 -1 -1
Area2 49 1 33 <1 <1 <1
Energy2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total 50 -10 82 <1 <-1 <-1
Regional Threshold 25 25 100 25 15 12
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Notes: lbs: Pounds. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. Negative emission numbers indicate a decrease in emissions between the existing General Plan and Proposed Project.
1 Mobile source emissions were calculated by using the net change in VMT between the existing General Plan and Proposed Project and modeled using EMFAC2021 based on VMT provided by Fehr and Peers.
2 Area and energy use modeled using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.26. The area and energy source emissions associated with the Proposed Project’s net decrease of

1.46 million square feet of industrial space, 11,500 square feet of office space, and 1.7 million square feet of industrial space were subtracted from the area and energy source emissions of the Proposed Project’s net increase of 7,141 housing units and 2.3 million square feet of commercial area.

2 Accounting of VMT is based on the recommendations of CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) created under SB 375. For accounting purposes, there are three types of trips:
 Internal-Internal. Vehicle trips that originated and terminated within the City (Internal-Internal, I-I). Using the accounting rules established by RTAC, 100 percent of the length of these trips and their emissions are attributed to the City.  Internal-External/External-Internal. Vehicle trips that either originated or terminated (but not both) in the City (Internal-External or External-Internal, I-X and X-I). Using the accounting rules established by RTAC, 50 percent of the trip length for these trips is attributed to the City.
 External-External. Vehicle trips that neither originated nor terminated in the City. These trips are commonly called pass- through trips (External-External, X-X). Using the accounting rules established by RTAC, these trips are not counted toward the City's VMT or emissions.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 31
As shown in Table 2, the net increase in buildout from the Proposed Project would result in a net increase of volatile organic compound (VOC) and CO emissions that would exceed the MDAQMD significance thresholds.

Therefore, like the existing General Plan , construction emissions under the Proposed Project would be significant and Mitigation Measure AQ -3 would be required to reduce impacts. Goals and policies under the Proposed Project would reduce operational phase air quality impacts to the extent feasible, including:
 Policy LU -6.5: Promote the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), or other equivalent programs, in both private and public projects.

However, because the 2010 Certified EIR determined that impacts with respect to operational air quality would also be significant and unavoidable under the existing General Plan, the air quality impacts under the Proposed Project do not represent a new, or substantially increased significant impact. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. Development and operation of new land uses consistent with Proposed Project could generate new sources of criteria air pollutants and TACs in the City from area/stationary sources and mobile sources.

CO Hotspots
The 2010 Certified EIR evaluated the potential for CO hotspots to be created at several intersections in the City with the highest traffic volumes and determined that the existing General Plan’s traffic increases would not exceed the State or federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for CO at sensitive receptor locations.

The MDAB is currently in attainment of the federal and State CO AAQS. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2023). Based on the projected average daily roadway segment volumes for the Proposed Project, it is not anticipated that it would generate the number of peak hour intersection volumes needed to generate a potential CO hotspot ( Fehr and Peers 2024 ). Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of sensitive receptors in the City, and like the existing General Plan, impacts with respect to CO hotspots would be less than significant. Because the Proposed Project would not result in impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR, preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR would not be required.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) were identified as a potential significant impact in the 2010 Certified EIR.

Emissions of TACs from stationary sources would be controlled by MDAQMD through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits.

Adherence to MDAQMD’s New Source Review program would ensure that stationary source emissions (permitted sources) would be reduced or mitigated below MDAQMD significance thresholds of ten in one million cancer risk and one for acute risk at the maximally exposed individual receptor.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

Mobile sources of TACs are not regulated by MDAQMD. The primary driver of health risk in the MDAB is diesel particulate matter (DPM). Mobile sources of DPM in the unincorporated areas are truck travel, truck idling, and use of off-road equipment. New warehousing operations could generate substantial diesel particulate matter emissions from off-road equipment use and truck idling. In addition, some warehousing and industrial facilities may include use of transport refrigeration units (TRUs) for cold storage.

The Proposed Project includes the following policy aimed at reducing emissions from major sources of air pollution including:
 Policy HC-1.2: Require new commercial and industrial projects west of the I-15 the Freeway Corridor area to prepare a cumulative health risk assessment and appropriate mitigation plan prior to approval.

The Proposed Project could result in the development of industrial land uses near sensitive receptors, requiring implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -4. This mitigation measure would require the completion of a Health Risk Assessment for projects with the potential to generate substantial levels of TACs within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. However, when compared to the existing General Plan, the Proposed Project would result in an overall decrease in land use square feet from the reduction in industrial land uses that have the potential to generate TACs. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact/ No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The 2010 Certified EIR found that the development under the existing General Plan could generate odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles, application of architectural coatings, cooking from restaurant uses, and trash receptacles from residences, in addition to other typical odor-generating land uses. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that impacts would be reduced to less than significant lev els with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-6.

The Proposed Project would allow uses similar to the existing General Plan, including those that could create odor impacts. Therefore, odor impacts as a result of the Proposed Project would also be considered potentially significant requiring the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-5 to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Proposed Policy HC-1.1 also directs the City to create and maintain land use patterns that protect residences and other sensitive receptors from exposure to pollution, dust, noise, odor, vibration, and other detrimental conditions to public health. T he Proposed Project compared to the existing General Plan would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts with respect to other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 33

5.3.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2010 Certified EIR and would be incorporated as part of the proposed project. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the 2010 Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.

AQ-1 The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the amount of fugitive dust that is re-entrained into the atmosphere from unpaved areas, parking lots, and construction sites:

1. The City shall require, as a condition of project approval, that applicants for new development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act review (i.e., nonexempt projects), implement Require the following measures to be taken during the construction of all projects to reduce the amount of dust and other sources of PM 10 in accordance with Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) Rule 403:
a. Dust suppression at construction sites using vegetation, surfactants, and other non - toxic chemical stabilizers;
b. Wheel washers for construction equipment;
c. Watering down of all construction areas a minimum of two times daily; d. Limit speeds at construction sites to 15 miles per hour; and e. Covering of aggregate or similar material during transportation of material. f. Use street sweepers and/or water trucks to control dust and debris at public street access points.
g. Roadways leading to the project site shall be paved as early as practical during construction.

2. Adopt incentives, regulations, and/or procedures to reduce paved road dust emissions through targeted street sweeping of roads subject to high traffic levels and silt loadings.

AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Hesperia for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act review (i.e., nonexempt projects), the The City shall require each project applicant, as a condition of project approval, to implement the following measures to reduce exhaust emissions from construction equipment:

1. C ommercial electric power (i.e. temporary power pole) shall be provided, to the extent feasible, to the project site in adequate capacity to avoid or minimize the use of portable diesel-powered electric generators and equipment.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

2. Where feasible, equipment requiring the use of fossil fuels (e.g., diesel) shall be replaced or substituted with electrically driven equivalents (provided that they are not run via a portable generator set).

3. To the extent feasible, alternative fuels and emission controls shall be used to further reduce exhaust emissions.

4. On-site equipment shall be turned off when not in use and shall not idle for more than 5 minutes.

5. Staging areas for heavy-duty construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors.

6. Encourage project applicants to perform a review of new technology, in consultation with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, as it relates to heavy -duty equipment, to determine what advances in emissions reductions are available for use and are economically feasible.

7. Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.

These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.

AQ-3 The City shall work with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD ) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments to implement the federal ozone and PM 10 non-attainment plans and meet all federal and state air quality standards for pollutants. The City shall participate in any future amendments and updates to the non-attainment plans. The City shall also implement, review, and interpret the General Plan and future discretionary projects in a manner consistent with the non -attainment plans to meet standards and reduce overall emissions from mobile and stationary sources.

AQ-4 T
he City shall consult with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District regarding the siting of project types within a specified distance of existing or planned (zoned) sensitive receptor land uses:
a. 1,000 feet of a major transportation project (50,000 or more vehicles per day); b. 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 40 trucks per day); c. 1,000 feet of any industrial project; and
d. 500 feet of any dry cleaning operation using perchloroethylene.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 35
AQ-54 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Hesperia for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall conduct a Health Risk Assessment for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks per day by trucks operating transportation refrigeration units (TRU's) within 1,000 feet of homes, childcare facilities, schools, and hospitals. If the h ealth risk assessment determines the new development poses health hazards that increase the incremental cancer risk above the threshold established by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), adequate mitigation measures shall be implemented for potential impacts on the sensitive uses around the site. New developments that are subject to this mitigation measure shall also conduct public outreach by sending notifications in multiple languages to residents living within 500 feet, and encourage hosting a public meeting. The City shall implement the following measures to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors and sites to health risks related to air pollution:

1. Encourage site plan designs to provide the appropriate setbacks and/or design features that reduce toxic air contaminants at the source.

2. Encourage the applicants for sensitive land uses to incorporate design features (e.g., pollution prevention, pollution reduction, barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures) in the planning process to minimize the potential impacts of air pollution on sensitive receptors.

3. Actively participate in decisions on the siting or expansion of facilities or land uses (e.g., freeway expansions), to ensure the inclusion of air quality mitigation measures.

4. Where decisions on land use may result in emissions of air contaminants that pose significant health risks, consider options, including possible relocation, recycling, redevelopment, rezoning, and incentive programs.

5. Activities involving idling trucks shall be oriented as far away from and downwind of existing or proposed sensitive receptors as feasible.

6. Strategies shall be incorporated to reduce the idling time of main propulsion engines through alternative technologies such as IdleAire, electrification of truck parking, and alternative energy sources for Transport Refrigeration Units to allow diesel engines to be completely turned off.

AQ-56 The City shall review discretionary land use applications for residential uses for potential odor impacts for proposals within the following project types for their potential to generate odors that affect a substantial number of people areas:
a. 2 miles of a wastewater treatment plant;
b. 1 mile of a wastewater pumping facility;

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

c. 2 miles of a sanitary landfill;
d. 1 mile of a transfer station;
e. 1 mile of a composting facility;
f. 2 miles of an asphalt batch plant;
g. 1 mile of a painting/coating operation; and
h. 1 mile of a green waste and recycling center.

If it is determined that odors from such areas projects have the potential to expose such residential uses to objectionable odors, an Odor Analysis shall be prepared to assess such impacts and recommended methods to limit exposure to such objectionable odors.

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the existing General Plan resulted in less than significant impacts upon implementation of mitigation to biological resources. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that without project - specific information, impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species could occur, and Mitigation Measure BR -1, which requires the preparation of biological surveys and implementation of ap plicable mitigation, would reduce impacts. The 2010 Certified EIR stated that there is a potential for impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands along the West Fork of the Mojave River, Grass Valley Creek, Little Horsethief Creek, and Horsethief Creek; however, the land use designations for these areas are predominantly open space or low density residential, so impacts would be minimal. Compliance with federal and State laws, as well as the General Plan policies would reduce impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that the existing General Plan would not result in changes that could negatively impact major wildlife corridors, and that implementation of the General Plan policies and compliance with federal and State regulations would reduce impacts. The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the existing General Plan would not conflict with policies protecting biological resources, or an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other habitat conservation plans. The General Plan policies are consistent with State and federal regulations, and the existing General Plan would not conflict with any provisions of the West Mojave Plan.

5.4.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 37
Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that impacts as a result of habitat modification on species would be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-1.

During the 25-year planning horizon, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in housing development compared to the existing General Plan; however, the Proposed Project’s buildout would be within the overall

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

buildout envisioned in the 2010 Certified EIR. Future projects would be required to comply with state and federal regulations to reduce impacts to special -status plant and animal species. The Proposed Project would also implement the existing General Plan policies such as Poli cy CN-4.4 and Policy CN -4.5 which require assessing impacts before development and providing appropriate actions to reduce impacts . Additionally, as with the existing General Plan , future discretionary projects on non -infill sites unde r the Proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BR-1 which would ensure that biological surveys are prepared and feasible mitigation measures are implemented to reduce impacts to special status species.

Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-1. compliance with state and federal regulations, and existing General Plan policies, implementation of the Proposed Project would not have substantial adverse impacts on sensitive plant or animal species.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on sensitive or special status species. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that impacts from loss of riparian or sensitive habitat would be mitigated for each development through implementation of the General Plan policies, and consultation with the relevant federal and state agencies as well as the Development Services Director. The existing General Plan was considered to result in less than significant impacts in this regard.

Similar to the existing General Plan , the future projects consistent with the proposed project that could potentially affect riparian habitats would be required to obtain necessary permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW ) and comply with all applicable state and federal regulations . In addition, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 16.24, Protected Plants, Article III, Riparian Plant Conservation, is intended to protect riparian habitats. Moreover, the Proposed Project would implement the existing General Plan policies that would ensure potential impacts are avoided such as Policy CN-3.1 and Policy CN-3.2 which require monitoring development impacts on surface water resources and preserving wash areas (e.g. Oro Grand Wash) that maintain ideal native habitat in their natural state. Therefore, as with the existing General Plan, the Proposed Project would also comply with local, state, and federal regulations and existing General Plan policies regarding the protection of riparian areas.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 39
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the existing General Plan would have a less than significant impact on state or federally-protected wetlands upon compliance with federal, state, and local regulations.

During the 25-year planning horizon, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in housing development compared to the existing General Plan; however, the Proposed Project’s buildout would be within the overall development area envisioned in the 2010 Certified EIR. As mentioned in the 2010 Certified EIR, federal regulations require that applicants provide evidence that all necessary permits have been obtained from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) before granting grading permits for projects affecting riparian or wetland habitats. As such, this would ensure impacts to wetlands were minimized. As with the existing General Plan, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations protecting wetlands. T he Proposed Project would follow existing General Plan policies that would ensure potential impacts are avoided such as Policy CN -3.1 and Policy CN-

3.2 which require monitoring development impacts on surface water resources and preserving wash areas (e.g., Oro Grand Wash) that maintain ideal native habitat in their natural state. Therefore, the Proposed Project, as with the existing General Plan, would result in less than significant impacts upon compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of the existing General Plan policies.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on protected wetlands. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the existing General Plan would have a less than significant impact on the movement of native residents or migratory fish or wildlife species due to implementation of applicable General Plan policies and regulations.

The 2010 Certified EIR identified major wildlife corridors within washes, creeks, utility easements, and railroad lines. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that General Plan policies would avoid potentially significant and adverse impacts. The Proposed Project would implement the existing General Plan policies protecting wildlife corridors such as Policy CN-4.1 which aims to preserve pristine open space areas and known wildlife corridors areas for conservation to protect sensitive species and their habitats and Policy CN-4.2 which encourages the protection, preservation, and long-term viability of environmentally sensitive habitats and species in the City.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the conclusions of the 2010 Certified EIR regarding the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, nor on established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the existing General Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

The Proposed Project would not affect any ordinances protecting biological resources as future development under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code, such as Chapter 16.24, Protected Plants, which outlines regulations and guidelines for managing plant resources on public and private lands to ensure plant health, conserve native species, prevent indiscriminate removal, standardize removal practices, maintain water quality, and preserve rare plants and specialized animal habitats . As with the existing General Plan, the Proposed Project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts . Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the General Plan would not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) . The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that the West Mojave Plan HCP applies to Federal land but may be expanded in the future.

The West Mojave HCP encompasses the Planning Area and the C ity's existing General Plan focuses on preserving natural environments and biological resources (BLM 2004). The existing General Plan outlines goals for biological assessments to identify sensitive areas and assess development impacts. existing General Plan Policy CN-4.4 requires that proper assessments be conducted in potential habitats for endangered or sensitive species before development is authorized. If such assessments reveal the presence of these species, Policy CN-

4.5 mandates appropriate actions to protect their habitat and ensure their preservation. As with the existing General Plan, the Proposed Project would implement the existing General Plan policies that aim to protect biological resources and would not conflict with the West Mojave HCP . Development under the Proposed Project would occur in areas that are currently designated for development; the Proposed Project would not change land use or zoning designations compared to the existing General Plan.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on HCP and NCCP provisions.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 41

5.4.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2010 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the 2010 Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.

BR- 1 Biological surveys, prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be required for discretionary projects located in non-infill sites that have substantially undisturbed areas, or sites that have protected plant or animal species. The specific requirements and nature of such surveys (i.e., general site reconnaissance, focused surveys, etc.) shall be determined by the Development Services Director at the time that a development proposal is submitted to the City for processing. If such surveys determine that the discretionary project in question could have a potentially significant impact on candidate, sensitive, or special status species, feasible mitigation shall be recommended as part of the survey. The preparation of such surveys and, if necessary, implementation of mitigation, shall be in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local protocols, guidelines, and requirements, and shall be to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director.

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that portions of the City and SOI could include historic resources, and implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1a through CR- 1d, which require making a determination that no further cultural research is needed for areas with “low” cultural sensitivity, conducting a Phase I cultural resources survey for areas with “mediu m” or “high” cultural sensitivity, determining a structure’s historical significance, and avoiding or conducting a Phase III for impact significant historic resources, would reduce impacts. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that portions of the City and SOI could include archaeological resources, and that implementation of Mitigation Measure CR- 2a and CR- 2b, which require testing the significance of any resources that are found and either avoiding or preparing a Phase III for resources that would be impacted, would reduce impacts. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that while there is a possibility that ground -disturbing activities could uncover human remains, com pliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would reduce impacts.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

5.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified historical resources within Hesperia, and determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1a through Mitigation Measure CR-1d impacts would be less than significant.

Development or redevelopment projects may have the potential to result in impacts to buildings or structures of historic age (50 years old or older), or buildings or structures that may eventually be of historic age and may qualify as historic resources pursuant to CEQA upon evaluation. As with the existing General Plan , development under the Proposed Project would have the potential to result in impacts on historic buildings, structures, and/or transportation routes . With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -1a through Mitigation Measure CR-1d, from the 2010 Certified EIR, which ensures thorough evaluation and protection of cultural resources in the planning and development process.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on historical resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that development under the existing General Plan could adversely impact archaeological resources ; however, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -and Mitigation Measure CR-2b impacts would be less than significant.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 43
As with the existing General Plan , development associated with the Proposed Project could uncover archaeological resources if development is proposed on vacant land or redevelopment proposing more extensive groundwork. In the event that development under the Proposed Project uncovers archaeological resources, Mitigation Measure CR-2a and Mitigation Measure CR-2b, from the 2010 Certified EIR, which would require evaluation of archaeological resources and procedures following their determination, would reduce impacts to archaeological resources. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. .
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The 2010 Certified EIR stated that the existing General Plan would comply with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and therefore would not disturb human remains; the existing General Plan was found to result in a less than significant impact.

Future development projects consistent with the Proposed Project would be subject to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, which would ensure that impacts to human remains are minimized. As with the existing General Plan , compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that a less than significant impact would occur.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts.

5.5.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2010 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the 2010 Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.

CR-1 a Areas of the City have been determined to exhibit “Low” cultural resource sensitivity in the technical report supporting the General Plan Update EIR. Prior to exempting a project in Low sensitivity areas from further cultural resource fieldwork, the AIC shall perform a planning review of the Planning Area and report the results of the review to the City. If, in addition, the particular project is located in a region deemed “Low” and exhibits the following three qualities, no further cultural resource research is necessary if:

1. The AIC determines that a field survey is not necessary, or,

2. The Planning Area has been mass graded for modern construction purposes in the recent past, or,

3. The Planning Area is less than 5 acres in size.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

CR-1b In those areas of the City that exhibit “Medium” or “High” cultural resource sensitivity, a qualified Cultural Resource Management professional must undertake a Phase 1 cultural resource survey of the Planning Area as part of the CEQA environmental compliance process if and only if the AIC determines through its planning review that this must occur. In determining whether a cultural resource survey is required, a check of the NARC Sacred Lands Inventory may initially be undertaken. The survey must be conducted following the SHPO - recommended ARMR research and reporting format. A cultural resource survey in the Medium and High sensitivity areas need not take place if the AIC planning review shows that:

1. The Planning Area has been surveyed by a qualified professional in the last ten years with negative results, or,

2. The property has been mass graded for modern construction purposes in the recent past.

CR-1b.1 In the event that a cultural resource assessment is required under CR -1a and/or CR-1b, the qualified Cultural Resource Management professional performing the study must undertake a NAHC Sacred Lands Search as part of the scoping process for the project. Upon receipt of the NAHC Sacred Lands Search response, the qualified professional must send a scoping request letter and/or verbally contact each tribal entity the NAHC lists. Documentation of this Sacred Lands scoping process must be provided for in the technical report.

CR-1c If the Phase I field survey shows that there are historical cultural resources in the developmental Planning Area, the City shall require that those cultural resource(s) be tested for historical significance by a qualified Cultural Resource Management professional following modern guidelines unless a previous significance determination study has shown that the resource is not signif icant under CEQA Section 15064(a). If the Phase I survey report recommends that the City require cultural resource monitoring during construction of the project, the City shall require that the monitoring specialist (s) present his/her credentials to the City for review and approval, showing it is pertinent to the resources expected to be uncovered.

CR-1d If the City determines that a significant historical cultural resource will be directly impacted by a proposed development such that the qualities that make the resource significant will be lost during the development, the significant cultural resource must be either avoided, or Phase III data collected by a qualified Cultural Resource Management professional following guidelines established for this type of research by the California SHPO. If the Phase II testing report recommends that the City require cultural resource monitoring during construction, the City shall require that the monitoring specialist(s) present his/her credentials to the City for review and approval, showing it is pertinent to the resources expected to be uncovered.

CR-2a If the Phase 1 field survey shows that there are archaeological cultural resources in the developmental Planning Area, the City must require that those cultural resource(s) be tested for historical significance by a qualified Cultural Resource Management professional following modern guidelines unless a previous significance determination study has shown that the

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 45
resource is not significant under CEQA Section 15064(a). If testing must take place, the qualified professional shall contact each of the tribes listed by the NAHC in its Sacred Lands response letter and inform them of the testing event. Should one or more tribes request that they be contacted when artifacts are found during the testing event, the qualified professional shall do so. If the Phase I survey report recommends that the City require cultural resource monitoring during construction, the City shall require that the monitoring specialist(s) present his/her credentials to the City for review and approval, showing it is pertinent to the resources expected to be uncovered.

CR-2b If the City determines that a significant historical cultural resource will be directly impacted by a proposed development such that the qualities that make the resource significant shall be lost during the development, the significant cultural resource must be either avoided, or Phase III data collected by a qualified Cultural Resource Management professional following guidelines established for this type of research by the California SHPO. If a Phase III excavation takes place, the qualified Cultural Resource Management Professional shall contact each of the tribes listed by the NAHC in its Sacred Lands response letter and inform them of the excavation event. Should one or more tribes request that they be contacted when artifacts are found during the excavation event, the qualified professional shall do so. The qualified professional shall seek and consider input from the tribe(s) regarding the disposition of the artifacts, after a tribe responds to the notice of the excavation event. If the Phase II testing report recommends that the City require cultural resource monitoring during construction, the City shall require that the monitoring specialist(s) present his/her credentials to the City for review and approval, showing it is pertinent to the resources expected to be uncovered.

5.6 ENERGY

5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
As shown in Section 3.17, Greenhouse Gas, of the 2010 Certified EIR, development consistent with the General Plan would create a demand for more energy resources. In addition, within this section, the 2010 Certified EIR also noted that all development would comply with the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24) and that future projects would comply with the strategies in the City’s 2010 Climate Action Plan.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
Applicable Focused General Plan Policies
The Proposed Project includes policies that would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The following proposed polices are applicable:

Health and Safety Element
 Policy HC -2.1 Create an integrated system of bike, trail, and pedestrian routes that connect neighborhoods, corridors, recreation and other major facilities.  Policy HC-5.3 Work with the Victor Valley Transit Authority to establish, maintain, and increase the frequency of transit routes to all areas of the community.

Land Use Element
 Policy LU-2.5 Permit density transfers and clustering as a means of achieving more efficient housing construction and providing areas of usable common open space, in addition to payment of development impact fees.
 Policy LU-2.6: Require new development in areas planned for mixed use to incorporate high -quality and innovative design with walkable environments, human- scale, gathering spaces, and vibrant businesses that competitively attract consumers and consumer spending in the evolving retail sales and services market.
 Policy LU-6.1: Prioritize growth that furthers a regional balance of jobs and housing to reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase job opportunities and household income, and improve quality of life.  Policy LU -6.5: Promote the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), or other equivalent programs, in both private and public projects.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 47
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? No Impact. The following evaluates potential energy impacts as they pertain to wasteful or inefficient use during construction and operation of the Proposed Project.

Construction
Construction of individual development projects facilitated by the Proposed Project would create temporary demands for electricity. Natural gas is not generally required to power construction equipment, and therefore is not anticipated during construction phases. Electricity use would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Additionally, it is anticipated that most electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities.

Future individual development projects would also temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation. Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. It is anticipated that most off -road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, would be gas or diesel powered. In addition, all operation of construction equipment would cease upon completion of project construction.

Furthermore, the construction contractors would minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449. Such required practices would l imit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption during the construction of individual development project facilitated by the Proposed Project. Therefore, the construction of individual development projects facilitated by the Proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use.

The construction processes for the Proposed Project would be similar to the construction processes of projects under the existing General Plan. Additionally, as discussed above, construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would result in the same level of impacts as the existing General Plan. Thus, the short-term impacts of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial changes requiring major revisions of the existing General Plan. Impacts would not be beyond those analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Operation
Operation of new development projects accommodated under the Proposed Project would create similar demands when compared to the existing General Plan . Operational use of electricity and natural gas would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on- site equipment and appliances; and lighting. Electrical service to the City would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

Table 3, Net Change in Energy Consumption , shows the net change in energy use between the buildouts of the existing General Plan and the Proposed Project.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 49

Table 3 Net Change in Energy Consumption
Land Use
Electricity Electricity (kWh/year)
Residential Electricity Consumption 47,525,284
Nonresidential Electricity Consumption -2,703,001
Total 44,822,283
Natural Gas Natural Gas (kBTU/year)
Residential Natural Gas Consumption 189,332,576
Non-Residential Natural Gas Consumption -91,237,767
Total 98,094,809
Source: Appendix A
Note: kWh=kilowatt-hour; kBTU= kilo-British thermal unit. Negative values indicate a decrease in energy consumption between the existing General Plan and Proposed Project.

While the electricity and natural gas demand under the Proposed Project would increase when compared to the existing General Plan, developments accommodated under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the current and future updates to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which would contribute to reducing the energy demand shown in Table 3. New and replacement buildings in compliance with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. It is anticipated that each update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would result in greater building energy efficiency and move closer toward buildings achieving zero net energy.

The Proposed Project is also expected to result in an increase in transportation energy use. As described in Section 5.17, Transportation, the net increase in VMT under the Proposed Project when compared to the existing General Plan would be 419,414 miles per day. These increases in VMT would be primarily attributable to the overall growth associated with the buildout of the Proposed Project when compared to the buildout of the existing General Plan. The VMT per service population under the General Plan would, however, be larger than that of the Proposed Project, (See Table 1 for a reduction in non- residential development) indicating transportation energy efficiency would be higher under the Proposed Project. Additionally, while overall fuel usage has the potential to increase under the Proposed Project, the fuel efficiency of all the fuel types would continue to improve over time, as it would under the existing General Plan . The improvement would be attributable to regulatory compliance (e.g., Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency [CAFE] standards) that trend toward producing cars that are more fuel efficient and the natural turnover of older, less-fuel-efficient vehicles for newer, more-fuel-efficient vehicles. The CAFE standards are not directly applicable to residents or land use development projects, but to car manufacturers. Thus, residents and employees of the City do not have direct control in determining the fuel efficiency of vehicles manufactured and that are made available. However, compliance with the CAFE standards by car manufacturers would ensure that vehicles produced in future years have greater fuel efficiency and would generally result in an overall benefit of reducing fuel usage by providing the population of the City more fuel-efficient vehicle options.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during operation compared to the existing General Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. The following discussions evaluate consistency of the Proposed Project to the California Renewable Portfolio Standards Program (RPS) and the City’s 2010 Climate Action Plan (CAP).

California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The state’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The RPS goals have been updated since adoption of SB 1078 in 2002. In general, California has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 (SB X1 -2), 40 percent by 2024 (SB 350), 50 percent by 2026 (SB 100), 60 percent by 2030 (SB 100), 90 percent by 2035 (SB 1020), 95 percent by 2040 (SB 1020), a nd 100 percent by 2045 (SB 100). SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy.

The land uses accommodated under the Proposed Project would comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. The current 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards include photovoltaic requirements for single -family residences and multi-family residences of three stories or less. Additionally, it also includes prescriptive photovoltaic system and battery requirements for high- rise, multifamily buildings (i.e., more than three stories) and noncommercial buildings such as hotels, offices, medical offices, re staurants, retail stores, schools, warehouses, theaters, and convention centers. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program, and no impact would occur. The Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts when compared to the 2010 Certified EIR.

City of Hesperia Climate Action Plan
In order to demonstrate that the existing General Plan would result in less than significant greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, the City adopted a CAP concurrently with the 2010 Certified EIR. The Hesperia CAP quantified the City’s existing emissions inventory and identified the emissions reductions needed to meet the CAP’s target of 29 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. To meet this target, the CAP included strategies for the City government and future development for reducing emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change.

Several of the CAP’s GHG emission reduction strategies would also decrease energy use such as, promoting mixed use/compact development, constructing a well -connected system of bicycle paths and end of trip facilities, increasing the use of renewable energy, and reducing energy use from the transport and treatment of water.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 51
The Proposed Project includes updates to the City’s Land Use Element, Health and Safety Element, and Environmental Justice policies. The new policies that are consistent with the goals and strategies of the CAP are listed above and include Policies HC -2.1, HC-5.3, and LU-2.6 , that would help to reduce transportation fuel use by encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation. Policy LU -6.5 targets reductions in building energy use by promoting the use of green building standards and the Leadersh ip in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification for development projects. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of the CAP nor would it result in any new or increased impacts with respect to implementation of the CAP.

Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

5.6.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not analyze energy specifically, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the existing General Plan could be subjected to seismic hazards such as fault rupture, earthquakes and ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and seismically induced settlement.

However, compliance with the California Building Code (CBC), and implementation of the General Plan policies and conditions of approval such as preparing a geotechnical report, would reduce impacts to less than significant. The 2010 Certified EIR stated that the existing General Plan could result in erosion from activities; however, compliance with the Municipal Code, which requires the preparation of an erosion control plan, as well as with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) would reduce erosion. Impacts from landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and collapsible and compressible soils would be reduced through compliance with the CBC and the General Plan policies. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that subsidence has not been detected in the City. Additionally, impacts as a result of alternative wastewater disposal systems would be reduced through conditions of approval, such as the preparation of a geotechnical evaluation, and compliance with the General Plan policies.

The 2010 Certified EIR evaluated paleontological resources as part of Cultural Resources, and concluded that the existing General Plan could result in impacts on paleontological resources, however, implementation of mitigation measures CR-3a through CR-3c, which require making a determination that no further research is needed for areas with “low” paleontological sensitivity and conducting a records search for areas with “medium” and “high” paleontological sensitivity, would reduce impacts.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts.

5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map, issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 53
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Spe cial Publication 42.

No Impact. As stated in the 201 0 Certified EIR, there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the Planning Area. However, there are faults within the Cleghorn fault zone in the Planning Area.

The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that with the implementation of the General Plan policies, impacts from surface rupture would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project does not include any physical changes to the land use or zoning designations; therefore, compared to the existing General Plan , the impacts would remain the same, as there is no redesignation of land. In addition, the Proposed Project would include similar policies as in the existing General Plan which would minimize impacts. For example, Proposed General Plan Policy SF-1.1 states that projects in seismic or geologic hazard zones must have investigations completed by State -certified professionals following current guidelines, including hazard mitigation measures, and be reviewed by appropriately credentialed City staff , and Policy SF -1.4 e ncourages owners of unreinforced masonry buildings, to assess the seismic vulnerability of their structures and conduct seismic retrofitting as necessary to improve the buildings’ resistance to seismic shaking. As with the existing General Plan , the Proposed Project’s future development would comply with the seismic safety provisions of the most current version of the California Building Code (CBC) at the time of development. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 201 0 Certified EIR for the General Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on earthquake faults. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that Hesperia is near the San Andreas Fault and several other seismically active earthquakes sources, including the North Frontal, Cleghorn, Cucamonga, Helendale, and San Jacinto Faults. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that development under the existing General Plan would be required to comply with seismic safety provisions of the CBC and General Plan policies. The existing General Plan identified that compliance with CBC and policies reduced hazards from ground shaking to a less than significant impact.

The Proposed Project would result in the construction of new structures in the Planning Area; as with the existing General Plan , development under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the seismic safety provisions of the CBC. In addition, the Proposed Project includes policies that would reduce impacts such as Proposed General Plan Policy SF-1.1 which states that projects in seismic or geologic

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

hazard zones must have investigations completed by State -certified professionals following current guidelines, including hazard mitigation measures, and be reviewed by appropriately credentialed City staff, and, Policy SF-1.4 which encourages owners of unreinforced masonry buildings, to assess the seismic vulnerability of their structures and conduct seismic retrofitting as necessary to improve the buildings’ resistance to seismic shaking. A less than significant impact would occur.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that areas within the Mojave River floodplain have the potential for liquefaction, which could cause significant damage to pipelines, utilities, and infrastructure.

Additionally, several areas in the City are prone to settlement due to unconsolidated alluvial deposits and artificial fill. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that p rojects under the existing General Plan could have subjected people or structures to potentially significant hazards arising from liquefaction. H owever, with the implementation of the General Plan policies, the existing General Plan resulted in less than significant impacts.

As with the existing General Plan , future projects under the Proposed Project would be mandated to comply with the CBC, which would reduce hazards arising from seismic-related ground failure. In addition, the Proposed Project would include policies that would minimize impacts from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. For example, Proposed General Plan Policy SF-1.3 requires the preparation of liquefaction assessment studies, as a condition of approval, for all projects proposed in areas that have been identified as being potentially susceptible to liquefaction.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that while most of Hesperia is relatively flat, there are a few natural slopes in the City that could be vulnerable to landslides . The 2010 Certified EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of the General Plan policies and compliance with the CBC.

Development under the Proposed Project could occur in areas that are susceptible to landslides. As with the existing General Plan, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the CBC and implement the Proposed General Plan policies, such as Policy SF-5.10 which states that if new essential public and

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 55
critical facilities would be located in landslide susceptibility zones, they must be designed to minimize damage and ensure operation, and would be required to develop disaster response and evacuation plans.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that erosion and sedimentation in Hesperia are influenced by climate, topography, soil types, and vegetation, with significant issues arising in areas on alluvial fans and hillsides, especially after wildfires and heavy storms. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that compliance with Section 16.12.230, Approval Requirements, of the City’s Municipal Code, as well as state and federal regulations, would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the development of new structures which could result in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil during construction and operational activities. Compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. Additionally, construction activities under the Proposed Project would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) detailing best management practices (BMP s) to reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities. In addition, the condition of approval requirements in the City of Hesperia Municipal Code Section 16.12.230, Approval Requirements, states that future developments are required to install and maintain erosion control measures. The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 201 0 Certified EIR .

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that parts of the City are susceptible to landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading; however, compliance with the CBC and implementation of the General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the construction of new structures which could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, and could therefore lead to landslide, lateral spreading, liquefaction or collapse . According to United States Geological Survey (USGS), subsidence has not been detected in the Planning Area (USGS 2024). As with the existing General Plan , development under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the CBC and implement the Proposed General Plan policies, such as Policy SF-5.10 which states that if new essential public and critical facilities should be located in areas susceptible to geologic hazards, they must be designed to minimize damage and ensure operation, and would be required to prepare disaster response and evacuation plans; Policy SF-1.2 which requires development

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

to minimize grading and other changes to the natural topography to protect public safety and reduce the potential for property damage as a result of geologic hazards; and Policy SF-1.3 which requires preparation of liquefaction assessment studies, as a condition of approval, for all projects proposed in areas that have been identified as being potentially susceptible to liquefaction.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts.

Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the conclusions of the 2010 Certified EIR regarding geologic units or soils that are unstable, or that could become unstable as a result of the project, potentially leading to on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that portions of the City, such as the Mojave River floodplain, are likely to contain expansive soils. However, the 2010 Certified EIR indicated that compliance with the CBC and General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

As with the existing General Plan , the Proposed Project could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards due to expansive soils from development projects. Future development under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the CBC as well as the Proposed General Plan policies, such as Policy SF-1.2 which requires developments to minimize grading and other changes to the natural topography to protect public safety and reduce the potential for property damage because of geologic hazards. The impacts would remain less than significant.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts.

Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on expansive soils. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR stated that new high-density developments near an existing sewer system would be required to connect to the sewer system under the California Plumbing Code and the Lahontan Guidelines. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that discretionary proposals would be required to conduct geotechnical investigations to reduce potential hazards that would impact disposal systems. With the implementation of the General Plan policies, the 2010 Certified EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

For future development in areas of the City that are sewered, such development would be required to connect to the City’s sewer system per Section 14.08.010(c), Standards for Quality and Testing, of the City’s Municipal Code. While there may be development in areas that use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 57
(in areas without sewer service ), compliance with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Guidelines and Section 14.08.010, Private Sewage Disposal Systems, of the City’s Municipal Code would reduce such impacts. In addition, the Proposed Project’s Policy SF-1.1 states that projects in seismic and geologic hazard zones must have investigations completed by State-certified professionals following current guidelines, including hazard mitigation measures, and be reviewed by appropriately credentialed City staff.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the General Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the existing General Plan could impact paleontological resources. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR- 3a through Mitigation Measure CR- 3c, impacts to paleontological resources under the existing General Plan would be less than significant.

As with the existing General Plan , development under the Proposed Project could unearth unknown paleontological resources. The Proposed Project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CR -3a through Mitigation Measure CR- 3c, which provide specific measures depending on the paleontological resource sensitivity of a project area. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts.

Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems..

5.7.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR identified three mitigation measures for paleontological resources. No other mitigation measures related to geology and soils were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR, and no mitigation measures are required.

The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2010 Certified EIR. Any modifications to the mitigation measures from the 2010 Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.

CR-3a Areas of the City have been determined to exhibit “Low” paleontological resource sensitivity in the technical report written in support of the General Plan Update EIR. If the particular project is located in a region deemed Low and exhibits the following qualities, no further paleontological research is necessary if:

1. The property has been surveyed by a qualified professional in the last five years, or,

2. The property has been mass graded for modern construction purposes in the recent past, or,

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

3. The property is less than five acres in size.

CR-3b In those areas of the City that exhibit “Medium” paleontological resource sensitivity, a qualified paleontologist as part of the planning process must undertake a formal record search of the project at a local museum. A paleontological records search need not take place if City Planning determines that:

1. The property has been surveyed by a qualified paleontological professional, or,

2. The property has been mass graded for modern construction purposes in the recent past.

A qualified paleontologist shall monitor areas exhibiting Medium resource sensitivity during construction-related earthmoving if and only if the record search shows that there is some potential for impacts to paleontological resources at the specific site.

CR-3c In those areas of the City that exhibit “High” paleontological resource sensitivity, a qualified paleontologist must undertake a records search and a field survey of the Planning Area. A survey in the High sensitivity areas need not take place if research shows that:

1. The property has been previously evaluated by a qualified paleontological professional, or,

2. The property has been mass graded for modern construction purposes in the recent past.

A qualified paleontologist shall monitor areas exhibiting High resource sensitivity during construction-related earthmoving in all cases.

5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR determined that the existing General Plan would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment because it would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. To ensure that the buildout of the existing General Plan would meet a reduction of 29 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 as directed by the CARB 2008 Scoping Plan (a reduction of 1.6 MTCO
2e per person), the City developed a CAP that was
adopted concurrently with the Certified EIR. With the emissions reductions identified in the CAP , the Certified EIR was able to demonstrate emissions reductions consistent with the Scoping Plan and concluded less than significant GHG impacts.

The 2010 Certified EIR also analyzed impacts associated with climate change and included a discussion of the existing General Plan’s strategy to mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts including wildfires, water supply, and flooding.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 59

5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
X

Applicable Focused General Plan Policies
The Proposed Project includes policies that aim to reduce GHG emissions from future development. The following proposed polices are applicable:

Health and Safety Element
 Policy HC -2.1 Create an integrated system of bike, trail, and pedestrian routes that connect neighborhoods, corridors, and recreation, and other major facilities.  Policy HC-5.3 Work with the Victor Valley Transit Authority to establish, maintain, and increase the frequency of transit routes to all areas of the community Land Use Element
 Policy LU-2.4: Encourage lot consolidation of multi-family residential properties through creation of a lot consolidation incentive program.
 Policy LU-2.5 Permit density transfers and clustering as a means of achieving more efficient housing construction and providing areas of usable common open space, in addition to payment of development impact fees.
 Policy LU-2.6: Require new development in areas planned for mixed use to incorporate high -quality and innovative design with walkable environments, human- scale, gathering spaces, and vibrant businesses that competitively attract consumers and consumer spending in the evolving retail sales and services market.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

 Policy 3.3 Promote the development of retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses along Main Street to facilitate a more pedestrian-friendly environment.
 Policy LU-6.1: Prioritize growth that furthers a regional balance of jobs and housing to reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase job opportunities and household income, and improve quality of life.  Policy LU -6.5: Promote the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), or other equivalent programs, in both private and public projects. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified less than significant GHG emissions impacts with implementation of the CAP.

The Proposed Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions. To compare the change in operational emissions between the Proposed Project and existing General Plan , the respective net increases and net decreases of the buildouts in these land use categories were modeled using the CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.

Mobile source emissions were estimated using emissions data from the CARB’s Emission Factor database (EMFAC2021 Version 1.0.3) for the San Bernardino County, Mojave Desert Air Basin subarea and VMT data from Fehr and Peers. As shown in Table 4, Net Change in Annual GHG Emissions , the net change in buildout from the Proposed Project when compared to the existing General Plan would result in a net increase in GHG emissions. Since these emissions were not considered within the existing CAP, they are instead compared to MDAQMD’s annual GHG significance threshold of 90,718 MTCO2e/year for the purposes of determining significant GHG impacts (MDAQMD 2020).

Table 4 Net Change in Annual GHG Emissions
Source
MTCO2e per Year
2010 Certified EIR
With CAP Strategies1
Net Change in GHG
Emissions Percentage
On-Road Mobile 608,932 3,276 20%
Area 22,023 651 4%
Energy 457,496 10,562 64%
Water NA 1,210 7%
Solid Waste 41,711 961 6%
Refrigerants 92,825 -48 0%
Total 1,222,987 16,611 100%
MDAQMD Threshold2 NA 90,718 NA
Exceeds Threshold NA No NA
Source: Appendix A.

Notes: MTCO2e = metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent 1 2010 Final EIR, Appendix B.
2 100,000 tons per year MDAQMD threshold is equivalent to 90,718 MTCO2e/year.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 61
As shown in Table 4, the Proposed Project’s net change in buildout when compared to the existing General Plan is expected to generate an additional 16,611 MTCO2e per year which would not exceed the MDAQMD’s brightline threshold of 90,718 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the GHG emissions from the Proposed Project are considered less than significant. The Proposed Project would not result in any new or more substantial impacts when compared to the existing General Plan and preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR would not be required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR identified less than significant impacts related to consistency with GHG reduction plans.

CARB Scoping Plan
Since the 2010 Certified EIR was certified, CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan to achieve the GHG reduction targets of SB 32 and AB 1279.

The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require local jurisdictions to adopt its policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emiss ions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies from the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. So local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standards and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards.

Development projects accommodated under the Proposed Project are required to adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by state, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32 and SB 32. Future development projects would be required to comply with these state GHG reduction measures because they are statewide strategies. For example, new buildings associated with land uses accommodated by implementing the Proposed Project would be required to meet the CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for building permits.

Furthermore, policies of the Proposed Project would help reduce GHG emissions, including:
 Policy HC-2 .1: Create an integrated system of bike, trail, and pedestrian routes that connect neighborhoods, corridors, recreation, and other major facilities.  Policy HC-5.3: Work with the Victor Valley Transit Authority to establish, maintain, and increase the frequency of transit routes to all areas of the community.  Policy LU-2.5: Permit density transfers and clustering as a means of achieving more efficient housing construction and providing areas of usable common open space, in addition to payment of development impact fees.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

 Policy LU-2.6: Require new development in areas planned for mixed use to incorporate high -quality and innovative design with walkable environments, human- scale, gathering spaces, and vibrant businesses that competitively attract consumers and consumer spending in the evolving retail sales and services market.
 Policy LU-6.1: Prioritize growth that furthers a regional balance of jobs and housing to reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase job opportunities and household income, and improve quality of life.  Policy LU -6.5: Promote the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), or other equivalent programs, in both private and public projects.

Impacts associated with the existing General Plan and Proposed Project are similar. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan, and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of the existing General Plan.

Hesperia Climate Action Plan
The Hesperia CAP includes measures to reduce GHG emissions in the City. Table 5, Consistency Analysis with the Hesperia Climate Action Plan, provides consistency analysis of the Proposed Project with the CAP strategies. The goals and policies in the Proposed Project would not obstruct the strategies in the CAP . Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the 2010 Certified EIR.

Table 5 Consistency Analysis with the Hesperia Climate Action Plan CAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
Strategy CAP-1. Reduce emissions from new development through the California Environmental Quality Act process.

Consistent. Development projects under the Proposed Project subject to the CEQA process would undergo project-specific review which would include the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions if necessary. The Proposed Project also includes policies that would be incorporated into future development projects reduce GHG emissions, as detailed above. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with this CAP Strategy.

Strategy CAP-2. Encourage mixed use development in new
development and redevelopment areas.

Consistent. The Proposed Project’s land use map designates mixed use areas within the City. Policy LU-2.6 in the proposed Land Use Element also encourages high quality, innovative design, and pedestrian accessibility for mixed use development. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with this CAP Strategy.

Strategy CAP-3. Increase transit use. Consistent. The Proposed Project includes policies in the Health and Safety Element that aim to increase transit use including Policy HC-5.3, which directs the City to work with VVTA to establish, maintain, and increase the frequency of transit routes to all areas of the community. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with this CAP Strategy.

Strategy CAP-4. Promote compact development by protecting open space and encouraging infill and redevelopment of underutilized parcels in urbanized areas.

Consistent. The proposed Land Use Element includes Policy LU-

2.5 which directs the City to permit density transfers and clustering as a means of achieving more efficient housing construction and providing areas of usable common open space, which would help to preserve existing open space and create new parks/common space.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 63
Table 5 Consistency Analysis with the Hesperia Climate Action Plan CAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with this CAP Strategy.

Strategy CAP-5. Provide pedestrian connections in new and existing development to improve pedestrian mobility and accessibility.

Consistent. The proposed Land Use Element includes policies that encourage the development of safer and more inviting pedestrian areas including Policy LU-3.3 which promotes the use of Main Street as a pedestrian corridor, Policy LU-3.4 which encourages commercial development to incorporate pedestrian pathways through landscaping, and Policy LU-3.7 which requires that delivery areas be separated from pedestrian areas to ensure pedestrian safety. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with this CAP Strategy.

Strategy CAP-6. Increase bicycle use through a safe and well- connected system of bicycle paths and end of trip facilities.

Not Applicable. The Proposed Project would not change the circulation pattern/system.

Strategy CAP-7. Use traffic calming measures to improve traffic flow, pedestrian orientation, and bicycle use.

Not Applicable. The Proposed Project would not change the circulation pattern/system.

Strategy CAP-8. Use parking facility designs and parking management to reduce vehicle trips.

Not Applicable. The Proposed Project would not change the circulation pattern/system.

Strategy CAP-9. Increase the use of energy conservation features and renewable sources of energy.

Consistent. Policy LU-6.5 in the proposed Land Use Element encourages the use of green building standards and LEED principles to promote energy efficiency in new buildings.

Compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code and/or LEED certification would require development to incorporate a number of energy efficiency measures including renewable energy generation through photovoltaic systems, if applicable.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with this CAP Strategy.

Strategy CAP-10. Reduce energy use from the transport and treatment of water.

Consistent. The proposed policies within the Proposed Project, do not directly address energy use from the transport and treatment of water, however, the proposed Health and Safety Element includes policies that aim to increase water conservation and ensure a sustainable water supply. These include Policy SF-6.1 which promotes water conservation measures for all development and Policy SF-6.2 which directs the City to work with regional water providers to implement water conservation measures. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with this CAP Strategy.

Strategy CAP-11. Improve the City’s recycling and source reduction programs to make continued progress in minimizing waste.

Consistent. The Proposed Project does not directly address waste diversion/reduction, however, development under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with state laws that require reductions of solid waste including the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act, AB 1327, Model Ordinance for Recycling in Development Projects, and related regulations targeting waste reduction and diversion. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with this CAP Strategy.

Strategy CAP-12. Participate in regional programs and initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Consistent. While the Proposed Project includes policies that focus on City-wide efforts to reduce GHG emissions, it does not include any policies that directly address greater regional collaboration to reduce GHG emissions. The existing General Plan’s Conservation Element includes several policies that encourage coordination with regional entities to reduce emissions. These include Policy CN-8.1, to coordinate with the Regional Councils of Government in developing appropriate regional climate action policies; CN-8.2, to prepare and implement a city climate action plan in conjunction with

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

Table 5 Consistency Analysis with the Hesperia Climate Action Plan CAP Strategy Consistency Analysis
regional councils of government; and CN-8.3, to coordinate with neighboring cities and public jurisdictions in the preservation of air quality resources. The Conservation Element is not a part of this Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with this CAP Strategy.

Strategy CAP-13. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from City government operations.

Consistent. The Proposed Project includes Policy LU-6.5 which encourages use of green building standards for public projects. This would result in reductions to GHG emissions from government buildings. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with this CAP Strategy.

Strategy CAP-14. Improve the City’s adaptation to climate change effects.

Consistent. The proposed Health and Safety Element includes policies that aim to increase the City’s resilience to climate change hazards including flooding and wildfire (see policies under Goals SF-2 and SF-3). Goal SF-6 also includes specific measures for climate change adaptation including Policies SF-6.1 and SF-6.2 that target water conservation, in addition to Policy SF-6.3 to conduct regular public awareness campaigns on resilience initiatives, Policy SF-6.5, to develop and maintain an Extreme Heat Action Plan, and Policy SF-6.6, which promote the use of drought‐tolerant green infrastructure, including landscaped areas, as part of cooling strategies in public and private spaces, among others under Goal SF-6. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with this CAP Strategy.

Source: Hesperia 2010.

Sustainable Communities Strategy
Since the 2010 Certified EIR was certified, SCAG adopted the 2024- 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) in April 2024 to outline a path to achieve the GHG reduction targets of Senate Bill 375. Connect SoCal is Southern California’s reg ional transportation plan to achieve the passenger vehicle emissions reductions identified under SB 375. Connect SoCal’s “core vision” centers on maintaining and better managing the transportation network for moving people and goods while expanding mobility choices by locating housing, jobs, and transit closer together and increasing investment in transit and complete streets. Moreover, Connect SoCal identifies areas in the region that can house near -term and long-term growth and support a diverse economy and workforce.

As demonstrated in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning , the Proposed Project would be consistent with the Connect SoCal goals. The Proposed Project includes policies HC-2.1, HC-5.3, and LU-6.1 that would enhance alternative modes of transportation available in the City and reduce mobile-source emissions from new development to the extent feasible. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies in Connect SoCal, and no impact would occur. The Proposed Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 65
Summary
While the net change in buildout of the Proposed Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions when compared to the existing General Plan, development under the Proposed Project would continue to comply with the same regulations that it would under the existing General Plan, including the applicable measures from the City’s CAP . The Proposed Project would also adopt policies that align with the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan, 2024 Connect SoCal, and the City’s CAP , as discussed above.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the applicable plans and policies for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. Since the Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.8.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify any potentially significant related to GHG emissions, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2010 Certified EIR.

5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR
The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that compliance with requirements of local, state, and federal agencies such as the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division and the California Highway Patrol, as well as the General Plan policies would reduce impacts from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that spill of hazardous materials could occur, and that compliance with the California Fire Code (CFC), San Bernardino Fire County Fire Department, preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, and compliance with state and federal regulations, as well as implementation of the General Plan policies would reduce impacts from an accidental spill. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that impacts to schools proximate to hazardous sites would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the General Plan policies, which would ensure that hazardous materials are transported on certain roadways. If schools are adjacent to these roadways, an emergency response plan would be implemented. The 2010 Certified EIR lists 14 leaking underground fuel tank (LUFT) cases in Hesperia reported between 1988 and 2006. Of these, six sites have been remediated and closed, and eight cases were opened. One case (Hayward Lumber) reportedly impacted groundwater and Hesperia’s drinking water source, but the site has been remediated. The remaining cases only impacted surrounding soil.. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that impacts as a result of hazardous materials sites were less than significant.

The City is within the Hesperia Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP) and the existing General Plan was determined to be consistent with the provisions of the Hesperia ACLUP since it implemented three airport overlays within the City (Airport Safety Zone [AS], Airport Approach and Transitional Zone [AAT]; and Airport Notice Area [AN]). With the implementation of the General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that the existing General Plan would adhere to all applicable adopted emergency responses and evacuation plans and would not interfere with such plans. The 2010 Certified

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

EIR determined that the City is not within a fire threatened community, and with the implementation of the CBC, CFC, State laws, and the General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the 2010 Certified EIR indicated that every proposed project in the City would be reviewed by the San Bernardino County Fire Department for compliance with the most recent version of the CFC. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts.

5.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project
area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
X

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 67

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that the buildout of the existing General Plan could involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; however, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, as well as the implementation of the General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Future development under the Proposed Project would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials during construction and occupancy. During occupancy, potentially hazardous materials would be used for cleaning, maintenance, etc. As with the existing General Plan, the use of hazardous materials is regulated by federal and state regulations, and the Proposed General Plan policies, such as Policy SF-4.2 which calls for identifying roadways along which hazardous materials are routinely transported and maintaining these roadways to prevent vehicle accidents and the release of hazardous materials; Policy SF-4.4 which prohibits new facilities handling hazardous materials from being located within identified hazard zones or within 1,000 feet of existing land uses that could be negatively affected; and Policy SF -4.5 which prohibits new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of existing facilities involved in hazardous materials handling wi thin identified hazard zones . T he Proposed Project would not result in new or expanded sources of hazardous materials beyond what was evaluated 2010 Certified EIR.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that development consistent with General Plan could create a significant hazard to the public or environment through an upset and accident; however, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations as well as the General Plan policies would ensure that the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Future development under the Proposed Project would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials that could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. As with the existing General Plan, the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials is regulated by federal and state regulations which would reduce potential releases and exposure of hazardous materials . As with the existing General Plan, businesses under the Proposed Project would adhere to regulations of Hesperia’s Local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) by submitting a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to the CUPA. In addition, developments under the Proposed Project would also need to adhere to Health and Safety Code Section 25534 et seq. which directs facility owners storing or handling acutely hazardous materials in reportable quantities to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). Additionally, the Proposed Project includes Policy SF-4.2 which calls for identifying roadways along which hazardous materials are routinely transported and maintaining these roadways to prevent vehicle accidents and the release of hazardous materials; Policy SF -4.4 which prohibits

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

new facilities handling hazardous materials from being located within identified hazard zones or within 1,000 feet of existing land uses that could be negatively affected; and Policy SF-4.5 which prohibits new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of existing facilities involved in hazardous materials handling within identified hazard zones. The Proposed Project would not generate new hazardous materials use impacts nor conditions beyond what was evaluated 2010 Certified EIR.

As shown in Table 1, the Proposed Project reduces the non -residential development potential which could result in less opportunity for accidental release of hazardous materials. However, it is not possible to know the types of non-residential uses developed under the Proposed Project therefore any reduction in potential would be speculative. As such, the Proposed Project is considered to have no change in the potential to accidentally release hazardous materials beyond which was evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that the buildout of the existing General Plan could result in the increase in hazardous materials generators that would impact schools. However , the 2010 Certified EIR indicated that compliance with the General Plan policies would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

Construction and operation of development under the Proposed Project could utilize potentially hazardous materials within a one-quarter mile of existing or proposed schools. T he Proposed Project would include policies that would reduce impacts, such as Policy SF-4.2 which calls for identifying and maintaining roadways where hazardous materials are transported to prevent accidents and spills, and, if critical facilities like schools are located along these routes, require the preparation of emergency response plans to address potential hazardous material releases. In addition, Policy SF -5.10 states that if new essential public facilities, including schools, are located in hazard zones , then they must be design ed to minimize damage and ensure continued operation during and after hazards.

As with the existing General Plan , the use of hazardous materials is regulated by federal and state regulations and Proposed Project policies. With these regulations, permits, and codes in place, the Proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on the handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified hazardous material sites in and near Hesperia. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that one of the open sites that was leaking impacted groundwater, however, the site has undergone remediation. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that impacts would be less than significant.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 69
According to the Department of Toxic Substances and State Water Resources Control Board, there are 15 closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank ( LUST) cleanup sites and 15 investigation/school evaluation sites that do not require action in the Planning Area (DTSC 2024; SWRCB 2024). Development projects consistent with the Proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing hazardous materials, including investigation and remediation. The Proposed Project would include the following policies that would reduce impacts from hazardous materials such as Policy SF-4.3, which calls for reducing or eliminating the use of non-toxic alternatives to hazardous materials and encourages residents and businesses to reduce or eliminate hazardous material use, Policy SF -4.4 which prohibits new fac ilities handling hazardous materials within identified hazard zones or within 1,000 feet of existing land uses that may be adversely impacted, Policy SF -4.5 which prohibits new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of existing facilities involved in hazardous materials handling within identified hazard zones , and Policy SF -4.6 which prohibits new facilities using or storing hazardous materials in quantities that require State Toxics Release Inventory or Small Quantity Generators reporting from being located in natural hazard zones. e) The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 201 0 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on hazardous materials sites . For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that the Planning Area is situated within the Hesperia Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (HACLP) area. The 2010 Certified EIR stated that the existing General Plan was consistent with the provisions outlined in the HACLP , and that the implementation of applicable regulations as well as the General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

The Proposed Project would maintain and comply with the existing airport overlays which would ensure that the Proposed Project complies with the HACLP and applicable regulations. . Therefore, as with the existing General Plan, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on the safety hazards involving projects within an airport land -use plan or within two miles of an airport. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the existing General Plan would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, as development under the existing General Plan would be required to comply with the applicable

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

emergency response and evacuation plans . The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that impacts would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project would not result in changes to the circulation patterns nor emergency access routes.

Development under the Proposed Project would need to adhere to the adopted emergency response plan and emergency evacuation plan set by the San Bernardino County’s Office of Emergency Services (OES), the City of Hesperia’s OES, and the San Bernardino County Fire Department. The Proposed Project, as with the existing General Plan, would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Future development may be subjected to conditions of approval which would include review of ingress and egress points, as indicated in Section 16.12.120, Approval Requirements, of the City’s Municipal Code. In addition, as mentioned in Section 17.04.060, Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards, of the City’s Municipal Code, subdivision design shall provide for safe and ready access for fire and other emergency equipment and for routes of escape to safely handle evacuations . As with the existing General Plan , the Proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations and plans governing emergency response and evacuation; impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would also include Policy SF-3.9 which calls for coordinating with State and regional partners to ensure roadways in fire hazard severity zones meet current fire safety regulations; Policy SF-5.1 which requires that new development with 30 units or more in Fire Hazard Severity Zones to have two ingress and egress routes that account for existing and proposed traffic evacuation volumes at buildout; and Policy SF-5.2 which calls for coordinating with emergency responders and Caltrans to maintain potential evacuation routes to ensure adequate capacity, safety, and viability of those routes in the event of an emergency, including making improvements to existing roads to support safe evacuations as needed.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on interfering with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. f) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the City is not within a fire- threatened community. The 2010 Certified EIR stated that federal, state, and local requirements as well as the existing General Plan’s General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

California Department of Forestry and Forest Protection (CAL FIRE) designates the southern portion of the Planning Area within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) for State Responsibility Area and Local Responsibility Area (CAL FIRE 2024b). The Proposed Project would introduce new buildings and people into these areas. However, similar to the existing General Plan, the Proposed Project would also implement policies aimed at reducing wildfire impacts, such as Proposed General Plan Policy SF-3.3, which requires new developments in VHFHSZs to include site and planting plans, defensible space identification, multiple access points, adequate water infrastructure, Class A roof materials, water supply sources, and comprehensive fire

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 71
protection plans in permit applications. Additionally, Proposed General Plan Policy SF -3.5 requires development in a wildland-urban interface or VHFHSZ to implement and maintain vegetation management practices, including fire-safe site planning, home hardening, and the use of fire-resistant species, in accordance with State and San Bernardino County Fire Protection District regulations. In addition, future development would need to adhere to the most recent version of the CFC and CBC , as mentioned in the 2010 Certified EIR.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on exposing people or structures to a significant risk due to wildland fires.

5.9.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts upon implementation of regulatory requirements, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified.

5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that compliance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations would reduce impacts to water quality from construction and operational activities. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that the City acquires 100 percent of its water supply from local wells, and that development may require use of imported water to meet demands; the City’s Urban Water Management Plan estimated that sufficient groundwater supply exists to meet the maximum day demands through 2030. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that implementation of local and regional requirements, as well as water saving control measures, impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that the natural drainage pattern in the City has been significantly altered, and that further alteration to streams may require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, implementation of BMPs and the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would reduce impacts from erosion or siltation as a result of a change in drainage patterns. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that the population increase under the existing General Plan would result in an increase in impermeable cover and stormwater runoff which would impact water quality.

However, with the implementation of BMPs and the preparation of a WQMP , along with compliance with applicable State and federal regulations, impacts would be reduced.

The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that 100- year flood zones are present in the Mojave River, Antelope Valley Wash, Oro Grande Wash, and the Summit Valley area, and that there are dams and above ground water storage tanks in the City that would result in inundation. However, the General Plan policies would reduce impacts.

Additionally, given its location, the 2010 Certified EIR determined that the City is not subject to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows.

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

X
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site; X
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 73
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR identified that the construction and operation of development projects under the existing General Plan would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or substantially degrade water quality with compliance with federal, state , and local regulations and implementation of BMPs.

As with the existing General Plan, development in accordance with the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable regulations and programs during construction and operation such as Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit program , Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment Program , Clean Water Act (CWA), and Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. As with the existing General Plan, t he Proposed Project would be required to comply with federal and state regulations which would ensure that the future development would not violate water quality. As such, the Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan.

Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR noted that while the City sources all its water from local wells , future development may require use of imported water to meet future demands . However, the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projected that groundwater supply would be sufficient through 2030. The 2010 Certified EIR also concluded that local and regional water-saving measures would result in less than significant impacts on groundwater supplies. Therefore, the existing General Plan would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge and impacts were less than significant.

Development projects under the Proposed Project would increase the demand and consumption of water. The 2020 UWMP for Hesperia states that the Hesperia Water District has a reliable water supply available to service the area through 2045 (HWD 2021). Additionally, water-saving measures such as the Water Waste Prevention ordinances (Section 14.04.160, Unreasonable and Wasteful Water Use, and Section 14.04.170, Water Conservation and Water Shortage Plan, of the City’s Municipal Code), advanced metering infrastructure, conservation pricing, and public education outreach, would result in less than significant impacts on groundwater supplies. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially impede groundwater recharge.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

conclusions on substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering substantially with groundwater recharge such that sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be impeded. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR noted that the City’s natural drainage patterns have been significantly altered and that further stream changes may require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The 2010 Certified EIR also stated that implementing BMPs and preparing a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would help reduce erosion and siltation impacts from these drainage changes.

As with the existing General Plan, development under the Proposed Project would be required to implement a WQMP and BMPs during construction and implement stormwater provisions (such as LID design, BMPs, and possibly onsite retention basins) during operation, which would minimize increases in peak flow rates or runoff volumes. All new development or significant redevelopment project applicants would also be required to prepare a WQMP for submittal to the City of Hesperia’s Department of Public Works that describes the BMPs and site design measures that would be implemented to minimize storm runoff from the sites.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that significant alterations to the City’s natural drainage patterns and additional changes to streams may need a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The 2010 Certified EIR also highlighted that implementing BMPs would reduce flood impacts.

As with future development under the existing General Plan, future development under the Proposed Project would require approval from the US Army Corps of Engineers or Lahontan RWQCB for drainage changes.

The Proposed Project, like the existing General Plan , must implement BMPs during construction and stormwater provisions during operation to control peak flow rates and runoff volumes. Projects within the 100-year floodplain must adhere to the Federal Emergency Management Act ( FEMA)-approved floodplain management requirements.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 75
greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on the increase of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding. iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that the population increase from the existing General Plan would lead to more impermeable surfaces and stormwater runoff, affecting water quality. However, the 2010 Certified EIR indicated that implementing BMPs, preparing a WQMP , and adhering to s tate and federal regulations would reduce these impacts.

As with the existing General Plan , development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be required to complete drainage and hydrology analyses to ensure that on - and off-site drainage facilities can accommodate increased stormwater flows. Development pursuant to the Proposed Project would also be required to implement BMPs during construction and implement stormwater provisions (such as LID design, BMPs, and possibly onsite retention basins) during operation which would minimize increases in peak flow rates or runoff volumes and promote stormwater quality . All project applicants of new development or significant redevelopment would also be required to prepare a WQMP for submittal to the City of Hesperia’s Department of Public Works that describes the BMPs and site design measures that would be implemented to minimize storm runoff from the sites. Development projects are required to comply with NPDES permit and MS4 permit discharge requirements.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on creating or contributing runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that FEMA identified 100-year flood zones in areas including the Mojave River, Antelope Valley Wash, Oro Grande Wash, and the Summit Valley area, which affect existing structures and roads like I Avenue and Rock Springs Road. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that development within these flood zones could alter flood flows and increase risk to downstream structures. However, the 2010 Certified EIR determined that the City addresses these risks by participating in the National Flood Insurance Program and working with state -approved flood engineers and FEMA to update flood maps and assess potential impacts from new developments.

As with the existing General Plan, development projects under the Proposed Project that are within floodplains would be required to comply with federal regulations and policies outlined in the Proposed General Plan. For example, Proposed General Plan Policy SF-2.1 requires State-certified hydrological studies for projects in the 100-year or 500 -year floodplains to assess and mitigate impacts on flooding potential, with exemptions for single-family residences unless located on infill lots with natural drainage courses or master planned drainage

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

areas; Policy SF-2.5 encourages new development and existing property owners to slow or absorb floodwaters, including through installation of permeable pavements and green infrastructure; and Policy SF-5.10 states that if new essential public and critical facilities should be in flood hazard zones then they must be designed to minimize flood damages.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on impeding or redirecting flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that the City of Hesperia is not located within an area subject to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. The 2010 Certified EIR incorporated policies to reduce impacts regarding dam inundation areas. Impacts were would to be less than significant.

Similar to the existing General Plan , the Proposed Project would not be within an area subject to seiche s, tsunamis, or m udflows. The Proposed General Plan Policy SF-5.10 states that if new essential facilities are located in dam inundation zones then they need to be designed to minimize damage and maintain functionality, and require disaster response and evacuation plans for all facilities in these zones.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on inundation by flooding, seiches, mudflows, and tsunamis. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR did not analyze impacts associated with the obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Hesperia is part of the Mojave Basin Area, which is subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014. SGMA requires that groundwater basins in California be managed sustainably. Local agencies in the Mojave River Groundwater Basin Area, including the Hesperia Water District and other stakeholders, have prepared UWMPs that are consistent with Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for their respective areas. However, the City of Hesperia is not under a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (DWR 2024).

The Lahontan RWQCB is responsible for the Basin Plan that covers this portion of San Bernardino County including the Planning Area. The RWQCB implements management plans to modify and adopt standards under provisions outlined in Section 303(c) of the Federal CWA and California Water Code (Division 7, Section 13240). Under Section 303(d) of the 1972 CWA, the State is required to develop a list of waters with segments that do not meet water quality standards. Future development under the Proposed Project would be required

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 77
to adhere to these regulations . These requirements would ensure that future development does not adversely impact surface and groundwater.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on conflicting with or obstructing the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

5.10.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant hydrology and water quality impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified.

5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR concluded that the existing General Plan would not divide an established community and would not conflict with applicable plans , policies, or regulations. The existing General Plan incorporated the goals and policies of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

5.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Condition 1:

Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 2:

Substantial
Change in
Circum-
stances
Requiring
Major
Revisions
Condition 3:

New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
X

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis

a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that the existing General Plan would involve the development along the I- 15 Freeway corridor and Main Street, and merging the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map into a single map that contains the same designation and zoning for each parcel, eliminating inconsistencies between land use and zoning. The 2010 Certified EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project w ould increase the maximum density from 15 dwelling units to 30 dwelling units per acre in the R3 Multiple Family Residence zone, allow residential development in the C2 General Commercial zone, increase the maximum density from 25 dwelling units to 30 dwelling units per acre in the RC Regional Commercial zone. The Proposed Project’s land use/zoning changes would not physically divide communities but rather increase residential uses within residential and commercial zones. In addition, t he Proposed Project would not include major changes to the City’s roadway network that could physically divide an established community. The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan. Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on physically dividing an established community. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The 2010 Certified EIR states that the General Plan is a comprehensive long -range document that outlines future growth and land use patterns and changes to these patterns may conflict with other existing land use plans . However, the existing General Plan included goals and policies that were designed to be consistent with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals.

Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Although the Proposed Project would result in more housing units and people compared to the existing General Plan’s 2050 buildout capacity, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the SCAG overarching goals since the Proposed Project would include policies and goals that support these goals. Every four years, SCAG updates the RTP/SCS as required by federal and state regulations (SCAG 2024 a). Therefore, the SCAG RTP/SCS analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR is different from the current SCAG RTP/SCS. However, the 2010 Certified EIR focuses on SCAG’s overarching principles such as improving mobility for all residents; fostering livability in all communities; enabling prosperity for all people; promoting sustainability for future residents.

SCAG’s latest SCAG RTP/SCS lists the following overarching goals: b uild and maintain an integrated multimodal transportation network ; develop, connect, and sustain communities that are livable and thrivin g; create a healthy region for the people of today and tomorrow; and s upport a sustainable, efficient and productive regional economic environment that provides opportunities for all residents (SCAG 2024b ). The Proposed Project would not conflict with any of these principles outlined by SCAG. The Proposed Project would include policies and goals that would support these principles such as:

CITY OF HESPERIA FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADDENDUM

CITY OF HESPERIA

5. Environmental Analysis
July 2025 Page 79
 Policy LU-1.1: Maintain a balanced mix of high quality residential, retail, employment, industrial, open space, and public facility land uses to ensure a range of lifestyle options and convenient access to shops, restaurants, services, and well-paid jobs.
 Policy LU-6.1: Prioritize growth that furthers a regional balance of jobs and housing to reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase job opportunities and household income, and improve quality of life.

These policies aim to create a balanced community by promoting diverse land uses, enhancing multi -modal transportation, reducing vehicle miles traveled, aligning job growth with housing availability, and ensuring that new developments fairly contribute to necessary transportation improvements.

The Proposed Project would not include new or substantially greater significant impacts than those analyzed in the 2010 Certified EIR for the existing General Plan . Because the Proposed Project does not change the development pattern or areas evaluated in the 2010 Certified EIR, there would be no new or substantially greater significant impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no impact on the 2010 Certified EIR conclusions on conflicting with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

5.11.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
The 2010 Certified EIR did not identify significant land use and planning impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified.

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR The 2010 Certified EIR indicated that the City of Hesperia does not have any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region, and therefore, no impacts to known mineral resources of statewide importance would occur as a result of the existing General Plan.

5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project: