Hesperia City Council
May 5, 2026

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025 Figure 4.4-3

CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES PLANT SPECIES AND HABITATS

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/ Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025 Figure 4.4-4

CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES WILDLIFE SPECIES

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
General Wildlife Surveys Results and Discussion
Due to frequent disturbances within the BSA, including regular vegetation clearance, frequent traffic noise, and human activity levels, it is not likely that a diverse array of special -status species would establish in or utilize the BSA. It is unlikely that raptors would build nests within the BSA. The BSA lacks dense stands of trees with contiguous canopies to provide good cover for raptor nests.

No listed wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the biological surveys. The results of the literature review and field surveys concluded that the following sensitive wildlife species have a low potential to occur within the BSA: quino checkerspot butterfly , Crotch’s bumble bee, Mohave ground squirrel, and desert tortoise. All of the listed wildlife species in the wildlife inventory were determined to have no more than a low potential to occur. Therefore, no direct impacts to listed endangered, threatened, or candidate wildlife are anticipated as a result of construction of the project.

No special-status wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the biological surveys. The results of the literature review and field surveys concluded that the following sensitive wildlife species have low potential to occur within the BSA : desert kit fox, prairie falcon, Blainville’s horned lizard, Swainson’s hawk, and Cooper’s hawk. See Appendix C2, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination for further discussion of these species.

Special-status species may occur on the project site for occasional foraging activities or as flyovers, but were not observed during surveys and do not appear to reside permanently within the BSA. The project site is surrounded by open space and some commercial buildings. Noise, traffic, and other human disturbances associated with the presence of the commercial buildings in the vicinity may deter many special-status wildlife species from utilizing the BSA. In addition, there is evidence that the project si te and other disturbed areas in the BSA frequently undergo vegetation removal or grading, which would likely deter fossorial and ground -nesting birds from utilizing the project site for nesting.

However, the BSA contains trees, shrubs, and other physical features that could potentially provide foraging, nesting, and cover habitats to support some bird species (year -round residents, seasonal residents, and migrants). A majority of the birds observe d during the field could potentially breed within the BSA; these are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and § 3503, § 3503.5, and § 3513 FGC. Refer to the recommended mitigation measures below, which would reduce potential project impacts to the biological resources discussed herein.

General Plant Surveys Results and Discussion
As previously discussed, one special-status plant species, western Joshua tree, was observed during the field survey . Six living individuals were observed, along with numerous stumps. An additional Joshua tree, which appeared to have been living prior to grading as indicated by a single trunk with live (green) leaves observed in the soil pile pushed up by the grading, was also observed. Joshua tree is a state candidate for listing as a threatened species (CNDDB, 2022b ). It is anticipated that the project will directly impact western Joshua tree. Therefore, mitigation is required. Implementation of measure BIO-1 will reduce impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS, to a less than significant level.

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Due to frequent disturbances within the BSA, including grading, frequent traffic noise, and human activity levels, it is not likely that a diverse array of special-status species would establish in or utilize the BSA. It is unlikely that raptors would buil d nests within the BSA. The BSA lacks dense stands of trees with contiguous canopies to provide good cover for raptor nests. In addition, the BSA only offers minimal habitat value for fossorial species such as and Mohave ground squirrel.

Sensitive wildlife could potentially be impacted by construction and project development, and mitigation is recommended. Implementing the recommended mitigation measures BIO-2 through BIO-5 will help to minimize or avoid impacts to sensitive wildlife that could potentially occur within the BSA.

Several mitigation measures would be implemented in order to minimize and avoid impacts to loggerhead shrike, burrowing owl, and other special -status wildlife species that could potentially occur on the project site. Mitigation measure BIO-1 involves acquisition of a § 2081 FGC Incidental Take Permit. Mitigation measure BIO-2 provides for the instatement of focused burrowing owl surveys and protection measures. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 provides for the instatement of a pre -construction general wildlife survey. Mitigation measure BIO-4 provides for a loggerhead shrike survey and protection measures, and BIO-5 provides for a pre -construction breeding bird survey. All recommended surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. With the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-2 through BIO-5, the impacts of construction and project operations to sensitive wildlife would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: §2081 FGC Incidental Take Permit
Western Joshua trees are a state candidate for listing under CESA and will require a § 2081 FGC Incidental Take Permit (ITP) with compensatory mitigation for impacts, in addition to the surveys that are recommended in the discussion of MM BIO-6. The exceptions and permitting process under the California Desert Native Plants Act and the separate exceptions under the Native Plant Protection Act will not apply to western Joshua tree in any manner. For projects where take is incidental to carrying out an otherwise lawful activity, an ITP may be obtained from CDFW.

MM BIO-2: Focused Burrowing Owl Survey
Although BUOW was not observed on site during the general wildlife survey, the BSA contains suitable habitat to potentially support BUOW in the future. A qualified biologist would conduct a focused BUOW survey in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012).

Following the completion of the survey, the biologist would prepare a letter report summarizing the results of the survey. The report would be submitted to the City prior to initiating any ground disturbance activities.

If no BUOWs or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey and concurrence is received from Environmental Management Division of the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works (County EMD) and CDFW, project activities may begin and no further mitigation would be required.

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
If BUOW or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey, the site would be considered occupied. The biologist would implement mitigation measure BIO-2 and contact the City of Hesperia, EMD, and CDFW to assist in the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, prior to commencing project activities. The list of potential measures to avoid and minimize impacts to BUOWs described below would be implemented.

BUOW Protection Measures
If BUOWs or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey, then the site would be considered occupied and the biologist shall contact the City, EMD, and CDFW to assist in the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures discussed below, prior to commencing project activities.). If no BUOW or signs of BUOW are observed during the focused surveys, the components of this measure (discussed below) would not be applicable.

Planning BUOW Protection
Grading, construction, and other project activities on all grassland habitat will be delayed until the qualified biologist has implemented burrow exclusion and closure.

No ground-disturbing activities within 165 feet of an active BUOW burrow will be permitted until burrow exclusion and closure have been implemented. No destruction of foraging habitat will be permitted until burrow exclusion and closure have been implemented.

Preconstruction BUOW Protection
Prior to the initiation of grading and construction activities, the biologist shall implement passive relocation of an active BUOW burrow by installing a one-way door and then permanently excluding the BUOW from returning once it is confirmed that no BUOW individuals remain in the burrow. A biological monitor will visit the site daily to verify that the burrow is empty by monitoring and scoping the burrow.

Construction BUOW Protection Measures
A biological monitor will be onsite to monitor any BUOW or signs of BUOW. If any BUOW are observed then the biologist will consult with the County E MD and CDFW to determine the appropriate measures.

MM BIO-3: Pre-Construction General Wildlife Survey
Special-status wildlife species that have no designated status under the ESA, the CESA, and/or the NPPA, but are designated as sensitive or locally important by federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies such as the RCA, and nonprofit resource organizations such as the CNPS are referred to as sensitive in this section. The following measures will be implemented to minimize impacts to these species which include but are not limited to: Blainville’s horned lizard and desert kit fox. The measures below w ill help to reduce direct and indirect impacts caused by construction on various sensitive species to less than significant levels.

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
• A qualified biologist will conduct a pre -construction general wildlife survey for sensitive wildlife and potential nesting sites such as open ground, shrubs, and burrows within the limits of project disturbance. The survey will be conducted at least seven days prior to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. It will end no more than three days prior to vegetation, substrate, and structure removal and/or disturbance.
• If sensitive species and/or active nesting sites are observed during the pre - construction survey or they are observed and will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation will be required.
• If any sensitive wildlife species are observed within the project site during the pre - construction survey, the biologist will immediately map the area and notify the appropriate resource agency to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the area only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency. zone. • Sensitive wildlife species and/or potential nesting sites will not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved.

MM BIO-4: Loggerhead Shrike Survey and Protection Measures The following measures are proposed in order to minimize impacts to loggerhead shrike, for which there is suitable habitat in the BSA.
• If activities occur during the breeding/nesting period, a wildlife survey will be completed by a qualified biologist to identify potential loggerhead shrike activity in the area of the project activities.
• Additional species surveys to determine presence/absence of birds prior to disturbances, from May 1 until the work start date, if the work start date is prior to August 31. Surveys are to occur weekly in May, every other week in June, and once per month in July and August (assuming no loggerhead shrike are observed). • Incidental occurrences of other sensitive avian species such as Swainson’s hawk , prairie falcon, and Cooper’s hawk should also be recorded during the survey.

MM BIO-5: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Fish and Game Code, and to avoid impacts or take of migratory non -game breeding birds, their nests, young, and eggs, the following measures will be implemented. The measures below will help to reduce direct and indirect impacts caused by construction on migratory non-game breeding birds to less than significant levels.

Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites, such as open ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, or burrows, during the breeding season would be a potential significant impact if migratory non-game breeding birds are present. Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites will be scheduled outside the breeding bird

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-15 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
season to avoid potential direct impacts to migratory non-game breeding birds protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. The breeding bird nesting season is typically from February 15 through September 15, but can vary slightly from year to year, usually depending on weather conditions. Removing all physical features that could potentially serve as nest sites will also help to prevent birds from nesting within the project site during the breeding season and during construction activities. • If project activities cannot be avoided during February 15 through September 15, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre -construction breeding bird survey for breeding birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits of project disturbance. The survey will be conducted at least seven days prior to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. It will end no more than three days prior to vegetation, substrate, and structure removal and/or disturbance. • If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the pre -construction survey or they are observed and will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation will be required.
• If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during the pre-construction survey and will potentially be impacted, the site will be mapped on engineering drawings and a no activity buffer zone will be marked (fencing, stakes, flagging, orange snow fencing, etc.) a minimum of 100 feet in all directions or 500 feet in all directions for listed bird species and all raptors. The biologist will determine the appropriate buffer size based on the type of activ ities planned near the nest and the type of bird that created the nest. Some bird species are more tolerant than others of noise and activities occurring near their nest. This no -activity buffer zone will not be disturbed until a qualified biologist has de termined that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities. Periodic monitoring by a biologist will be performed to determine when nesting is complete. Once the nesting cycle has finished, project activities may begin within the buffer zone. • If listed bird species are observed within the project site during the pre -construction survey, the biologist will immediately map the area and notify the appropriate resource agency to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the area only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency.
• Birds or their active nests will not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved. Active nests cannot be removed or disturbed; however, nests can be removed or disturbed if determined inactive by a qualified biologist.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementing mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 would reduce to special -status plant and wildlife species to a less than significant degree. Several mitigation measures would be implemented in order to minimize and avoid impacts to loggerhead shrike, burrowing owl, and other special-status wildlife species that could potentially occur on the project site. Mitigation measure BIO-1 involves

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-16 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
acquisition of a § 2081 FGC Incidental Take Permit. Mitigation measure BIO-2 provides for the instatement of focused burrowing owl surveys and protection measures. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 provides for the instatement of a pre-construction general wildlife survey.

Mitigation measure BIO-4 provides for a loggerhead shrike survey and protection measures, and BIO-5 provides for a pre -construction breeding bird survey. All recommended surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. With t he implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, the impacts of construction and project operations to special-status plants and wildlife would be less than significant.
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 Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Land Cover Type Mapping
The project site is situated on relatively level ground; no ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams or rivers were identified in the literature review or observed during the biological survey.

The BSA does not support riparian habitat. There was one land cover type observed within the project site and three altogether within the BSA. The project site is covered by disturbed California juniper woodland, which is considered a sensitive plant community on the CDFW California Natural Community List (CDFW, 2022a). Direct impacts to this sensitive plant community are anticipated as a result of project development. Therefore, mitigation is required. Please refer to mitigation measure BIO-6 in Section 4.4(e), Native Desert Vegetation Survey and Protected Plant Preservation Plan . A native desert vegetation survey must be conducted to produce findings that will guide the formation of this plan. The survey objective is to evaluate the health and general condition of the western Joshua trees and creosote bush present on the project si te. A project -specific plan will provide further guidance regarding the transplant and/or preservation of the western Joshua trees and protection for creosote rings and other native vegetation, per § 16.24.150 of City Municipal Code (see Section

4.4[e]).

Direct impacts to sensitive plant communities are anticipated as a result of construction of the project, and therefore mitigation is proposed. The land covers mapped in the BSA are described below.

Disturbed California Juniper Woodlands
The entire project area (approximately 19 acres) was mapped as disturbed California juniper woodlands. Approximately 56.1 acres of disturbed California juniper woodlands was mapped within the BSA, including areas off the project site. California juniper woodland community occurs on ridges, slopes, valleys, alluvial fans, and valley bottoms in soils that are porous, rocky, coarse, sandy, or silty, and often very shallow (Sawyer et al., 2009; CNPS, 2022b). The proje ct site appears to have been a former California juniper woodland that has been mostly cleared from the site. Natural vegetation remaining on the project site in this community includes one large California juniper shrub and several western Joshua trees. A recent grubbing of the site, likely conduct ed within a month prior to the biological reconnaissance survey, removed several western Joshua trees, as evidenced by stumps in the ground and numerous branches and other Joshua tree parts distributed on the ground surface.

Less disturbed examples of Cali fornia juniper woodland community are distributed in the project vicinity, including off-site portions of the BSA. Other native shrub species observed in this community

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-17 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
in off -site locations include peach thorn ( Lycium cooperi ), Great Basin sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata), Nevada ephedra ( Ephedra nevadensis ), rubber rabbitbrush ( Ericameria nauseosa ), California buckwheat ( Eriogonum fasciculatum ), and California broomsage ( Lepidospartum squamatum). The distribution of this community within the BSA is depicted in Appendix C2, Figure 6 Land Cover Types.

Developed
Approximately 24.3 acres of developed land cover type was mapped within the BSA, including areas off the project site. No developed land cover type was mapped within the project boundary.

Developed areas include structures, roads, sidewalks, paving, and other impermeable surfaces that are associated with industrial development in the area and that can not support vegetation.

Developed areas in the BSA include commercial buildings south and west of the project site, segments of Poplar Street, the Mojave Freew ay (I-15), Three Flags Avenue, Mariposa Road, and Mesa Linda Street (see Appendix C2, Figure 6 Land Cover Types).

Disturbed
Approximately five acres of disturbed land cover type was mapped within the BSA, including areas off the project site. No disturbed land cover was mapped within the project boundary. Disturbed lands consist of exposed soils that have undergone some type of disturbance such as compaction by vehicle traffic, mowing, disking, excavation or other type of alteration of the soil surface. These lands often consist of ruderal vegetation dominated by non -native, weedy species. An extensive area of disturbed lands is located in the western portion of the project site and in other, smaller areas on the project site and within the BSA on adjacent lands. The larger disturbed area is bare ground that has been used as a parking area for a long period. Other disturbed lands on the project si te and within the BSA include dirt trails and unpaved road shoulders. These areas are mostly bare but include sparsely distributed weedy vegetation that includes red brome (Bromus rubens) and prickly Russian thistle (Kali tragus). The distribution of disturbed lands within the BSA is depicted in Appendix C2, Figure 6 Land Cover Types.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM BIO-6 above in Threshold 4.4e), which addresses mitigation for impacts to disturbed California juniper woodlands. This mitigation measure involved the creation of a Native Desert Vegetation Survey and Protected Plant Preservation Plan . See the discussion in Threshold 4.4e ) for more information.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation of MM BIO-6, which is discussed later in this section in Threshold e), impacts to sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-18 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
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 project site is situated on relatively level ground, and no ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams or rivers were identified in the literature review or observed during the biological survey.

Vegetation within the BSA primarily consists of non-native annual grasses and forbs.

An NWI -mapped riverine wetland is located approximately 0.65 west of the project site (USFWS, 2022c). Drainages, depressions, and other topographic features that would be conducive to wetlands formation were not observed within the BSA. Runoff from the pro ject site travels to the southwest, joining this riverine area, however the project proponent has prepared a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which is designed to retain stormwater generated onsite (Allard Engineering, 2022a; see Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality).

A desktop study for wetlands and other waters of the U.S. or State determined that the project site does not contain drainages with a definable bed, bank, channel, or evidence of an ordinary high-water mark. Neither wetland hydrology, wetland soils, nor we tland plants were observed during the field surveys. It was determined that state or federal protected wetlands and other waters do not occur on the project site. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required.

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-19 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
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 nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact
The BSA does not contain CDFW Natural Landscape Blocks, Essential Connectivity Areas, or other CDFW-mapped wildlife corridors. The nearest CDFW -mapped wildlife corridor to the project site is Choke-point, 395 South of Ridgecrest. This linkage is located ap proximately 1.2 miles south of the project site (CDFW, 2022c). The areas adjacent to the project to the south and west are developed with structures intended for commercial use. Although the project area and its surroundings contain undeveloped areas that could function as a local wildlife movement corridor, t he proposed project will be constructed in an area that would not result in significant new habitat fragmentation, and would not significantly impede the passage of wildlife because there will still be available local movement corridors in the vicinity after construction of the project, t herefore resulting in less than significant impact.

Construction and operation of the proposed project would not significantly interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Less than significant impact would occur, and mitigation is not proposed.

Impacts to native wildlife nursery sites are not anticipated as a result of the project. There were no observations during the biological survey that indicate native species give birth and raise young within the BSA. No impact to native wildlife nursery sites is anticipated as a result of the project, and no mitigation is proposed.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The following native desert plants are subject to the regulations implemented in Chapter 16.24 of the City Municipal Code, as per § 16.24.150:

1. “The following desert native plants with stems two inches or greater in diameter or six feet or greater in height:
(a)Dalea, Spinosa (smoketree)
(b) All species of the family Agavaceae (century plants, nolinas, yuccas) (c) All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites).

2. Creosote rings, ten feet or greater in diameter.

3. All Joshua trees (mature and immature).”
The project site contains approximately 20 to 30 western Joshua trees, a species that qualifies for protection under Article II, § 16.24.150, which also provides that “all plants protected or regulated by the State Desert Native Plants Act (i.e., Food and Agricultural Code 80001 et seq.) shall be required to comply with the provisions of those statues prior to the issuance of any county development permit or land use application approval. The county agricultural commissioner is the responsible agency for th e issuance of any required wood tags, seals or permits ” (City of Hesperia; 1997). A qualified City - approved biologist or arborist should be retained to conduct any future relocation/transplanting activities and should follow the protocol of the City’s Municipal Code. As provided in § 16.24.120 of

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-20 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
City Municipal Code, “any person who willfully removes, or harvests or transplants a living desert native plant shall first obtain approval from the county to do so in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sections 16.24.040 or 16.24.110 et seq .” (City of Hesperia, 1997). The City of Hesperia considers all western Joshua trees as one of the protected vegetation types.

To mitigate for the impacts to the protected native desert vegetation on the project site, the project proponent will implement mitigation measure BIO-6 which proposes that a native desert vegetation survey is conducted to aid in the creation of a Preservation Plan as required by the City. After implementation of BIO-6, which is further discussed below, impacts to protected native desert vegetation would be reduced to a less than significant degree.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-6: Native Desert Vegetation Survey and Protected Plant Preservation Plan A Preservation Plan will be prepared and submitted to the City, which is required by City Municipal Code. A native desert vegetation survey must be conducted to produce findings that will guide the formation of this plan. The survey objective is to evaluate the health and general condition of the western Joshua trees and creosote bush present on the project site. A project -specific plan will provide further guidance regarding the transplant and/or preservation of the western Joshua trees and protection for creosote rings “10 feet or greater in diameter” as per § 16.24.150 of City Municipal Code. Transplant suitability of the western Joshua trees will be determined by the results of the survey. This survey shall be conducted by a qualified City-approved biologist or arborist. The plan will incorporate survey data, identify and outline preconstruction survey methods for the native desert vegetation on the project site, describe preconstruction and construction -phase biological monitoring and transplant methods that are applicable, or outline any identified CDFW permit and Memorandum of Understanding requirements for active relocation, if either is necessary. The Plan should be referred to for a detailing of protective actions regarding the western Joshua trees on the project site.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementing measure BIO-6 would reduce impacts of removals of the protected native desert vegetation to a less than significant degree.
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 project will not conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The project is not located in an area covered by conservation plans such as those listed above. The plant protections implemented by City’s Municipal Code are discussed in the previous Section e).

Therefore, there would be no impacts.

❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.5-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to in § 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 formal
cemeteries?
X
Information from UltraSystems’ Cultural Resources Inventory Report, (see Appendix D1), prepared for the Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse s Project, City of Hesperia, San Bernardino County , dated September 25, 2024 has been included within this section.

4.5.1 Methodology
A cultural resources inventory was conducted by Megan B. Doukakis, Assistant Project Archaeologist, on October 4, 2022 for the Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse s Project site ( see Figure 4.5-1). The inventory includes a California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records and literature search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. Additionally, a request was made to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to conduct a search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for potential traditional cultural properties as well as to provide a list of local Native American tribal organizations to contact. The NAHC request was made on August 17, 2022, and a reply was received on October 7, 2022; letters were sent to the listed tribes on October 11, 2022 and follow-up telephone calls were conducted following conclusion of the two-week response period on October 2 5, 2022. A pedestrian field survey of the project site was conducted on August 31, 2022.

4.5.2 Existing Conditions
As noted, a cultural resources records search was conducted at the SCCIC on October 4, 2022. One prehistoric and one historic cultural resource sites were listed for the project parcel. Two prior surveys included the project parcel, one with positive results for a prehistoric isolate, and six other surveys were conducted within the one -half mile buffer of the project parcel (see Section 4.1 and Tables 4.1-1 and Table 4.1-2 in Appendix D1). The pedestrian field survey undertaken for this project noted the presence of an historic trash scatter (see Section 4.3 in Appendix D1) but was negative for prehistoric resources.

❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.5-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.5-1

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.5-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
No Impact
A historical resource is defined in § 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing high artistic values. Resources listed in or determined eligible for the California Register, included in a local register, or identified as significant in a historic resource survey are also considered as historical resources under CEQA.

Similarly, the National Register criteria (contained in Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 § 60.4) are used to evaluate resources when complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Specifically, the National Register criteria state that eligible resources comprise districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that p ossess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that (a) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that possess high artis tic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory.

A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, as a result of a project or development, is considered a significant impact on the environment. Substantial adverse change is defined as physical demolition, relocation, or alteration of a resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Direct impacts are those that cause substantial adverse physical change to a historic property. Indirect impacts are those that cause substantial adverse change to the immediate surroundings of a historic property, such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.

The two archaeological sites located in the project boundary consisted of a single prehistoric isolate and an historic homestead. An historic homestead (36 -010288) covered approximately a quarter section of land that includes the current project parcel (Alexandrowicz 2000; McKenna. 2015). This 160-acre area was homesteaded by John E. Dufton in 1892. Structural debris and historic refuse scatters were present during the 2000 and 2005 surveys but no structural remains from the homestead were identified. No historic features were identified within the project boundary, and none were observed during the current project survey.

With the found historic trash scatter not meeting criteria to qualify as a significant historic resource, there would be no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5, and therefore the project would have no impact in this regard.

❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.5-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated An archaeological resource is defined in § 15064.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines as a site, area or place determined to be historically significant as defined in § 15064(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or as a unique archaeological resource defined in § 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code as an artifact, object or site that contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions of public interest or that has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best example of its type , or that is directly associated with a scientifically -recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Historical USGS topo maps and aerial photos indicate that the project site has always been open desert land, indicating it has been minimally disturbed, with the native surface soil remaining.

There has been some shallow grading to bu ild berms around the boundary and some discing. The cultural resources investigation conducted by UltraSystems, which included a CHRIS records search of the project site and buffer zone, a search of the SLF by the NAHC, and pedestrian field survey, suggests there is a medium p otential for undisturbed unique archeological resources exist on the project site.

Based on the SCCIC cultural resources records search, it was determined that there is one prehistoric resource consisting of an isolate obsidian nodule, and one historic cultural resource consisting of an 1890s homestead but with no features located within the project parcel itself, previously recorded within the project site boundary. Within the half -mile buffer zone, there have been ten recorded historic period resources. Table 4.1-1 in Appendix D 1 summarizes these resources. The ten historic-era resources break down to three dirt roads and seven refuse deposits.

According to the records at the SCCIC, there have been eight previous cultural resource studies within portions of the 0.5 -mile buffer of the project (See Attachment D and Table 4.1 -2 in Appendix D 1). Two of these studies are located within the project boundary and six of these studies are located outside of the project boundary but in the half-mile buffer zone.

The entire project area was surveyed by McKenna in 1991 (SB -02476) for a Phase I Linear Survey for the Hesperia Improvement District (McKenna 1991). This project indicated that the far east margin of the project boundary may be sensitive for cultural resou rces. In the southwest corner of the project boundary a Cultural Resources Assessment (SB -04036) took place on 1.44 acres for a proposed office building construction (Cerreto 2004). This survey was positive for an isolated flaked pyroclastic nodule of obsidian (36-020263).

A NAHC SLF search was conducted on and within a half -mile buffer around the project site. The NAHC letter of October 7, 2022 was negative for the presence of a traditional cultural property within this area. Twenty representatives of 14 Native American tribes were contacted requesting a reply if they have knowledge of cultural resources in the area that they wished to share and asking if they had any questions or concerns regarding the project. These tribes included:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
• Chemehuevi Indian Tribe
• Gabrielino – Tongva Tribe
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• San Fernando Band of Mission Indians

❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.5-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
• Gabrielino Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation
• Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
• Gabrielino / Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians

There have been five responses to the outreach contacts from the 1 5 tribes. On October 12, 2022, Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians indicated through email the project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area and that they are deferring any comments to closer tribes. Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer for the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation responded though email on October 12, 2022, indicating that the tribe does not wish to comment on this project and defers to more local tribes. Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resources Analyst for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians indicated through email on October 18, 2022 that the proposed project is located 0.4 miles south of two known prehistoric privy/scatter sites and 0.6 miles northeast from a lithic scatter and hearth site. The area is of concern to the tribe and the Band’s cultural resources department is interested to consult whenever this project moves into AB 52/CEQA territory. During a telephone call October 25, 2022, Chairperson Anthony Morales, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians indicated that he did not have much information about the project area. But due to the resources present Mr.

Morales would like to be in formed of any artifacts that are encountered. Christina Conley, Tribal Consultant and Administrator for the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council indicated that the tribe does not have any comment as it is outside of their tribal area. They defer to sister tribes. (See Attachment C in Appendix D1.)
Following up on the initial letter and email contacts, telephone calls were conducted on October 25, 2022, by Assistant Project Archaeologist Megan Doukakis to complete the outreach process. These calls were to the 1 4 tribal contacts who had not already responded to UEI mailing and email. Seven telephone calls were placed with no answer and so messages were left describing the project and requesting a response. These were to Chairperson Sandonne Goad, Chairperson of the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Councilme mber Charles Alvarez, for the Gabrielino Tongva Tribe; Ann Brierty, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Robert Martin, Chairperson for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Donna Yocum, Chairperson for the San Fernando Band of Mission Indians; Wayne Walker, Co -Chairperson for the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians; Anthony Madrigal, Historic Preservation Officer for the Twenty -Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. In a call to Andrew Salas, Chairperson for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, there was no answer, and the mailbox was full so no message could be left. In a call to Sierra Pencille, Chairperson of the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, the tribal receptionist asked that we leave a message for the Chairperson and a message was left. In a call to Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair of the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, the tribal receptionist answered and indicated that Tribal Chair Redner was not in the office and transferred our call to the Chair’s voi cemail where a message was left. In a call to Mark Cochrane, Co -Chairperson of the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians, the phone number was out of service. In a call to Darrell Mike, Chairperson for the Twenty- Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, the tribal receptionist indicated that the Chairperson was not in so she sent us to his assistant’s phone; the assistant did not answer, and a message was left.

An intensive level pedestrian survey of the project site was conducted on August 31, 2022. The survey consisted of walking over, visually inspecting and photographing the exposed ground surface of the project site in parallel north/south transects spaced 15 meters apart across the

❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.5-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
project site. In this way the ground surface in the project area was carefully examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the historic (i.e., 50 years or older) or prehistoric periods.

The project site was seen to have been heavily disturbed by grubbing at some point between October 2020 and June 2022 , with most of the vegetation and a significant amount of soil being bulldozed into a long berm along the southern portion of the parcel. The project area slopes downward gently towards the bottom of the valley and the Mojave River to the northeast. The vegetation was observed to c onsist mostly of thistle with a handful of Joshua trees and a juniper tree, as well as small grasses and brush. Ground visibility was very good (95 -100 percent) with thistle brush being the only obscuring factor.

During the survey, the ground surface within and adjacent to the project area was inspected for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic periods. During survey preparation, a dirt road was noted crossing the project area from north to south which first appears on USGS topographic maps as early as 1902, first appearing on a historical aerial photo in 1938 (NETR Online). During the current survey this road segment within the project area was found to have been obliterated during the aforementioned grubbing between 2020 and 2022.

An historical refuse scatter was noted in the eastern half of the project parcel. The refuse scatter consisted of cans, a tobacco tin, and fragments of historical glass. There were five metal containers consisting of meat and beverage cans and a tobacco tin. The historical glass consisted of approximately 15 bottle body fragments with a range of colors (opaque white, colorless, aqua, brown, sun-colored amethyst) along with an aqua bottle base fragment containing the text “DR W…” The coordinates, descript ions, and photos of this refuse scatter were recorded and a site record Update has been prepared for the site. This feature has been determined to be a component of the larger CA-SBR-10288H site, the John E. Dufton homestead (see Section 4.1.1 in Appendix D1). See the Continuation Sheet for CRM TECH 3937-1H in CONFIDENTIAL Attachment E of Appendix D1.

No further historic features or artifacts were observed, and no prehistoric features or artifacts were observed in the project area.

Two archaeological resources – one prehistoric and one historic – were identified in the CHRIS record literature search in the project site. These consist of a single worked nodule of obsidian (36- 020263) located in the north-central portion of the project parcel. The prehistoric isolate is a small isolated pyroclastic nodule of obsidian located near the west end of the project boundary (Cerreto and Cunningham 2004). There are two or three small blade -like flakes removed from the nodule indicating a bipolar reduction technique was used. No prehistoric cultural resources were observed during the current archaeological survey and the obsidian nodule was not relocated.

The historic resource consists of the John E. Dufton homestead (CA -SBR-10288H) which encompasses the project site and a large area to the north, though no features were recorded within the current project site itself. There are seven historic period refus e deposits and three historic period dirt roads located within the half-mile radius of the project area, several of which have since been lost due to grading and plowing. Historical maps indicate that the project site had been open land. The pedestrian survey located and recorded a light scatter of historic refuse in the eastern portion of the project parcel, which has been recorded as a component of CA -SBR-10288H. The cultural resources study’s findings based on the records search and pedestrian survey suggest that there is a medium potential for the presence of prehistoric cultural resources

❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.5-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians indicated they are aware of one prehistoric and two historic recorded sites in the vicinity of the project parcel. There was no further information regarding potential cultural resources or recommendations from triba l contacts (see Section 4.2 and Attachment C in Appendix D1).

The light refuse scatter observed in the eastern area of the project site does not warrant preservation. However, as a component of the larger Dufton homestead site there is the potential for further subsurface artifacts and features of this site to be present. A monitor should be present during grading and trenching in these areas to recover material from these potential deposits to better understand the nature of the use of this homestead possibly dating back to the 1890s.

Grading activities would cause new subsurface disturbance and may result in the unanticipated discovery of prehistoric and/or historic archeological resources.

While the project site as a whole appears to be disturbed only in the upper levels of soil with some grading to build the berms and some discing, it is not recommended that an archaeological monitor be present during ground-disturbing activities throughout the project site, but only as noted above.

However, if prehistoric and/or historic items are observed during subsurface activities, work should be stopped in that area and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be retained to assess the finding(s) and retrieve the material.

Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-1 If archaeological resources are discovered during construction activities, the contractor will halt construction activities in the immediate area of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) and notify the City of Hesperia. The project applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology who will be notified and afforded the necessary time to assess the find. Work on the other portions outside the buffer area may continue during this assessment period. The archaeologist will also be afforded the necessary time and resources to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). The qualified archaeologist will recommend the extent of archaeological monitoring necessary to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area. Any identified cultural resources shall be recor ded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A -L) form and filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center.

Construction activities may continue on other parts of the project site while evaluation and treatment of prehistoric archaeological resources takes place.

Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

MM CUL-2 If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The

❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.5-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 above, the project would result in less than significant impacts to archeological resources. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As previously discussed in Section 4.5.b) above, the project would be built on relatively undisturbed land that has only been superficially graded and is in open desert land . No human remains have been previously identified or recorded onsite.

The project proposes grading activities for the installation of infrastructure including water, sewer, and utility lines , and for construction of the proposed buildings . Grading would involve new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the unlikely event of an unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-2 would ensure that impacts related to the accidental discovery of human remains would be less than significant.

California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 specifies the procedures to follow during the unlikely discovery of human remains. CEQA § 15064.5 describes determining the significance of impacts on archeological and historical resources. California Public Reso urces Code § 5097.98 stipulates the notification process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants, disposition of human remains, and associated grave goods.

Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-3 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities and excavations associated with this project, all work will stop within a 100-foot radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino County Coroner will be notified pursuant to § 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code and that code enforced for the duration of the project. The Coroner will determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising archa eologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they will contact the NAHC. The NAHC will be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) will be responsible for the ultimate d isposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).

❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.5-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With adherence to applicable codes and regulations protecting cultural resources and with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-3 above, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to human remains.

❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.6-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.6 Energy
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
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
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact
According to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d), “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, s econdary impacts (such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretr ievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to identify any significant irreversible environmental effects of project implementation that cannot be avoided.

Both construction and operation of the project would lead to the consumption of limited, slowly renewable, and non-renewable resources, committing such resources to uses that future generations would be unable to reverse. The new development would require the commitment of resources that include (1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the project.

Construction Impact Analysis
The following forms of energy (units in parentheses) are anticipated to be expended during project construction:
• Diesel fuel for off-road equipment (gallons).
• Electricity to deliver water for use in dust control (kilowatt-hours [kWh]). • Motor vehicle fuel for worker commuting, materials delivery, and waste disposal (gallons).

❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.6-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Transportation Energy
Project construction would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of offroad construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction workers' travel to and from the project site, and delivery and haul truck trips hauling solid waste from and delivering building materials to the project site.

During project construction, trucks and construction equipment would be required to comply with the ARB's anti-idling regulations. ARB's In -Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets regulation would also apply (ARB, 2016). Vehicles driven to or from the project site (delivery trucks, construction employee vehicles, etc.) are subject to fuel efficiency standards established by the Federal Government.

Therefore, project construction activities regarding fuel use would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy.

Electricity
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the conveyance and treatment of water used for dust control and, on a limited basis, powering lights, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power.

Since electricity usage associated with lighting and construction equipment that utilizes electricity is not easily quantifiable, the estimated electricity usage during project construction is speculative.

Lighting used during project construction would comply with Title 24 standards/requirements (such as wattage limitations). This compliance would ensure that electricity use during project construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Lighting would be used in compliance with applicable City of Hesperia Municipal Code requirements to create enough light for safety.

Natural Gas
Construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a demand for natural gas during project construction.

Operational
Energy would be consumed during project operations related to space and water heating, water conveyance, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips of workers. Project operation energy usage, which was estimated by the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (CAPCOA, 2023) as part of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses (refer to Section 4.3), is shown in Table 4.6-

1.

❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.6-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.6-1

ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL ENERGY USE
Energy Type Units Value Per Capitaa
Onroad Motor
Vehicle Travel
(Fuel)b
Gallons gasoline/year 24,752 101
Gallons diesel/year 38,818 159
Electricity Use Kilowatt-hours per year 1,342,282 5,501 Natural Gas Use 1,000 BTU per year 3,153,900 12,926
a Based upon estimated employee population of 244, provided by the client. The per capita value for the onroad motor vehicle fuel consumption is calculated from the total fuel consumption. b Onroad Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption calculated by UltraSystems using EMFAC2021(v1.0.2) emissions inventory web platform tool (ARB, 2022) and CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023); see Appendix B1.

Electricity Use calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023).

Appendix J: Fuel Consumption
The proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 standards. It would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Additionally, there would not be any inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy usage in comparison to similar deve lopment projects of this nature regarding construction-related fuel consumption. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on energy resources.

Continued use of energy resources is consistent with the anticipated growth within the city and the general vicinity and would not result in energy consumption requiring a significant increase in energy production for the energy provider. Therefore, the energy demand associated with the project would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact
Title 24
The proposed project would comply with the California Green Building Standards (CAL Green) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), which includes mandatory measures for nonresidential site development, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.

City of Hesperia General Plan
The Conservation Element of the City of Fontana General Plan provides the public, decision-makers, and staff a guide to set policy that will identify resources that should be preserved, and set the

❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.6-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
foundation for the preservation of these resources by utilizing a variety of tools that will promote the sustainability and environmental integrity of the City of Hesperia (City of Hesperia, 2019a, p. XV).

City of Hesperia Climate Action Plan
In July 2010, the City of Hesperia adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), which outlines strategies to reduce community-related and City operations -related greenhouse gas emissions to a degree that would not hinder or delay the implementation of AB 32. The CAP strategy is primarily based on the land use, transportation, and conservation policies that are part of the General Plan Update ; recent specific plans; and major development plans in the city. Implementation of these plans not only helps to ensure that the city will be developed in ways that produce lower greenhouse gas emissions (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010b, p. 1 and 2), but will also reduce energy consumption.

The proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 standards, the General Plan, and the City of Hesperia Climate Action Plan.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
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 waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X
The information in this section is based on the Custom Soils Report for San Bernardino County, California, Mojave River Area prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), dated August 22, 2022 (USDA, 2022a). A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix E of this IS/MND.

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
a) Would the project 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.

Less Than Significant Impact
The Alquist -Priolo Zones Special Studies Act (A -P Act) defines active faults as those that have experienced surface displacement or movement during the last 11,700 years. The nearest Alquist - Priolo zone is the Ord Mountain fault zone about eight miles east of the project site (see Figure 4.7- 1). The project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (A -P Fault Zone).

The closest active fault system to the project site , the North Frontal fault system (within the Ord Mountain fault zone), is approximately eight miles to the east (see Figure 4.7-2).

Although the project is a seismically active region of Southern California, the project would be constructed in accordance with standard engineering practices and design criteria prescribed by the current California Building Code (CBC; Title 24 California Code of Regulations [CCR]), which would reduce the significance of potential impacts of seismic a nd geologic hazards. The CBC also dictates detailed design requirements, structural design, soils, and foundations considerations, and regulates the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to reduce the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions . This would ensure that public safety risks are minimized due to any potential seismic shaking event . Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.7-1

ALQUIST PRIOLO FAULT ZONES

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.7-2

REGIONALLY ACTIVE FAULTS

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact
Seismic shaking is measured by the moment magnitude (Mw), which is the seismic moment of an earthquake, converted to a magnitude scale that roughly parallels the original Richter scale (ML).

Since the Mw is not based on the same measurements as ML (local o r surface-wave), the different magnitudes may vary, particularly for larger quakes. The Mw scale is based on the seismic moment and is uniformly applicable to all sizes of earthquakes. Because it associates directly with the energy released from an earthquake, it is the standard in modern seismology (USGS, 2022a).

As shown in Figures 4.7 -1 and 4.7-2, the project is located within a seismically active region of southern California, and all structures in the region are susceptible to collapse, buckling of walls, and damage to foundations from strong seismic ground shaking. The North Frontal fault system is eight miles east of the project site and has a probable Mw of 6.0 to 7.1 (SCEC, 2013). The proposed project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including the current California Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR), which woul d minimize the potential risks associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact
Liquefaction typically occurs when saturated or partially saturated soils behave like a liquid, as a result of losses in strength and stiffness in response to applied stress caused by ground shaking or other sudden changes in stress conditions. The project site is not in a liquefaction zone and would not require further investigation for liquefaction (see Figure 4.7-3). Therefore, there would be no impact in regard to liquefaction.

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.7-3

LANDSLIDES AND LIQUEFACTION

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
iv) Landslides?
No Impact
Landslides occur when the stability of the slope changes from a stable to an unstable condition. A change in the stability of a slope can be caused by several factors, acting together or alone. Natural causes of landslides include groundwater (pore water) pressure acting to destabilize the slope, loss of vegetative structure, erosion of the toe of a slope by rivers or ocean waves, weakening of a slope through saturation by snow melt or heavy rains, earthquakes adding loads to a barely stable slope, earthquake-caused liquefaction destabilizing slopes, and volcanic eruptions.

The topography within the project site is relatively flat; the existing surface elevation at the proposed project site ranges from approximately 3,267 feet to 3,297 feet above mean sea level. Surface topography is generally flat to slightly sloping with the highest elevations in the southwest corner of the site and the lowest surface elevations across the northeast corner of the site (Google Earth, 2024).

Additionally, the project site is not located within or adjacent to any landslide zones (see Figure 4.7- 3). Due to the flat nature of the topography on and in the vicinity of the project site, there are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides.

Therefore, the probability of slope stability hazards affecting the site is considered negligible and no impacts are anticipated.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact
Construction
§ 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne) requires construction projects that may potentially result in soil erosion to implement best management practices (BMPs) to eliminate or reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater runoff. If one or more acres of soil would be disturbed, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required to be obtained. NPDES permits establish enforceable limits on disch arges, require effluent monitoring, designate reporting requirements, and require construction and post -construction BMPs to eliminate or reduce point and non -point source discharges of pollutants, including soil (SWRCB, 2022).

As further detailed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the Statewide General Construction Permit prior to project construction. This NPDES permit would require the Legally Responsible Person (LRP), such as the project owner, to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to ground - disturbing construction activities to identify construction BMPs to eliminate or reduce soil erosion and pollutants in stormwater and no n-stormwater discharges (including soil erosion by wind) to stormwater sewer systems and other drainages. The LRP would upload Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) online Stormwater Multi - Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). PRDs include a Notice of Intent (NOI), site map, risk assessment, SWPPP, post -construction water balance, annual fee, and signed certification statement by the LRP attesting to the validity of the information. These preventi ve measures during construction are intended to eliminate or reduce soil erosion. Therefore, construction -related impacts regarding soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Operation
The project site is located within an area that has generally flat topography. Impacts from soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant because the proposed project must be designed to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the introduction of pollutants that may result in significant impacts generated from site runoff to the stormwater conveyance system. Additionally, the proposed project would create a much larger area of impermeable surfaces compared to the existing undeveloped land. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact
Landslides and Liquefaction
As described in Section 4.7 a), the project site is not located within a landslide or liquefaction zone (see Figure 4.7-3). Therefore, there would be less than significant impact in regards to landslides and liquefaction.

Lateral Spreading
Seismically-induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth materials due to ground shaking. It differs from slope failure in that complete ground failure involving large movement does not occur due to the relatively smaller gradient of the initial ground surface. Lateral spreading is demonstrated by near -vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved. The topography at the project site and in the immediate vicinity of the site is gently sloping, with no significant near by slopes or embankments and bedrock. Under these circumstances, the potential for lateral spreading at the project site is considered low. Therefore, impacts from lateral spreading would be less than significant.

Subsidence
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Soils with high silt or clay content are particularly susceptible to subsidence. The project site is not in an area of subsidence (USGS, 2022 b). Project development would not exacerbate hazards related to ground subsidence. Therefore, no impacts related to subsidence would occur.

Collapsible Soils
Collapse occurs in saturated soils in which the space between individual particles is filled with water.

This water exerts pressure on the soil particles which influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. The soils lose their strength beneath buildings and other structures.

The site is not mapped within a zone of potentially liquefiable soils (refer to Figure 4.7 -3).

Additionally, the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including the current California Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR), which would minimize the

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
potential risks associated with soil collapse. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
d) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant Impact
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisture may change from landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Repeated changes in soil volume due to water content fluctuations may compromise structure foundations. The expansion index of soil can be determined by that soil’s plasticity index, which is one of the standard measures (Atterberg limits) used to indicate the plasticity characteristics of the soil; the expansion index is the range of water content in which a soil exhibits the characteristics of a plastic solid and the plastic limit is the water content that corresponds to an arbitrary limit between the plastic and semisolid states of soil. As shown in Table 4.7-1, the soil mapped on the project site has a plasticity index of 2.3 percent on the site; when the plasticity index is less than 5 percent, contact is entirely elastic. These ratings correlate to an expansion index of Moderate on the site.

The project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Hesperia and the CBC, which require that soil tests be performed on sites where expansive soils may occur and include building foundation requirements appropriate to site -specific conditions, such as expansive soils. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to collapsible soils would occur.

Table 4.7-1

USDA SOILS MAPPED ON THE PROJECT SITE
Soil Name (Map Unit Designation) K Factor
(Whole Soil)
Wind Erodibility
Group
Plasticity Index
Rating
Hesperia Loamy Fine Sand, 2 to 5% slopes 0.28 2 2.3%
Source: Custom Soils Report for San Bernardino County, California, Mojave River Area. Prepared by the USDA NRCS, dated August 22, 2022.

The project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Hesperia and the CBC, which require that soil tests be performed on sites where expansive soils may occur and include building foundation requirements appropriate to site-specific conditions, such as expansive soils. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to collapsible soils would occur. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
The project site would connect to the City of Hesperia’s existing sewer system. Therefore, the project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. For this reason, no impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Paleontological resources are the preserved fossilized remains of plants and animals. Fossils and traces of fossils are preserved in sedimentary rock units, particularly fine - to medium -grained marine, lake, and stream deposits, such as limestone, siltston e, sandstone, or shale, and in ancient soils. They are also found in coarse -grained sediments, such as conglomerates or coarse alluvium sediments. Fossils are rarely preserved in igneous or metamorphic rock units. Fossils may occur throughout a sedimentary unit and are more likely to be preserved subsurface, where they have not been damaged or destroyed by previous ground disturbance, amateur collecting, or natural causes such as erosion.

The property is situated in the Mojave Desert geomorphic province. The Mojave Desert province is a wedge-shaped area that is enclosed on the southwest by the San Andreas fault zone, the Transverse Ranges province, and the Colorado Desert province, on the n orth and northeast by the Garlock fault zone, the Tehachapi Mountains and the Basin and Range province, and on the east by the Nevada and Arizona state lines and the Colorado River. The project site boundary is underlain by Hesperia Loamy Fine Sand which i s derived from the parent material of granite alluvium emanating from the San Bernardino Mountains to the south. The soils are well drained with a depth of more than 80 inches to a restrictive feature, and the slope is two to five percent (USDA, 2022b).

A paleontology records search by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County dated August 28, 2022 (Bell 2022) (Appendix D2) yielded records of six fossil localities in the project region , as listed in Table 4.7-2.

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.7-2

PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
Locality
Number Location Formation Taxa Depth*

LACM VP
1224
North of Hesperia, near Dean Ave. & Dean
Place
Shoemaker
Gravel
Formation
Camel family (Camelidae) Unknown

LACM VP
3353
Second Street at sand & gravel pit; near the
top of the bluff, west bank of Mojave River
Shoemaker
Gravel
Formation
Horse (Equus) Unknown

LACM VP
3352
West bank of the Mojave River, north end
of Victorville (more precise locality not
available)
Shoemaker
Gravel
Formation
Horse (Equus) Unknown

LACM VP
3498
West of Portland Cement Co. plant in bluffs
on the west side of Mojave River, midway
between I-15 and Air Expressway Rd.

Shoemaker
Gravel
Formation
Horse (Equus),
Deer (Cervidae),
Antelope (Antilocapridae)
Unknown

LACM VP
7786 Southern California Alluvium Vole (Microtus mexicanus) 10-11 Feet

LACM VP
5942
-
5950
Along Avenue S from Palmdale to Lake Los
Angeles
Unknown
formation
(Holocene)
Kingsnake (Lampropeltis),
Lizard (Lacertilia), Leopard
lizard ( Gambelia), Snake
(Ophidia), Gopher snake
(Pituophis), Rabbit
(Lagomorpha), Rodent
(Rodentia), Pocket Gopher
(Thomomys), Pocket Mouse
(Chaetodippus),Kangaroo Rat
(Dipodomys),Birds (Aves)
0-9 Feet
Source: Los Angeles County Natural History Museum (NHMLA), 2022 *Below Ground Level (BGL)
Any substantial excavations below the uppermost layers should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any specimens without impeding development. Grading and excavation activities associated with the development of the project would caus e new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources. In the event of an unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would ensure paleontological resources or unique geologic features are not significantly affected.

Mitigation Measure
MM GEO-1 Before the beginning of project construction, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to remain on -call for the duration of project ground disturbance activities. If paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction, the contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City. The on -call paleontologist shall be notified and afforded the necessary time and funds to recover and analyze the finds and curate the find(s) with an a ccredited repository for paleontological resources. Subsequently, the monitor shall remain onsite for the duration of the ground disturbance to ensure the protection of any other resources that are found during construction on the project site.

❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.7-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts on paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
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

4.8.1 Background Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Life on earth depends on energy coming from the sun. About half the light reaching Earth's atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90 percent of this heat is then absorbed by carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG) and radiated back toward the surface, which is warmed to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (°F).

Human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric CO 2. This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon in the fuel with oxygen in the air to make CO 2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of GHGs (NASA, 2018).

GHGs are defined under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) as CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).6
Associated with each GHG species is a “global warming potential” (GWP), which is a value used to compare the abilities of different GHGs to trap heat in the atmosphere. GWPs are based on the heat-absorbing ability of each gas relative to that of CO 2, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years). The GWPs of CO2, CH4 and N2O are 1, 25 and 298, respectively (GMI, 2019). “Carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO 2e) emissions are calculated by weighting each GHG compound’s emissions by its GWP and then summing the products.

HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 would not be emitted in significant amounts by project sources, so they are not discussed further.

Carbon Dioxide (CO 2). Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas consisting of molecules made up of two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. CO2 is produced when an organic carbon compound (such as wood) or fossilized organic matter (such as coal, oil, or natural gas) is burned in the presence of oxygen. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid -1700s, industrial activities have increased in scale and distribution. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were stable at a range

6 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf.

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
of 275 to 285 ppm (IPCC, 2007a). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory indicates that global concentration of CO2 was 413.67 parts per million (ppm) in March 2020 (ESRL, 2020). These concentrations of CO2 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.

Methane (CH 4). Methane is a colorless, odorless non -toxic gas consisting of molecules made up of four hydrogen atoms and one carbon atom. CH4 is combustible, and is the main constituent of natural gas, a fossil fuel. CH 4 is released when organic matter decomposes in low oxygen environments.

Natural sources include wetlands, swamps and marshes, termites, and oceans. Anthropogenic sources include the mining of fossil fuels and transportation of natural gas, digestive proces ses in ruminant animals such as cattle, rice paddies, and the buried waste in landfills. Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of CH4. Other anthropogenic sources include fossil-fuel combustion and biomass burning.

Nitrous Oxide (N 2O). Nitrous oxide is a colorless, non -flammable gas with a sweetish odor, commonly known as “laughing gas,” and sometimes used as an anesthetic. N2O is naturally produced in the oceans and in rainforests (USEPA, 2019b). Manmade sources of N 2O include the use of fertilizers in agriculture, nylon and nitric acid production, cars with catalytic converters and the burning of organic matter. Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
GHGs are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different degree of control. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulates at the national level; the California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulates at the state level , and the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) regulates at the air basin level in the Hesperia area.

4.8.2.1 Federal Regulations
The USEPA collects several types of GHG emissions data. These data help policy makers, businesses, and the USEPA track GHG emissions trends and identify opportunities for reducing emissions and increasing efficiency. The USEPA has been maintaining a nation al inventory of GHG emissions since 1990 and in 2009 established mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large GHG emissions sources.

EPA is also getting GHG reductions through partnerships and initiatives , evaluating policy options, costs, and benefits, advancing the science, partnering internationally and with states, localities, and tribe, and helping communities adapt.

4.8.2.2 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards In May 2010, the USEPA finalized the first -ever national GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and C onservation Act (USEPA, 2022d). The 2010 CAFE standards were for model year 2012 through 2016 light -duty vehicles. In April 2020, NHTSA and USEPA amended the CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new less stri ngent standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026 (USEPA, 2022d). Portions of the April 2020 revisions are currently being revised as part of the

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
development of new CAFE standards for model years 2024 -2026 passenger cars and light trucks (NHTSA, 2021).

Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the NHTSA published the Safer Affordable Fuel -Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program (ARB, 2020a), revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and to set zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates in California.

The loss of the ZEV sales requirements would likely result in additional gasoline-fueled vehicles being sold in the State and criteria emissions increasing. On April 30, 2020, USEPA and NHTSA issued the Final SAFE Rule, (ARB, 2020b) which relaxed the federal GHG emissions and CAFE standards resulting in the probable increase of CO 2 emissions. However, this regulation was repealed on December 21, 2021 by the Biden administration (NHTSA, 2021).

4.8.2.3 State Regulations
Executive Order (EO) S 3-05
On June 1, 2005, the governor issued EO S 3 -05, which set the following GHG emission reduction targets:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels;
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

To meet these targets, the Climate Action Team (CAT) 7 prepared a report to the Governor in 2006 that contained recommendations and strategies to help ensure that the targets in EO S-3-05 are met.

Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)
In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. AB 32 required that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The ARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs that cause global warming. AB 32 also required that by January 1, 2008, the ARB determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and it approve a statewide GHG emissions limit, so it may be applied to the 2020 benchmark. The ARB approved a 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric tons of CO 2e (MMTCO2e), on December 6, 2007, in its Staff Report. Therefore, in 2020, emissions in California were required to be at or below 427 MMTCO2e.

Under the “business as usual or (BAU)” scenario established in 2008, statewide emissions were increasing at a rate of approximately one percent per year as noted below. It was estimated that the 2020 estimated BAU of 596 MMTCO2e would have required a 28 percent reduction to reach the 1990 level of 427 MMTCO2e.
7 The Climate Action Team (CAT) members are state agency secretaries and the heads of agencies, boards, and departments, led by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). They coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emission reduction programs and the state's Climate Adaptation Strategy.

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Climate Change Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan released by the ARB in 2008 (ARB, 2008) outlined the state’s strategy to achieve the AB 32 goals. This Scoping Plan, developed by ARB in coordination with the CAT, proposed a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emis sions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. It was adopted by ARB at its December 2008 meeting.

In August 2011, the Scoping Plan was re -approved by the Board and include d the Final Supplement to the Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (ARB, 2011). This document included expanded analysis of project alternatives and update d the 2020 emission projections by considering updated economic forecasts. The updated 2020 BAU estimate of 507 MMTCO2e yielded that only a 16 percent reduction below the estimated new BAU levels would be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020.

The 2011 Scoping Plan expanded the list of nine Early Action Measures into a list of 39 Recommended Actions contained in Appendices C and E of the Plan.

In May 2014, the ARB developed, in collaboration with the CAT, the First Update to California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Update) (ARB, 2014), which show ed that California was on track to meet the near -term 2020 GHG limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32. In accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the ARB has mostly transitioned to the use of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assess ment Report (AR4)’s 100 -year GWP (IPCC, 2007b) in its climate change programs. The ARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emissions level with the AR4 GWPs to be 431 MMTCO 2e; therefore the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly higher than the 427 MMTCO2e in the initial Scoping Plan.

In November 2017, the ARB published the 2017 Scoping Plan ( ARB, 2017) which builds upon the former Scoping Plan and Update by outlining priorities and recommendations for the state to achieve its target of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The major elements of the framework proposed are enhancement of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard ; a Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, Sustainable Communities Strategies, and a Post -2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector; and an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan.

In December 2022, the ARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan update (ARB, 2022c), which proposes actions to further reach the state’s carbon neutrality and climate goals for reducing GHG emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These actions include reducing fossil fuel combustion with clean fuels and technologies, reducing short -lived climate pollutants, supporting sustainable development, and increasing carbon sequestration.

Renewables Portfolio Standard (Scoping Action E-3)
The California Energy Commission estimates that in 2000 about 12 percent of California’s retail electric load was met with renewable resources. Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to) wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas.

California’s current RPS was intended to increase that share to 33 percent by 2020. Increased use of renewables will decrease California’s reliance on fossil fuels, thus reducing emissions of GHGs from the electricity sector. Most recently, Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill (SB) 350 in

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
October 2015, which requires retail sellers and publicly-owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030.

Senate Bill 375 (SB 375)
Senate Bill (SB) 375 passed the Senate on August 30, 2008, and was signed by the governor on September 30, 2008. Per SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions and contributes approximately 45 percent of the GHG emissions in California, with automobiles and light trucks alone contributing almost 30 percent. SB 375 indicates that GHGs from automobiles and light trucks can be reduced by new vehicle technology. However, significant reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation also are necessary. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to in clude sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions ; (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing; and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, the governor issued EO B-30-15 which added an interim target of GHG emissions reductions to help ensure the State meets its 80 percent reduction by 2050, as set in EO S -3-05. The interim target is reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent by 2030. It also directs St ate agencies to update the Scoping Plan, update Adaptation Strategy every three years, and take climate change into account in their planning and investment strategies. Additionally, it requires the State’s Five -Year Infrastructure Plan will take current and future climate change impacts into account in all infrastructure projects.

Title 24
Although not originally intended to reduce GHGs, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6:

California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption.

The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. The 2016 standards have been published and became effective July 1, 2017. The requirement for when the 2008 standards must be followed is dependent on when the application for the building permit is submitted. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The 2019 Standards improve upon the 2016 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Buildings whose permit applications are dated on or after January 1, 20 20, must comply with the 2019 Standards. The 2019 Standards constitute a major step towards meeting the Zero Net Energy goal by the year 2030 and were the last of three updates to move California towards achieving that goal. The California Energy Commission updates the standards every three years. The 2022 Energy Code, adopted August 11, 2021 by the CEC and approved by the California Building Standards Commission in December 2021, took effect for all buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023.

4.8.2.4 The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District maintains a set of rules and regulations to improve and maintain healthy air quality for the entire population within its jurisdiction. When

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
developing new regulations, the MDAQMD must comply with complex procedures established by statutes in federal and state codes. Its regulations development process is based on the specific nature of the regulation and its potential impacts.

4.8.2.5 Local Regulations
City of Hesperia Climate Action Plan (CAP)
In compliance with Goal CN-7 in the City’s General Plan (City of Hesperia, 2019a), the City of Hesperia prepared a climate action plan (CAP) with the coordination of regional councils of government , and it was approved in July 2010 ( Michael Brandman Associates, 2010 b). The CAP strategy is primarily based upon the land use, transportation, and conservation policies that are part of the General Plan Update, recent specific plans, and major development plans in the City. The concept is that design, density, and pattern of land uses impact the amount people drive and the options available for using less polluting and energy-consuming modes of transportation such as walking, bicycling, and transit.

The plans also promote energy efficiency in buildings, government operations, and through more efficient water use. Implementing these plans helps ensure that the city will be developed in ways that produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

This CAP identifies policies within the City of Hesperia General Plan Update that would decrease the City’s emissions of greenhouse gases. This CAP also lists implementation strategies that add more details and specific actions to the General Plan policies and clarify how the reductions would occur.

This CAP demonstrates that the General Plan Update policies and CAP strategies would reduce emissions to the reduction target. The CAP includes strategies in the following categories:
• CEQA compliance.
• Parking measures.
• Mixed use development.
• Energy efficiency.
• Transit oriented development.
• Water conservation and reuse.
• Compact development.
• Waste reduction and recycling.
• Pedestrian connections.
• Regional cooperation.
• Bicycle infrastructure.
• Governmental operation.

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
The City of Hesperia’s updated General Plan (City of Hesperia, 201 9a) includes goals and policies in several elements that aim to reduce GHG emissions and energy consumption by:

Goal: CN-6 Provide programs and incentives to encourage residents, businesses and developers to reduce consumption and efficiently use energy resources.

Implementation Policy CN -6.1: Develop a green building program in the City to educate the development community and promote the conservation of natural resources.

Implementation Policy CN -6.2: Encourage the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or similar programs in both private and public projects.

Implementation Policy CN-6.3: Provide incentives like technical assistance and low interest loans for projects that are energy efficient and contain energy conservation measures Implementation Policy CN-6.4: Educate the public about energy conservation techniques.

Implementation Policy CN-6.5: Coordinate with the local energy provider in developing policies and procedures to reduce energy consumption in existing and future developments.

Implementation Policy CN-6.6: Encourage residents and businesses to utilize the incentives provided by the local energy providers to retrofit their buildings and businesses for energy efficiency and conservation.

Implementation Policy CN -6.7: Continue the existing recycling program and utilization of the material recovery facility program while exploring additional methods of reducing waste.

Goal: CN -7 Develop, promote and implement policies to reduce and limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Implementation Policy CN -7.1: Coordinate with the regional councils of government in developing appropriate regional climate action policies.

Implementation Policy CN 7.2: In conjunction with regional councils of government, prepare and implement a city climate action plan.

Implementation Policy CN -7.3: Coordinate with neighboring cities and public jurisdictions in the preservation of air quality resources.

Implementation Policy CN-7.4: Promote the utilization of alternative energy resources such as wind and solar in new development.

Implementation Policy CN 7.5: Promote the utilization of environmentally sensitive construction materials to limit impacts on the ozone, global climate change and mineral resources.

Implementation Policy CN 7.6: Preserve land resources for the utilization of energy resources, including wind and solar energy resources.

Implementation Policy CN 7.7: Promote energy conservation through site layout, building design, natural light and efficient mechanical and electrical products in development.

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Implementation Policy CN 7.8: Continue the existing recycling program and utilization of the material recovery facility program while exploring additional methods of reducing waste.

Implementation Policy CN 7.9: Promote sustainable principles in development that conserves such natural resources as air quality and energy resources.

4.8.3 GHG Emissions

4.8.3.1 National Emissions
The United States is the second largest emitter of GHGs globally (behind China) and emitted approximately 6.0 billion metric tons of CO 2 equivalent (MTCO 2e) in 2018 (WRI, 2021a), not including GHG absorbed by forests and agricultural land. The largest source of GHG in the United States (34.2 percent) is electrical power generation (WRI, 2021b). Burning fossil fuels for transportation accounted for the second largest portion (28.4 percent). The remaining 37.1 percent of U.S. GHG emissions was contributed by building, manufacturing/construction, agriculture, fugitive, industrial, waste, bunker fuels, and other fuels.

4.8.3.2 State Emissions
The World Resources Institute (WRI) reports that in 2018, the average GHG emissions per capita in the United States was 17.74 MTCO 2e (WRI, 20 21c) but with a total GHG emissions in California of 425.3 MMTCO2e in 2018 (ARB, 2020c), California had an average GHG emissions per capita of only

10.76 MTCO 2e (USCB, 2021). California had a larger percentage of its total GHG emissions coming from the transportation sector (40 percent) and a smaller percentage of its total GHG emissions from the electricity generation sector; i.e., California has 12 percent.

4.8.3.3 Local Emissions
The CAP’s purpose is to (1) navigate the city government and Hesperia community towards a 29 percent per capita GHG emissions reduction by 2020 while adapting to climate change effects, and (2) guide the city staff on the implementation of key provisions o f the CAP with a monitoring framework. The City of Hesperia CAP shows existing and projected GHG emissions. The city’s existing (2009) community-wide GHG emissions were 0.639 MMTCO 2e and its projected 2020 and buildout year (2025) inventories were 0.955 MMTCO2e and 1.256 MMCO 2e, respectively. Table 4.8-1 shows the results of the community -wide baseline inventory, the projected 2020 inventory, and the projected buildout inventory. The emissions forecast estimates future emissions under a Business as Usual (BAU) scenario. The BAU scenario assumes that no special effort has been made to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the future emissions depicted in Table 4.8-1 present how GHG emissions may increase in Hesperia if no reduction programs are implemented.

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.8-1

CITY OF HESPERIA COMMUNITY BUSINESS AS USUAL EMISSIONS
Community Sector
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTCO2e per year)
2009 2020 Buildout
(2025)
Transportation: Automobiles,
Light Duty Trucks, Medium Duty
Trucks
199,414 249,365 302,008
Transportation: Heavy Duty
Diesel Trucks 200,392 250,587 303,488
Transportation: Other 7,454 9,321 11,288
Natural Gas 34,507 87,734 136,118
Electricity 135,824 233,019 321,378
Solid Waste 28,394 48,713 67,184
Wood Burning Fireplaces and
Stoves. 9,528 16,073 22,023
Refrigerants 23,906 59,836 92,825
Total 639,419 954,648 1,256,312
Population 102,896 176,527 243,456
Per Capita Emissions 6.2 5.4 5.2
Source: City of Hesperia, 2010.

4.8.4 Impact Thresholds
CEQA Guidelines §15064.4 provides discretion to the lead agency whether to: (1) use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; or (2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performance -based standards. In addition, CEQA does not provide guidance to determine whether the project’s estimated GHG emissions are significant, but recommends that lead agencies con sider several factors that may be used in the determination of significance of project-related GHG emissions, including:
• The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
• Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
• The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

CEQA Guidelines § 15130(f) describes that the effects of GHG emissions are by their very nature cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(3) states that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides requirements to avoid or lesson the cumulative problem.

The MDAQMD has established thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, applicable to both construction and operations regardless of whether they are stationary or mobile sources. The MDAQMD’s GHG emissions thresholds are 548,000 pounds per day (lbs/day) CO 2e or 100,000

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
MT/year CO2e. However, to provide a more conservative analysis, the City recommends evaluating the Project’s GHG emissions against the South Coast Air Quality Management District ‘s (SCAQMD’s) GHG thresholds.

To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). A t the Working Group meeting #15 (SCAQMD, 2010) , SCAQMD staff proposed to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency:
• Tier 1. Exemptions: If a project is exempt from CEQA, project‐level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.
• Tier 2. Consistency with a Locally Adopted GHG Reduction Plan: If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project’s geographic area (i.e., city or county), project‐level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.
• Tier 3. Numerical Screening Threshold: If GHG emissions are less than the numerical screening level threshold, project‐level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant. For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requi res an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD, under Option 1, propos ed land use‐specific thresholds: 1,400 MTCO 2e for commercial projects; 3,500 MT CO 2e for residential projects; or 3,000 MT CO 2e for mixed‐use industrial projects.

Option 2 was a “bright‐line” screening‐level threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e per year for all land use types.8
• Tier 4. Performance Standards: If emissions exceed the numerical screening threshold, a more detailed review of the project’s GHG emissions is warranted. The SCAQMD has proposed an efficiency target for projects that exceed the bright‐line threshold. The current recommended approach is per‐capita efficiency targets. The SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percentage emissions reduction target. Instead, the SCAQMD proposed a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MT CO2e per year per service population for project‐level analyses and

6.6 MT CO 2e per year per service population for plan‐level projects (e.g., program‐level projects such as General Plans).

The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold is based on a 90 percent emission “capture” rate methodology.

A 90 percent emission capture rate means that , for a specific geographic area, new facilities whose unmitigated emissions exceed the threshold would account for more than 90 percent of all new unmitigated GHG emissions (Smith and Krause, 2008, p. 3-15). Projects whose emissions exceed the threshold would be subject to a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while those whose e missions are below the threshold would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because medium and large projects will be required to implement measures to reduce GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development projects that are not the focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed. Further, a 90 per cent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial proportion of future development projects and demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved while setting the emission

8 The 3,000-MTCO2e threshold is discussed in detail below.

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate one percent of projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050.

The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO 2e/yr threshold for residential/commercial uses was proposed by SCAQMD a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO 2e/yr threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold document (Smith and Krause, 2008) and subsequent Working Group meetings ( the latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed).

Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80% below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use now.

Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction. Thus, for purposes of this analysis, if Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less than significant impact. On the other hand, if Project-related GHG emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, the Project would be considered a substantial source of GHG emissions.

Based on the foregoing guidance, the City of Hesperia has elected to rely on compliance with a local air district threshold in the determination of significance of Project -related GHG emissions.

Specifically, the City has selected the interim 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold recommended by SCAQMD staff for residential and commercial sector projects against which to compare Project -related GHG emissions.

4.8.5 Impact Analysis

4.8.5.1 Methodology
Short-term construction GHG emissions and long -term operational GHG emissions were assessed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.29 (CAPCOA, 2023).

This analysis focused upon emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O and CO2e only. a) Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact
California has enacted several pieces of legislation that relate to GHG emissions and climate change, much of which set aggressive goals for GHG reductions within the state. Per Senate Bill 97, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, which address the specific obligations of public agencies when analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA to determine a project’s effects on the environment. However, neither a threshold of significance nor any specific mitigations are included or provided in these CEQA Guideline amendments.

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
GHG Significance Threshold
As noted above, t he City of Hesperia has set 3,000 metric tons of C02e per year as its significant emissions threshold for GHG.

Construction GHG Emissions
Construction is an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are generally associated with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of construction waste. As explained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ( CAPCOA) in its 2008 white paper (CAPCOA, 2008), the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end-of-life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level.

CEQA does not require an evaluat ion of speculative impacts ( CEQA Guidelines § 15145). Therefore, the construction analysis does not consider such GHG emissions, but does consider non -speculative onsite construction activities, and offsite hauling, and construction worker trips. All GHG emissions are identified on an annual basis.

Estimated GHG emissions from th e Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project’s onsite and offsite project construction activities were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.29. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.8-2. The GHG emissions from the Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project’s construction activities would be 526.57 short tons of CO 2e. This is below the annual threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year. Thus, GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less than significant.

Table 4.8-2

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
Year
Annual Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2025 182.33 0.01 0.00 183.16
2026 339.55 0.01 0.01 343.41
Total 521.89 0.02 0.01 526.57
MDAQMD Significance Thresholds 3,000
Significant? (Yes or No) No
Source: Appendix B; MDAQMD, 2020; CAPCOA, 2022

Operational GHG Emissions
Operational GHG emissions calculated by CalEEMod are shown in Table 4.8-3. The amortized value of construction emissions for a 30-year period of 17.55 metric tons CO2e was added to the Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouses project’s annual operational GHG emissions. Total annual unmitigated emissions from the project would be 1,251 metric tons CO 2e. Modeling results are provided in Appendix B.

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.8-3

PROJECT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emissions Source Estimated Project-Generated GHG Emissions (MTCO2e per year)
Area Sources 2.22
Energy Demand (Electricity & Natural Gas) 493
Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 600
Solid Waste Generation 44.4
Water Demand 94
Refrigerants 0.01
Construction Emissionsa 17.55
Total 1,251
MDAQMD Significance Threshold 3,000
Significant? (Yes or No) No
Source: Appendix B; MDAQMD, 2016; CAPCOA, 2022.
a Total construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to those resulting from the operation of the project.

Therefore, under the first significance criterion, GHG emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG?
Less than Significant Impact
The San Bernardino County Transit Authority (SBCTA) authorized the preparation of a county -wide Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. This plan was adopted in March 2021. The plan contains multiple reduction measures that would be effective in reducing G HG emissions throughout the SBCTA region. The lack of development in the immediate area of the project as well as in the city may preclude residents from obtaining employment or commercial services within city boundaries, thus compelling residents to trave l outside of city boundaries for employment and commercial services.

It is important to note that the California Department of Transportation as well as the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino are engaged in an effort to construct a multi -modal tran sportation corridor consisting of public transit, a new freeway, and bicycle lanes known as the High Desert Corridor (HDC). The aforementioned regional program will reduce potential GHG emissions related to excessive vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to levels that are less than significant.

Those Partnership jurisdictions, including Hesperia, choosing to complete and adopt local Climate Action Plans (CAPs) that are consistent with the County’s GHG Reduction Plan, and with the prior Regional Plan Program EIR and the addendum or supplemental CEQA document prepared by SBCOG, will be able to tier their future project-level CEQA analyses of GHG emissions from their CAP. In 2010, the City of Hesperia completed a CAP. As part of this effort, the City of Hesperia has selected a goal to

❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.8-14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
reduce its community GHG emissions to a level that is 40 percent below its 2020 level of GHG emissions by 2030. The City will meet and exceed this goal subject to reduction measures that are technologically feasible and cost -effective through a combination of state (~70 percent) and local (~30 percent) efforts. The Pavley vehicle standards, the State’s low carbon fuel standard, the RPS, and other state measures will reduce GHG emissions in Hesperia’s on -road, off-road, and building energy sectors in 2030.

As was noted in Section 4.8.3.3, the Climate Action Plan (CAP), as presented in the City’s General Plan (City of Hesperia, 2019a), has the following purposes:
• Outline a course of action for the City government and the citizens of Hesperia to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions 29 percent below business as usual by 2020 and adapt to the effects of climate change.
• Provide clear guidance to City staff regarding when and how to implement key provisions of the CAP. This CAP sets out an implementation and monitoring framework for monitoring its strategies.

The CAP identifies policies within the City of Hesperia General Plan Update that would decrease the City’s emissions of greenhouse gases. This CAP also lists implementation strategies that add more details and specific actions to the General Plan policies and clarify how the reductions would occur.

The project will comply with all relevant energy-reducing provisions of Title 24, Parts 6 and 11, which indirectly reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy use. Because the project will not interfere with or conflict with any plan to reduce GHG emissions, its GHG emissions impacts will be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
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 Section 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
The analysis in this section is based in part upon the RecCheck report prepared by Environmental Record Search, dated September 13, 2022 (Environmental Records Search, 2022) (Appendix F). The RecCheck presents information based on hazards databases to determine if the project site contains potential hazardous materials.

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Based on the RecCheck report, the project site contains no potential areas of concern/contamination (Environmental Records Search, 2022, p. 1).

Construction
Transportation of hazardous materials/waste is regulated by California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 26. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) enforce federal and state regulations and respond to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Emergency responses are coordinated as neces sary among federal, state and local governmental authorities and private persons through a state-mandated Emergency Response Plan.

Due to the significant short -term risks to public health and the environment associated with hazardous waste management during transportation of wastes, specific Commercial Hazardous Waste Shipping Routes are designated with the intent of minimizing the distance that wastes are transported and the proximity to vulnerable locations.

Construction of the proposed project would involve transport, storage, and use of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities.

Chemical transport, storage, and use would comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Divi sion 20, Chapter 6.5, Hazardous Waste Control); California Division of Safety and Health (DOSH); South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD); and San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) requirements .

The construction contractor would maintain equipment and supplies onsite for containing and cleaning up small spills of hazardous materials , and in the event of a release of hazardous materials of quantity and/or toxicity that onsite workers could not safely co ntain and clean up, would notify the HMD immediately.9 Therefore, compliance with applicable laws and regulations during project construction would reduce the potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials, and construction hazards impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed project includes construction of two truck warehouse buildings and associated surface parking lot and landscaping. During operations, the future occupant (Cargo Solutions) may require the routine transport of hazardous materials for maintaining supplies onsite and for disposal of waste offsite. Transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidenta l spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion.

The project site is located within an industrial and commercial portion of the city, with the closest residences to the project site located along Muscatel Street, approximately 0.22 mile southeast of the

9 The Hazardous Materials of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District is designated by the State Secretary for Environmental Protection as the Certified Unified Program Agency or “CUPA” for the County of San Bernardino in order to focus the managem ent of specific environmental programs at the local government level. (San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, 2022).

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
project site (Google Earth Pro, 202 4). Since hazardous materials must not be transported through existing residential areas, the occupant would propose routes that are surrounded primarily by existing industrial land uses.

The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and implemented by Title 13 of the CFR.

Appropriate documentation would be provided for all hazardous waste that is transported, as required by existing hazardous materials regulations. Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code requires businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials onsite to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to firefighters, health officials, planners, public safety officers, health care providers, regulatory agencies, and other interested persons (see mit igation measure HAZ-1 below). The business plan must include an inventory of the hazardous materials handled, facility floor plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and provisions for employee safety and emergency response training.

Further, proper documentation would be required to identify which hazardous materials would be transported and which routes they would be transported along. As such, MM HAZ -2 (see below) would be implemented to ensure that the occupant would provide proper hazardous materials transportation information.

In addition to the suggested mitigation measures, the occupant would be required to comply with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the US Environmental Protection Agency, State of California, County of San Bernardino, and City o f Hesperia related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, which would reduce the potential risk of hazardous materials exposure to a level that is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure would be adopted to minimize or avoid impacts related to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials:

MM HAZ-1 In the event that the future tenant will handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity threshold, the lease agreement with the future tenant shall require the tenant to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan which would include an inventory of all hazardous materials used, stored, or otherwise managed onsite to the County of San Bernardino County Fire Department – Hazardous Materials Division and the Fontana Fire Protection District. The recommendations of the Hazardous Materials Bus iness Plan would be included in the lease agreement (signed by the tenant) as mandatory measures required to be implemented by the tenant.

MM HAZ-2 In the event that the future occupant will handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity threshold, the occupancy agreement shall require the occupant, in coordination with the San Bernardino County Fire Department , to identify routes along which hazardous materials may routinely be transported. If essential facilities such as schools, hospitals, child care centers, or other facilities with special evacuation needs are located along these routes, the future occupant shall develop an emergency response plan that can be implemented in the event of an unauthorized release of hazardous materials. The recommendations of the Emergency Response

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Plan would be included in the occupancy agreement (signed by the future occupant) as mandatory measures required to be implemented by the future occupant.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with established regulatory framework, compliance with mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would provide for the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements, to ensure that potentially significant impacts regarding hazardous materials are minimized or eliminated. Impacts to the public or the environment resulting from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant after mitigation.
b) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction
As mentioned above, the RecCheck report found no potential areas of concern/contamination on the project site (Environmental Records Search, 202 2, p. 3 -4). Additionally, the construction of the proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state and local regulations in regard to the safe handling and transportation of hazardous materials during construction. The construction contractor would maintain equipment and supplies onsite for containing and cleaning up small spills of hazardous materials and would train construction workers on such containment and cleanup. In the event of a release of hazardous materials of quantity and/or toxicity that onsite construction workers could not safely contain and clean up, the project proponent would notify the County of San Bernardino County Fire Department - Hazardous Materials Division immediately. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant during construction.

Operation
There is a potential that the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during operation through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Typical incidents that could result in accidental release of hazardous materials involve: leaking storage tanks; spills during transport; inappropriate storage; inappropriate use; and/or natural disasters. Accidental releases such as these could cause co ntamination of soil, surface water, groundwater, and toxic fumes. Depending on the nature and extent of the contamination, groundwater supplies could become unsuitable for use as a domestic water source. Human exposure to contaminated soil or water could h ave potential health effects depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.

Chemicals and wastes stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks would follow guidelines mandated by the federal and state agencies. Aboveground tanks storing hazardous chemicals would have secondary containment to collect fluids that are accidental ly released. Underground storage tanks and connecting piping would be double-walled and would have monitoring devices with alarms installed to constantly monitor for unauthorized releases in accordance with federal and state standards.

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Applicable existing standards include the Cal/OSHA operational requirements, California Health and Safety Code § 25270.7, and San Bernardino County Fire Department regulations regarding the installation and operation of underground tanks. These existing measures would minimize impacts to a less than significant level.

Transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion, and there is a potential for licensed vendors to transport hazardous materials to and from the project site. As discussed previously, the pr oposed project is subject to compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws (including Title 49 of the CFR) and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling and storage of hazardous waste. Additionally, with the implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, the future occupant would coordinate with the city to ensure that transportation, handling and use of hazardous materials would create less than significant impacts. Therefore, with compliance with these regulations and measures, the proposed project would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit, thereby ensuring that potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 above.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with the established regulatory framework, compliance with mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would provide for the implementation of established safety practices, procedures and reporting requirements, to ensure that potentially significant impacts regarding the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant with the imp lementation of mitigation measures.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact
No schools are located within 0.25 mile s of the project site. The closest school to the project site is Canyon Ridge High School, located at 12850 Muscatel St #5566, approximately 0. 42 miles southeast of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2024). The project would not be within 0.25 mile of an existing or a proposed school; therefore, no impacts to schools would occur and mitigation is not required. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact
Government Code § 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compile and update, at least annually, lists of the following:
• Hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
• Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and fiscal year in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database.
• Solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside waste management units.
• SWRCB Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs), and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs). • Hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to § 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.

These lists are collectively referred to as the “Cortese List.” The project site is not included on the Cortese List (refer to Figure 4.9-1). Therefore, there would be no impacts. 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 t he project area?
No Impact
The nearest public-use airport to the project site is Hesperia Airport, approximately five miles to the southeast (see Figure 4.9 -2). The project site is outside of Hesperia Airport’s safety, runway protection, obstacle free, and noise contour zones (Ray A. Vidal, 1991) . Therefore, p roject development would not cause airport -related hazards, or excessive noise, to persons at the project site, and no impacts would occur.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Construction
The project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as the City's Fire Code in regard to providing adequate emergency access, as well as the California Building Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Hesperia would review project site plans, including location of all buildings, fences, access driveways and other features that may affect emergency access. Fire lanes would be provided for adequate emergency access. The site design for the proposed project includes access and fire lanes that would accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. All onsite access and sight -distance requirements would be in accordance with City and Caltrans design requirements. The City's review process and compliance with applicable regulations and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided at the project site at all times.

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.9-1

PROJECT CORTESE LIST MAP

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.9-2

AIRPORTS IN THE PROJECT REGION

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
During the construction phase of the project, there may be temporary lane closures that could increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. However, the preparation of a construction management plan, as detailed in mitigation meas ure TRANS-3, would reduce the potential for hazards due to geometric design features and incompatible uses to less than significant during the project construction phase.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to mitigation measure TRANS-3 in Section 4.17.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation of mitigation measure TRANS-3, the project would have less than significant construction-phase impacts on emergency access.

Operation
City of Hesperia Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Hesperia Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) was adopted by the City Council in 201 7. The purpose of the City's HMP is to provide a plan for reducing and/or eliminating risk in the City of Hesperia. The goals of the LHMP are to: protect life, property, and the environment; improve public awareness; protect the continuity of government; a nd improve emergency management preparedness, collaboration and outreach. The City, in cooperation with the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division, will enforce disclosure laws that require all users, generators and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials they store, use or transport. Users, generators and transporters are required to notify the appropriate city, county, state and federal agencies of a change in the quantity or type of hazardous materials and any violations. The Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program initiated by the City of Hesperia educates people about disaster preparednes s and trains citizens to be self -sufficient following a major disaster (City of Hesperia, 2017, p. 3-7 to 3-12).

The HMP states that interstates would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes (City of Hesperia, 2017, p. 4 -70). As detailed in Section 4.17, the project would potentially impact surrounding intersection’s level of service (LOS). However, the project would be required to implement MM TRANS-1, which would ensure that the Project Applicant would implement all the necessary operational improvements listed in the Section 11.7 of Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report (Appendix I) to ensure that all affected intersections by project development would operate at an adequate LOS. Additionally, the project would implement MM TRANS-2, which would ensure that the Project Applicant contribute to fair -share contributions for intersection operational improvements, resulting in less than significant LOS at all intersections affected in the project area.

Therefore, project development would have less than significant impacts on emergency and evacuation plans.

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Mitigation Measures
Refer to mitigation measure TRANS-1 and TRANS-2 in Section 4.17.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation of mitigation measure TRANS-1 and TRANS-2, the project would have less than significant operational-phase impacts on emergency access.

g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? No Impact
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) developed Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Very High FHSZ Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). As shown on Figure 4.9-3 Fire Hazard Severity Zone - State Responsibility Area and Figure 4.9-4, Fire Hazard Severity Zone - Local Responsibility Area , the project site is not located within either an SRA FHSZ or a Very High FHSZ in LRA for San Bernardino County (CAL FIRE, 2022).

Therefore, there would be no impact.

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.9-3

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES - STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA

❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.9-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.9-4

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES - LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA

❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.10-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water 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:

i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or offsite; X
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on - or
offsite;
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
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant Impact
The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requires its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to develop water quality control plans (Basin Plans) designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all Regional waters.

❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.10-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Specifically, Basin Plans designate beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater, set narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the State antidegradation policy, an d describe implementation programs to protect all waters in the Regions (RWQCB 1995). In addition, Basin Plans incorporate by reference all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies, and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. The proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the Lahontan (Region 6) RWQCB.

As shown in Figure 10.4-1, USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds , the project site is located within the Oro Grande Wash hydrologic unit (HU; USGS HU code 180902080704), which drains an area of approximately 24 square miles. The Oro Grande HU is located within the larger Bell Mountain Wash- Mojave River Watershed (USGS HU code 1809020807), which encompasses approximately 276 square miles. The Oro Grande Wash HU drains the Oro Grande Wash and its tributaries beginning at the headwaters of the Wash, southeast of Baldy Mesa and approximately 0.6 mile west of Cajon Summit (USEPA, 2022h; Google Earth Pro, 2022).

The project has prepared a preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP; Allard Engineering, 2024), which is designed to retain and treat stormwater generated onsite. The WQMP proposes one

20.33-acre drainage area (DA -1) containing drainage systems in two drainage management areas (DMA-1 and DMA-2).

DMA-1 (10.5 acres) would consist of swales, grated inlets with filter inserts and pipes that would convey the flows to the proposed infiltration/retention Basin -1 at the northeast corner in DMA -1.

The proposed Basin-1 would be comprised of a two-stage pit system (Maxwell Plus Drywell System) at the northeast corner in DMA-1. The proposed infiltration/retention Basin-1 is sized to qualify for the required WQMP design capture volume (DCV) volume (30,956 cf) as well as the required detention volume (55,572 cf) from the drainage management area DMA-1 (Allard Engineering, 2024, p. 1-2).

DMA-2 (9.83 acres) would also consist of swales, grated inlets with filter inserts and pipes that would convey the flows to the proposed infiltration/retention Basin-2 with two-stage pit system (Maxwell Plus Drywell System) at the northwest corner in the drainage management area DMA -2. The proposed infiltration/retention Basin-2 is sized to qualify for the required DCV (28,981 cf) as well as the required detention volume (52,035 cf) from the drainage management area DMA -1 (Allard Engineering, 2024, p. 1-2).

Detention volume has been calculated based upon the City of Hesperia "13.5 -cubic feet (cf) per 100- square feet (sqft) of impervious area" rule. Required combined detention volume (107,606 cf) exceeds the combined water quality volume (59,937 cf) from DMA -1 & DMA -2. The infiltration/retention Basin -1 with two -stage pit system will drain out at the northeast corner of DMA-1 to Poplar Street via an under -sidewalk parkway drain when the basin reaches capacity. The infiltration/retention Basin -2 with two -stage pit system will drain out at the northeast corner of DMA-2 to Poplar Street via under -sidewalk parkway drain when Basin -2 reaches capacity (Allard Engineering, 2024, p. 1-2). The proposed project site would maintain consistency with the existing drainage pattern in the area. (Allard Engineering, 2024, p. 4-12).

❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.10-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.10-1

USGS SURFACE WATERS AND WATERSHEDS

❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.10-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Development of the project has the potential to result in two types of water quality impacts:
(1) short-term impacts due to construction -related discharges; and (2) long-term impacts from operation. Temporary soil disturbance would occur during project construction, due to earth-moving activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil compaction and moving, cut and fill activities, and grading. Disturbed soils are suscept ible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the project area. Erosion and sedimentation affect water quality of receiving waters through interference with photosynthesis, oxygen exchange, and respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Runoff from construction sites may include sediments and contaminants such as oils, fuels, paints, and solvents.

Additionally, other pollutants such as nutrients, trace metals and hydrocarbons can attach to sediment and be carried by stormwater into storm drains which , under some circumstances, may discharge into the Mojave River and eventually to its terminus, East Cronise (Dry) Lake, located in Cronise Valley north of Interstate 15, east of the Cronise Mountains and west of the Soda Mountains, approximately 10 miles west of Zzyzx.

Spills and mishandling of construction materials and waste may also potentially leave the project site and negatively impact water quality. The use of construction equipment and machinery may potentially result in contamination from petroleum products, hyd raulic fluids, and heavy metals.

Contamination from building preparation materials such as paints and solvents, and landscaping materials such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may also potentially degrade water quality during project construction. Trash and demolition debris may also be carried into storm drains and discharged into receiving waters.

Construction Pollutants Control
The project proponent is required by the SWRCB to obtain coverage under a General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2022- 0057-DWQ; also called the General Permit), as authorized by § 402 of the Clean Water Act, for projects which would disturb one or more acres of soil during construction. The Construction General Permit requires potential dischargers of pollutants into waters of the U.S. to prepare a site -specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which establishes enforceable limits on discharges, requires effluent monitoring, designates reporting requirements, and requires construction best management practices ( BMPs) to reduce or eliminate point and non -point source discharges of pollutants. Additionally, BMPs must be maintained and inspected before and after each precipitation event, and repaired or replaced as necessary. Because the project is required by the SWRCB to comply with all applicable conditions of the General Permit (Order 2022-0057-DWQ), potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during project construction would be less than significant.

Operational Pollutant Controls
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES; General Permit No. CAS000004), Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (General Permit) requires that the permittees develop a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP). The City of Hesperia is a permittee (County of San Bernardino, 2003).

The SWMP regulates the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. through stormwater and urban runoff conveyance systems, including flood control facilities. These conveyance systems are commonly referred to as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), or storm drains. In this context, the NPDES Permit is also referred to as an MS4 Permit.

❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.10-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
A Phase II Small MS4 is any MS4 that is not already regulated under the Phase I storm water program.

Regarding the City of Hesperia, the Phase II Small MS4 serves a small urbanized area as designated by the Bureau of Census. P rincipal permittees and co -permittees must regulate discharges of pollutants in urban runoff from man-made sources into storm water conveyance systems within their jurisdiction; for example, the Mojave Desert.

New development and redevelopment can significantly increase pollutant loads in stormwater and urban runoff, because increased population density results in proportionately higher levels of vehicle emissions, vehicle maintenance wastes, municipal sewage wa stes, household hazardous wastes, fertilizers, pet waste, trash, and other pollutants (SWRCB, 2022). MS4 Permit s require new development and significant redevelopment projects to incorporate post construction low impact development BMPs into project to reduce or eliminate the quantity, and improve the quality of, stormwater being discharged from the project site.

A preliminary WQMP (Allard Engineering, 2024), included in Appendix G of this document, has been prepared for the proposed project site in accordance with the Mojave River Watershed Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans (County of San Bernardino, 2016). The Stormwater Management Program for the Mojave River Watershed (SWMP; County of San Bernardino, 2003) and the required WQMP includes the implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) features to ensure that most stormwater runoff is treated and retained onsite.

The preliminary WQMP includes structural BMPs, including use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control; and completion of grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of one to two inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or pavement , preservation the existing drainage patterns (Allard Engineering, 2024, pp. 4 -5 to 4 -9). These LID BMPs are highly effective at removing water pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, trash, metals, bacteria, oil and gre ase, and organic compounds while reducing the volume and intensity of stormwater flow leaving a site.

The WQMP also includes non-structural Source Control BMPs including (but not limited to) :
education of property owners, tenants, and occupants on stormwater BMPs; activity restrictions; landscape management BMPs; BMP maintenance; implementation of a spill contingency plan; implementation of a litter/debris control program; employee training; implementation of a drop inlets inspection program; housekeeping of loading docks; vacuum sweeping of private streets and parking lots; and compliance with all other applicable NPDES permits (Allard Engineering, 2024, pp. 4-5 to 4-9).

After implementation and design of both Source Control BMPs and Site Design BMP measures, runoff from DMA-1 and DMA -2 would be directed to proposed infiltration/retention Basin 1 and Basin 2, which are designed with two -stage pit systems to contain sedimen t and debris carried by incoming water. Floating trash, paper, pavement oil, etc. are removed by debris shields in each chamber; these shielding devices are equipped with a screen to filter suspended material and are vented to prevent siphoning of floating surface debris as the system drains. Additionally, settling chambers are equipped with absorbent sponges to remove pavement oils (Torrent Resources , Inc. , 2012), as specified in Permit § E.12.e (ii)(c) Numeric Sizing Criteria for Storm Water Retention and Treatment.

With implementation of construction and operational BMPs , potential impacts to water quality would be less than significant and mitigation is not proposed.

❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.10-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located within the Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin ID 6-42), which covers approximately 645 square miles and underlies a north -south valley with the Mojave River occasionally flowing through the valley from the San Bernardino Mountains on the south, and northward into the Middle Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin at the City of Helendale . This groundwater basin is bounded on the northeast by the Helendale fault zone, which forms a barrier to the groundwater flow in the regional fan unit, but does not appear to be a barrier to groundwater flow in the floodplain unit. Average precipitation varies across the basin from 5 to 36 inches; the average for the basin is approximately 12 inches (DWR, 2004).

The nearest water well (State Well Number 04N05W21H001S; California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program [CASGEM] Well Identification Number: 4044) is located approximately 0.7 miles northwest of the project. This active well is designated for observation purposes and is drilled to a depth of 670 feet. The most recent measurement, conducted on September 11, 2023, recorded a groundwater elevation of 658.6 feet below ground surface (bgs). The highest groundwater level was 647.4 feet bgs, measured on January 17, 1996 (CASGEM 2024).

The proposed project is within the service area of the Hesperia Water District (District). Water is supplied to the city from the groundwater aquifer, and is extracted using deep well water pumps and booster pumps in the distribution system. The city’s water is extracted through 18 wells placed throughout Hesperia, where the water is regularly tested and treated per applicable state and federal regulations (City of Hesperia, 2008).

According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the District can supply water to meet the needs of the service area through 2045 on a 25 -year planning horizon with anticipation of both normal and dry conditions. Hesperia has reliable supplies t o meet demand in normal, single dry years, and five consecutive dry year conditions through 2045 (Tully and Young, 2020).

The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or result in a substantial net deficit in the aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table. The project would have a less than significant impact in this regard and mitigation is not required. c) Would the project 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 substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is relatively flat with average slope of less than 2 percent (Allard Engineering 2024, p. 3-2). Elevations on the site range from approximately 3,606 to 3,620 feet above mean sea level (amsl; Google Earth Pro, 2022 b). The southern segment of the project site contains slightly higher elevations that the northern segment. There is no evidence that the project site supports ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams or rivers. The site currently drains to the north toward Poplar

❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.10-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Street; the design of the project would direct water to the northeast corner (in DMA -1) and to the northwest corner (in DMA-2; Allard Engineering, 2024, pg. 3-1).

Construction
As described in Section 4.10 a), temporary soil disturbance would occur during project construction, due to earth -moving activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil compaction and moving, cut and fill activities, and grading. Disturbed soils are suscep tible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the project area.

The project owner would be required to have a SWPPP prepared by a certified qualified SWPPP developer. The required SWPPP would be project -specific and would prescribe site -specific stormwater BMPs which would be intended to minimize or avoid having soil l eave the project site, through either stormwater or wind, and thus minimize or avoid soil erosion onsite and siltation in receiving waters. With implementation of a project specific SWPPP and proper maintenance and replacement of required stormwater BMPs ( as necessary), potential impacts that could potentially result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or offsite would be minimized or avoided, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
As detailed in Section 4.10 a), the LID BMPs proposed as part of project design would minimize or avoid on - or offsite erosion and siltation by a combination of maintaining drainage patterns, installation of landscaping, and installation of LID BMPs which would prevent erosion and prev ent siltation-laden stormwater from leaving the site. Applicable regulations and guidelines (e.g., the SWMP), and installation of LID BMPs, including site design, infiltration , pre-treatment BMPs, etc., would limit pollutant discharges from project. The project’s adherence to existing requirements and implementation of the project’s WQMP would reduce erosion and siltation during operation; therefore, impacts resulting from operation of the project would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
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?
Less than Significant Impact
As discussed in the project’s preliminary WQMP, the project design would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

As detailed in the proposed project’s WQMP and in Section 4.10 a) above, the proposed project would incorporate structural BMPs in compliance with the requirements of the SWMP for the Mojave River Watershed. The project proposes installation of two infiltration/retention basins in DMA-1 and

❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.10-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
DMA-2 which, combined, retain stormwater onsite to the maximum extent practicable. The required combined d etention volume (107,606 cubic feet) exceeds the combined water quality volume (59,937 cubic feet). The infiltration/retention Basins would drain out at the northeast and northwest corners of the site to Poplar Street via storm drain only when Basins reach capacity. (Allard Engineering, 2024, p. 3-1).

The SWMP and the project WQMP would require the implementation of water quality features to ensure that runoff is both retained and treated prior to discharge into native soils (infiltration), storm drains or other regional conveyance facilities, as described above. Therefore, upon adherence to existing state water quality requirements, including SWMP requirements, the proposed project would minimize or avoid causing a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would: (1) result in flooding on- or offsite; (2) would not 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 (3) create or contribut e runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact
The project site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California, and Incorporated Areas (Map Number 06071C6475H, effective August 28, 2008); the site is not located a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and above the elevation of the 0.2 percent annual chance (500-year) flood areas (FEMA, 2008; Google Earth Pro 2022b). The project site is located above the nearest 100 - or 500-year floodplain and the proposed project would not i mpede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact
Two dams or reservoirs are within a 10 -mile radius of the project site: Cedar Springs and Amethyst Basin. The project would not be located within the dam breach inundation areas of either of these dams or reservoirs (DWR, 202 3) and would not be at risk of flood hazards due to dam breaches. As discussed previously, the project site is located above the 500-year floodplain and would not be at risk of inundation by flood hazards.

The tsunami inundation area nearest to the project site is the City of Long Beach, located approximately 60 miles southwest of the project site (FCGS, 2021), and therefore would not be at risk of inundation by tsunami.

A seiche is an oscillating wave, formed by earthquakes or winds, in an enclosed or partially enclosed waterbody. The nearest waterbody to the project site in which a seiche could form is Cedar Springs, approximately 8.75 miles southeast of the project site ; however, flood water resulting from a seiche at that location would be directed into the Mojave River, east of the project site. The project site is

❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.10-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
not within the dam breach inundation areas mapped for this waterbody (DWR, 2023), and the project would not be at risk of inundation by seiche.

The proposed project would not be at risk of inundation by flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche, and would therefore not be at risk of release of pollutants due to inundation. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact
Groundwater in the Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin ID 6 -42) is recharged by natural storm water flows, infiltration of the Mojave River and tributaries, imported supplies from the Mojave Water Agency to recharge basins, and irrigation and wastewater return flow. Local supply of groundwater is naturally recharged by surface water from the Mojave River and the Mojave River watershed. Most of this water enters aquifers from the San Bernardino Mountains as rain or snow.

Additionally, there are recharge sites in the floodplain aquifer along the Mojave River in Hesperia and southern Apple Valley through the operation of the MWA Regional Recharge and Recovery Project (Tully and Young, 2020).

As discussed in Section 4.10 a), the proposed project would comply with the Construction General Permit by developing and implementing a site -specific SWPPP and construction stormwater BMPs throughout the construction phase. The proposed project would also comply with the SWMP by incorporating LID BMPs into project design, which would avoid or minimize the amount and type of pollutants leaving the project, entering receiving waters, and impacting water quality and beneficial uses defined for these waters by the Basin Plan (RWQCB, 1995). In addition, the LID BMPs would allow stormwater infiltration into the local aquifer, similar to the existing infiltration conditions and minimize or avoid impacts to groundwater quality and beneficial uses of the Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin (RWQCB, 1995). The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan . No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required.

❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.11-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
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
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact
The entire project site is currently undeveloped land. The project site is located in a semi-rural and lightly developed portion of the city with undeveloped land to the north and east ; industrial, commercial, and undeveloped land uses to the south; and commercial and undeveloped land uses to the west (Google Earth Pro, 202 4). The proposed project would stay within project site boundaries and would not extend into rights-of-way (ROWs) or other property. Therefore, project development would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur. b) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant Impact
The City’s General Plan land use and zoning designation for the project site is Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP) under the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (City of Hesperia, 2020; City of Hesperia, 2010). Refer to Figure 4.11-1 below, which depicts the General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site and surrounding areas. The purpose of the CIBP zoning designation is to create employment-generating uses in a business park setting. This zone is intended to provide for service com mercial, light industrial, light manufacturing, and industrial support uses, mainly conducted in enclosed buildings, which will produce only a small environmental impact, such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare or waste disposal. Permitted uses incl ude commercial storage facilities, manufacturing, offices, repair shops, warehousing and wholesale distribution centers, and other similar uses (The Arroyo Group, 2021, p. 196-197). The project proposes two truck warehouse buildings that would have warehouse, office, grade level door areas, and associated surface parking lot and landscaping . The proposed project would be consistent with the city’s General Plan and zoning designation standards for the project site.

❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.11-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025 Figure 4.11-1

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION

❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.11-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
A consistency analysis of the proposed project in regards to applicable City of Hesperia General Plan Land Element and the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (MSFCSP) goals and policies is provided below in Tables 4.11-1 and 4.11-2, respectively.

Table 4.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS: PROPOSED PROJECT COMPARED TO APPLICABLE CITY OF

HESPERIA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Goal LU-1: Regulate development so that the density of residential development and the intensity of non-residential development are appropriate to the property, surrounding properties, and the general neighborhood.

Policy LU -1.1: Require that new construction,
additions, renovations, and infill developments be
sensitive to neighborhood context and building form
and scale.

The project would be a new construction project that
is surrounded by similar industrial developments
with similar building heights. Therefore, the project
would be in compliance with this policy.

Policy LU -1.3: Require that new construction,
additions, renovations, and infill developments be
sensitive to the intent of the land use designations,
incorporating neighborhood context as well as
building form and scale.

The proposed building s would be surrounded by
similar industrial developments and would follow
the project site’s Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP) land
use designation requirements. Therefore, this
project would be consistent with this policy.

Goal LU-4: Promote industrial development within the City which will expand its tax base and provide a range of employment activities, while not adversely impacting the community or environment.

Policy LU-4.2: Encourage a diverse mix of industrial
and service businesses that support the local tax
base, are beneficial to residents, and support the
economic needs of the community.

The proposed project would construct and operate
two industrial truck warehouse developments on an
undeveloped and underutilized lot within the city,
which would create additional jobs for the local
workforce. Therefore, this project would be
consistent with this policy.

Policy LU -4.3: Discourage the re -zoning of
industrial land to other uses as sufficient industrial
land should be maintained to provide a full range of
industrial businesses to the community and
surrounding areas.

The proposed project would adhere to its CIBP
zoning and would provide an industrial development
to the community and surrounding areas. Therefore,
this project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy LU -4.6: Incorporate varied planes and
textures and variety in building materials on
industrial buildings to achieve high quality
architectural design.

The proposed project would be built with a variety
of high -quality materials that would adhere to the
City’s design guidelines, which would complement
the industrial buildings surrounding the project.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with this
policy.

Policy LU -4.8: Require delivery areas to be
separated from pedestrian areas.

The project has planned the office use and
warehouse use on opposite sides of the building s.

Additionally, all truck parking areas are not within
pedestrian rights-of-way (ROWs) such as sidewalks.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with this
policy.

Policy LU -4.9: Include full architectural treatment
on all sides of buildings facing streets.

The proposed project would include full
architectural treatment on all sides facing streets.

Therefore, the project would comply with this policy.

❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.11-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Sources: City of Hesperia, 2019a, p. XIX to XXIV. City of Hesperia General Plan. Accessed online at https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/15728/General-Plan-Update-August-2019 , accessed on August 30, 2022.

Table 4.11-2
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS: PROPOSED PROJECT COMPARED TO APPLICABLE CITY OF

HESPERIA MAIN STREET AND FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Goal LU-2: Create a jobs/housing balance in the City.

Policy LU-2.1: Designate land near Interstate-15
and Highway 395 for freeway-oriented commercial
and industrial/business park development.

The proposed project would construct and operate
two industrial truck warehouse development s
located between the I-15 and the U.S. 395 freeways.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with this
policy.

Policy LU-2.2: Add to the City’s industrial land base
where logically and physically possible to do so.

The proposed project would be located in a Com/Ind
Business Park (CIBP) zoned area and within
proximity to truck routes such as the I -15 and U.S. -
395. Therefore, the project would be consistent with
this policy.

Sources: The Arroyo Group, 2021, p. 24. City of Hesperia Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. Accessed online at https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/15940/MSFCSP-update , accessed on August 30, 2022.

As shown in Tables 4.11-1 and 4.11-2, the proposed project would adhere to all applicable land use goals and policies of the city’s General Plan Land Use Element and the Main Street and freeway Corridor Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.12-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? and
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site area is designated Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-3a) by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), meaning that geologic data indicate that this area may contain significant aggregate deposit (DOC, 1993); see Figure 4.12-2. According to the proposed Hesperia General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, the City of Hesperia currently has not identified any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state (City of Hesperia, 2019a). Additionally, the project site is not scaled large enough for a mining operation.

The nearest mine to the project site mapped by the Division of Mines Reclamation (DMR) is a White Knob and White Ridge Mine at Crystal Creek Road and Gateway Road in the County of San Bernardino approximately 11.7 miles to the southeast (DOC, 2022a). The n earest oil or gas well to the project site is a plugged well approximately eight miles southwest of the project site (DOC, 2022b); see Figure 4.12 -2. Therefore, project development would not cause a loss of availability of known mineral resources valuable in regards to the region with less than significant impact.

❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.12-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.12-1

DESIGNATED MINERAL RESOURCE ZONE

❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.12-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.12-2

OIL AND GAS WELLS

❖ SECTION 4.13 - NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.13 Noise
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or 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 expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X

4.13.1 Characteristics of Sound
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The decibel (dB) scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vi brations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies, a special frequency -dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against upper and lower frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The scale is based on a reference pressure level of 20 micro pascals (zero dBA). The scale ranges from zero (for the average least perceptible sound) to about 130 (for the average human pain level).

4.13.2 Noise Measurement Scales
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze adverse effects of community noise on people.

Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people depends largely upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
• Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour or 24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure.
• L90 is a noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location; it is often used as a measure of “background” noise.

❖ SECTION 4.13 - NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
• Lmax is the root mean square (RMS) maximum noise level during the measurement interval.

This measurement is calculated by taking the RMS of all peak noise levels within the sampling interval. L max is distinct from the peak noise level, which only includes the single highest measurement within a measurement interval.
• CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24 -hour average L eq with a 4.77 -dBA “penalty” added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a 10 -dBA penalty added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime (Hendriks, 2013). The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60-dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a calculation of 66.7 dBA CNEL. • Ldn, the day-night average noise, is a 24-hour average Leq with an additional 10-dBA “penalty” added to noise that occurs between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The L dn metric yields values within 1 dBA of the CNEL metric. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.

4.13.3 Existing Noise
The proposed project includes the construction and operation of two truck warehouse s at the southeast corner of Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue in the City of Hesperia in San Bernardino County, California . The western half of the project site ( 20.32 acres) will include the first truck warehouse building and surface parking for trucks and cars. The eastern half of the project site (9.8 acres) will include the second truck warehouse building and additional surface parking for trucks and cars. The project site will be divided and surrounded by an eight-foot-tall wall that serves as a property line and will help to attenuate noise during operation.

The City of Hesperia’s General Plan lists a “ Noise Sensitive Land Use” as a land use associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise, such as residential dwellings, transient lodging, dormitories, hospitals, educational facilities, public assembly facilities, amphitheaters, congregate care facilities, childcare facilities, and libraries (City of Hesperia, 201 9a). Additionally, the City’s Municipal Code has applicable noise standards in regard to construction noise, interior noise, and exterior noise (City of Hesperia Municipal Code, 2022). The closest noise sensitive land use to the project site is a rural single -family dwelling southeast of the project site, on the east side of the I-15 freeway and on the south side of Muscatel Road (Google Earth Pro, 2022). Noise sensitive land uses are shown in Figure 4.13-1. Table 4.13-1 summarizes information about them.

Table 4.13-1

NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USES IN PROJECT AREA
Description Location Distance From
Site
Boundary (feet)a
Nearest Ambient
Sampling Pointb
Single-family Residence
(Southeast) 12623 Muscatel Street 1,079 1
Canyon Ridge High School
(Southeast) 12850 Muscatel Street 2,192 2
Single-family Residence (East) 9048 Seal Beach Drive 2,395 3 Single-family Residence (North) 9800 Mesa Linda Drive 4,059 4 aThese distances were not used for the construction noise calculations; see Section 4.13.6. bSee Figure 4.13-2 for locations of ambient noise sampling points.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.13-1

SENSITIVE RECEIVERS NEAR THE PROJECT SITE

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Freeway traffic (passenger vehicles and trucks) and traffic on heavily traveled surface streets are the largest contributors to ambient noise levels. City roadways that generate the most traffic noise include the major north-south trending I-15 and US Highway 395, due to their higher traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. The nearest east-west roadway that generate s significant noise is Main Street, about 0.75 mile north of the project site. The project site is adjacent to the aforementioned freeways; the closest large noise-generating roadway to the project site is I-15 freeway, approximately 28 feet southeast of the project site and abutting the project boundary (Google Earth Pro, 2022).

UltraSystems conducted ambient noise sampling at four locations around the project site area, as shown in Figure 4.13 -2. Table 4.13-2 lists the measurement points, sampling locations, and measurement results. Details of the ambient sampling methods and results are provided in Appendix H. The samples were taken between 10:52 a.m. and 12:53 p.m. on Thursday, August 25, 2022. The 15-minute Leq values ranged from 49.8 dBA to 71.5 dBA. The lowest of these values was measured at Point 2, which is located in fr ont of Canyon Ridge High School along Muscatel Street southeast of the project site. The maximum ambient noise level was located at Point 4, located in front of a single-family residence along Main Street approximately 0.75 mile north of the project site.

Table 4.13-2

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Point Data
Set
Sampling
Time Address
Sound Level
(dBA) Notes
Leq Lmax L90
2 S270 10:52 a.m. –
11:07 a.m. 12850 Muscatel Street 49.8 62.6 45.7
Southwest corner of
Canyon Ridge High
School, east-southeast
of project site
3 S271 11:22 a.m. –
11:37 a.m. 9048 Seal Beach Drive 50.6 62.8 47.5
In front of residential
wall on Canyon Ridge
High School property
east of project site
1 S272 11:58 a.m. –
12:13 p.m. 12623 Muscatel Street 53.1 61.1 49.8
In front of a rural
single-family
residence southeast of
project site
4 S273 12:38 p.m. -
12:53 p.m. 9800 Mesa Linda Street 71.5 89.2 51.9
In front of single-
family housing tract
along residential wall
north of project site
Source: UltraSystems, 2022.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.13-2

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.13.4 Regulatory Setting
State of California
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) Office of Noise Control , which no longer exists, studied the correlation of noise levels with effects on various land uses. The most current guidelines prepared by the state noise officer are contained in the “General Plan Guidelines” issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research in 2003 and reissued in 2017 ( OPR, 2017). These guidelines establish four categories for judging the severity of noise intrusion on specified land uses:
• Normally Acceptable: Is generally acceptable, with no mitigation necessary. • Conditionally Acceptable: May require some mitigation, as established through a noise study. • Normally Unacceptable: Requires substantial mitigation. • Clearly Unacceptable: Probably cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

The types of land uses addressed by the state standards, and the acceptable noise categories for each, are presented in Table 4.13-4. There is some overlap between categories, which indicates that some judgment is required in determining the applicability of the numbers in a given situation.

Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires performing acoustical studies before constructing dwelling units in areas that exceed 60 dBA L dn. In addition, the California Noise Insulation Standards identify an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for new multi -family residential units. Local governments frequently extend this requirement to single-family housing.

Table 4.13-4

CALIFORNIA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE SOURCES Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low-Density Single -Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes

Residential – Multiple Family

Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters

Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
City of Hesperia General Plan Noise Element
The City of Hesperia General Plan Noise Element has the following applicable goals and associated policies for addressing noise issues in the community (City of Hesperia, 2019a):

Goal: NS -1 To achieve and maintain an environment which is free from excessive or harmful noise through identification, control and abatement.

Policy NS-1.1: Incorporate noise reduction features during site planning and into land use planning decisions to mitigate anticipated noise impacts on affected residential noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy NS-1.2; Control and abate undesirable sounds through the use of the land use compatibility criteria shown in Exhibit NS-1, Table N-3, and Municipal Code Section 16.20.125(B).

Policy NS-1.3; Enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). Title 24 requires that an acoustical analysis be performed for all new multifamily residences in areas where the exterior sound level exceeds 60 dBA CNEL.

The an alysis shall ensure that the building design limits the interior noise environment to 45 dBA CNEL or below.

Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks

Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture

Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Normally Unacceptable : New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Policy: NS-1.4; Require that an acoustical analysis be performed for all new single-family residences in areas where the exterior sound level exceeds 60 dBA CNEL. The analysis shall ensure that the building design limits the interior noise environment to 45 dBA CNEL or below.

Policy NS-1.5; Require the design and construction of commercial, industrial, office and mixed -use structures developments with noise attenuation methods to minimize excessive noise upon noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy NS-1.6: Provide developers and builders with development noise policy guidelines. The guidelines shall provide specific design criteria, minimum standards for submittal of acoustical studies and descriptions of acceptable noise mitigation measures.

Policy NS-1.7: Ensure that areas of frequent outdoor use … are not subjected to inappropriate noise levels resulting from transportation systems.

Policy NS-1.8: Coordinate with state and local agencies to maintain and enforce noise control policies and standards.

Policy NS -1.9: Encourage commercial, industrial, office and mixed -use developments to locate loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noisier components away from noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy NS-1.10: Limit the hours of construction activity in, and around, residential areas in order to reduce the intrusion of noise in the early morning and late evening hours and on weekends and holidays.

Policy NS-1.11: Limit delivery hours for businesses with loading areas or docks fronting, siding, or bordering or gaining access on driveways adjacent to noise-sensitive areas.

Policy NS-1.12: Implement nighttime and daytime on -site noise level limits to address noise generated by commercial and industrial uses where it affects abutting residential and other noise sensitive land uses.

Policy NS-1.13: Ensure adequate noise control measures at construction sites by requiring that construction equipment be fitted with manufacturer -recommended mufflers and ensuring physical separation of machinery maintenance and staging areas from adjacent residential uses.

Policy NS-1.14: Encourage noise compatible land uses within airport influence areas in accordance with federal and state noise standards and guidelines.

Policy NS-1.15: Require an avigation easement for new residential development within the Airport Noise Area, as defined in the Land Use Element.

Policy NS-1.16: Review the noise element when major changes in the noise environment occur.

Building Design Goal: NS -2 To achieve and maintain an environment which is free from excessive vibration.

Goal: NS-2 To achieve and maintain an environment which is free from excessive vibration.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

Policy NS 2.1: Control exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels as set forth in Table NS -1 and Municipal Code Section

16.20.130.

Policy NS 2.2: Evaluate potential vibration impacts during site planning and into land use planning decisions for proposed residential building within 200 feet of the centerline of the nearest track of the BNSF and UP railroad.

To the extent that the foregoing applies to the proposed project, the project design and operational characteristics are compatible with the Noise Element’s goals, objectives and policies.

The City of Hesperia exterior and interior noise standards are shown in Table 4.13-5.

Table 4.13-5

CITY OF HESPERIA INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS
Land Use Categories
Community Noise
Equivalent Level
(dBA CNEL)
Categories Land Uses Interiora Exteriorb
Residential
Single Family, Duplex, Multiple Family 45c 65
Mobile Homes n/a 65d
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 65e
Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant 55 n/a
Office Building, Research and
Development, Professional Offices, City
Office Building
50 n/a
Amphitheatre, Concert Hall, Meeting
Hall 45 n/a
Gymnasium (Multipurpose) 50 n/a
Sports Club 55 n/a
Manufacturing, Warehousing,
Wholesale, Utilities 65 n/a
Movie Theatres 45 n/a
Institutional
Hospitals, School Classrooms 45 65
Church, Library 45 n/a
Open Space Parks n/a 65

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Land Use Categories
Community Noise
Equivalent Level
(dBA CNEL)
Categories Land Uses Interiora Exteriorb
a. Indoor environment excluding: bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. b. Outdoor environment limited to:

Private yard of single family
Multi-family private patio or balcony which is served by a means of exit from inside.

Mobile home park
Hospital patio
Park picnic area
School playground
Hotel and motel recreation area
c. Noise level requirement with closed windows
Mechanical ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided per Building Code. d. Exterior noise level should be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. e. Except those areas affected by aircraft noise.

Source: Kimley-Horn (2010), p 10.

City of Hesperia Municipal Code
The City of Hesperia’s regulations with respect to noise are included in Municipal Code Article V §

16.20.125 (Noise) and 16.20.130 (Vibration). The City of Hesperia Municipal Code noise standards are shown in Table 4.13-6.

City of Hesperia Municipal Code § 16.20.125
A) Noise Measurement. Noise will be measured with a sound level meter, which meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section S1.4 -1979, Type 1 or Type 2). Noise levels shall be measured using the “A” weighted sound pressure level scale in decibels (ref. pressure = 20 micro-newtons per meter squared). The unit of measure shall be designated as dB(A). The building official shall be the noise control officer.

B) Noise Standards.

1. The following table describes the noise standard for emanations from any source, as it affects adjacent properties:

Table 4.13-6

CITY OF HESPERIA NOISE STANDARDS
Affected Land Use
(Receiving Noise)
Maximum
Noise Level
(dB)
Time Interval
A-1, A-2, R-1, R-3, and RR Zone Districts 55 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.

A-1, A-2, R-1, R-3, and RR Zone Districts 60* 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.

C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-R, AP, and P-I Zone Districts 65* Anytime I-1 and I-2 Zone Districts 70* Anytime

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Affected Land Use
(Receiving Noise)
Maximum
Noise Level
(dB)
Time Interval
* Due to wind noise, the maximum permissible noise level may be adjusted so that it is no greater than 5 dB(A) above the ambient noise level.

2. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level, when measured on any other property, either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed:
a. The noise standard for that receiving land use (as specified in subsection (B)(1) of this section) for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; or
b. The noise standard plus five dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or
c. The noise standard plus ten dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
d. The noise standard plus fifteen (15) dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
e. The noise standard plus twenty (20) dB(A) for any period of time.

C) If the measured ambient level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level. If the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under this category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

D) If the alleged offense consists entirely of impact noise or simple tone noise, each of the noise levels in subsection (B)(1) of this section shall be reduced by five dB(A).

E) Exempt Noises. The following sources of noise are exempt:

1. Motor vehicles not under the control of the industrial use;

2. Emergency equipment, vehicles and devices;

3. Temporary construction, repair, or demolition activities between seven a.m. and seven p.m. except Sundays and federal holidays.

City of Hesperia Municipal Code § 16.20.130
The maximum allowable vibration at or beyond the lot line of a vibration -producing activity is peak particle velocity of 0.2 inch per second. Construction activities are exempt from this restriction as long as they occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., except Sundays and holidays.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.13.5 Significance Thresholds
Two criteria were used for judging noise impacts. First, noise levels generated by the proposed project must comply with all applicable relevant federal, state, and local standards and regulations.

Noise impacts on the surrounding community are limited by local noise ordinances, which are implemented through investigations in response to nuisance complaints. It is assumed that all existing regulations for the construction and operation of the proposed project will be enforced. In addition, the proposed proj ect should not produce noise levels that are incompatible with adjacent noise-sensitive land uses.

The second measure of impact used in this analysis is a significant increase in noise levels above existing ambient noise levels as a result of the introduction of a new noise source. An increase in noise level due to a new noise source has a potential to adversely impact people. The proposed project would have a significant noise impact if it would:
• Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards prescribed by the City of Hesperia Municipal Code; or
• Include construction activities within the hours prohibited by the Municipal Code, without a permit; or
• Result in total (ambient plus project -related) short-term noise exposures exceeding 80 dBA Leq
• Contribute, with other local construction projects, to a significant cumulative noise impact; or • Increase operational exposures at sensitive receivers (mainly because of an increase in traffic flow) by 5 dBA CNEL or more.

4.13.6 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact
Noise impacts associated with commercial and industrial projects include short-term and long-term impacts. Construction activities, especially heavy equipment operation, would create noise effects on and adjacent to the construction site. Long-term noise impacts include those from project-generated onsite and offsite operational noise sources. Onsite (stationary) noise sources from the project site would include operation of mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, landscape and building maintenance; and onsite automobile and truck traffic . Offsite noise would be attributable to project-induced traffic, which would cause an incremental increase in noise levels within and near the project vicinity.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Construction
Noise impacts from construction activities are a function of the noise generated by the operation of construction equipment, onroad delivery and worker commuter vehicles, the location of equipment, and the timing and duration of the noise -generating activities. For the purpose of this analysis, it is estimated that the proposed project would be built in one phase, whose subphases are listed in Table 4.13-7. Table 4.3-4 lists the starts and ends of the subphases. Construction is anticipated to take about eleven months, from February 2025 to December 2025. This was taken into account in the analysis of construction noise.

The types and numbers of pieces of equipment to be deployed during each construction phase were determined as part of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses for this project. (See Appendix B.) For each equipment type, Table 4.13-7 shows an average noise emission level (in dB at 50 feet, unless otherwise specified) and a “usage factor,” which is an estimated fraction of operating time that the equipment would be producing noise at the stated level.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.13-7

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Phase Equipment Type Horse-
power
No. of
Pieces
Usage
Factor
dBA @
50 Feet
1 – Grading
Graders 148 1 0.41 85
Tractor/Loader/Backhoes 84 1 0.37 85
Scrapers 367 4 0.48 84
2 – Offsite Phase –
Poplar Street -
Trenching

Excavators 158 2 0.38 77
Tractor/Loader/Backhoes 84 1 0.37 85
2 – Offsite Phase–
Three Flags Ave –
Trenching
Excavators 158 2 0.38 77
Tractor/Loader/Backhoes 84 2 0.37 85
3 – Vertical/Site
Work Phase -
Building
Construction

Rough Terrain Forklifts 231 4 0.30 67
Tractor/Loader/Backhoes 84 3 0.37 85
Skid Steer Loaders 65 4 0.40 80
4 – Vertical/Site
Work Phase - Paving
Pavers 81 2 0.42 77
Paving Equipment 89 2 0.4 85
Rollers 36 2 0.38 74
5 - Vertical/Site Work
Phase - Architectural
Coating
Air Compressors 37 1 0.48 81
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 and FHWA, 2006.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-15 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Using calculation methods published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2018) , UltraSystems estimated the average hourly exposures at the nearest sensitive receiver for each construction phase. The receivers evaluated included single -family houses along the south side of Muscatel Street, south east of the project site ; Canyon Ridge High School along the north side of Muscatel Street, east-southeast of the project site; a single-family house along the north side of Main Street, north of the project site; and a single-family house on Seal Beach Drive east of the project site (see Figure 4.13-1). The distances used for the calculation were measured from the receivers to the approximate center of activity of each construction phase, since that would be the average location of construction equipment most of the time.

Table 4.13-8 shows the results of the construction noise calculations . The combination of building construction and trenching would create the highest exposures at any of the sensitive receivers. This is why the table shows two distances: first the distance from the building construction noise source then the distance from the trenching noise source. Given the low exposure levels, noise attenuation by walls shielding some of the receivers was not calculated. Given that the Municipal Code exempts construction activities fro m noise exposure limits and that the total noise exposures (ambient plus project-related) will be less than 80 dBA Leq, the noise impacts from construction will be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary.

Table 4.13-8

MAXIMUM ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Sensitive Receivers Distance
(feet)
15-minute Leq (dBA)
Existing Projected
1 - 12623 Muscatel Street 1,445,
2,057 53.1 55.1
2 - 12850 Muscatel Street 2,402,
3,023 49.8 51.2
3 - 9048 Seal Beach Drive 2,858,
3,414 50.6 51.4
4 - 9800 Mesa Linda 4,456.
4,100 71.5 71.5

Operations
Onsite
Onsite (stationary) noise sources from the Proposed Project in the operational phase would include automobiles and heavy-duty trucks entering, exiting, and idling within the project. According to the CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 analysis for this project, the maximum hourly traffic would be 168.3 passenger vehicles and 92.1 heavy-duty trucks (CAPCOA, 202 2). The maximum hourly noise exposure for a given number of individual arrivals is (FTA, 2018, p. 44):

Leq = SEL + 10 log(V) + CS log(S/50) – 35.6
where
SEL = sound exposure level of one vehicle10

10 The sound exposure level (SEL) is equivalent to the total sound energy experienced during a measurement period, as if it had all occurred in one second.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-16 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
V = number of vehicles per hour
CS = speed constant (15 for trucks, 30 for autos)
S = average vehicle speed, miles per hour (15 miles per hour) No information on SEL values for diesel trucks was publicly available. A typical noise exposure level for a heavy-duty diesel truck at 50 feet and moving at 50 miles per hour is about 82 dBA (FHWA, 2019, p. 69). This is the same as the SEL for a diesel bus (FTA, 2018, p. 78). It is reasonable, for the purpose of this analysis, to use 82 dBA for the trucks. Therefore, for 92.1 heavy-duty trucks per hour, the Leq would be 58.2 dBA at 50 feet. The SEL for automobiles was assumed to be 74 dBA (FTA, 2018, p. 44). A similar analysis for onsite automobile use results in an estimate of 45.0 dBA at 50 feet. Total onsite mobile source noise would be 58.4 dBA Leq. Increases in Leq at the closest residence used for the construction noise analysis would essentially be undetectable. Noise impacts from onsite sources would be less than significant.

Offsite
The principal noise source in the project area is traffic on local streets. The project may contribute to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to project-generated vehicle traffic on neighborhood roadways and at intersec tions. A noise impact would occur if the project contributes to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels affecting sensitive receivers along roadways that would carry project-generated traffic. According to the CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29 analysis for this project, the project would generate 260.4 trips per day (CAPCOA, 2022).

The proposed warehouses are close to two major transportation corridors: U.S. Highway 395 and Interstate 15. Traffic to and from U.S. 395 would likely follow Three Flags Avenue and Poplar Street; all project entrances and exits would be on Poplar Street. An offramp from the southbound I-15 leads to Joshua Street and then U.S. 395, and the aforementioned route to the facility. An offramp from the northbound I-15 leads to Mariposa Road, and then Joshua Street and again the aforementioned route to the project site. All these alternatives pass through industrial and commercial areas, with few sensitive receivers.

I-15 is the predominant onroad traffic noise source in the project area and is the nearest source to surrounding sensitive receivers. According to Caltrans (2024), the 2021 average annual daily traffic (AADT) on I-5 north of its intersection with US Route 395 was 133,000 vehicles per day. Assuming that all project traffic travels on I-5, the increase in traffic would be 0.2 percent.

Given the logarithmic nature of the decibel, traffic volume needs to be doubled in order for the noise level to increase by 3 dBA, the minimum change perceived by the average human ear (ICF Jones & Stokes, 2009). A doubling is equivalent to a 100% increase. Because the maximum increase in traffic along any route to and from the project site is far below 100%, the increase in roadway noise experienced at sensitive receivers would not be perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, roadway noise associated with project operation would not expose a sensitive land use to noise levels that are considered incompatible with or in excess of adopted standards, and i mpacts would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-17 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., subway operations, vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) causing the adjacent ground to move, thereby creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the RMS velocity are usually used to describe vibration levels. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration level, while RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the level. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage, while RMS velocity in dB is typically more suitable for evaluating human response.

The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 vibration decibels (VdB). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate div iding line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for most people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible.

Construction Vibration
Construction activities for the project have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that propagate though the ground and diminish in intensity with distance from the source. Vibration impacts can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage of buildings at the highest levels. The construction activities associated with the project could have an adverse impact on both sensitive structures (i.e., building damage) and populations (i.e., annoyance). The receiver at the stated distance is a single -family residence at 12623 Muscatel Street.

Pile drivers or other major vibration sources will not be used for construction of the Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouses Project. The question is whether the equipment that will be deployed will have significant vibration impacts. In 2018, the FTA published standard vibration levels for construction equipment operations, at a distance of 25 feet. The construction related vibration levels for the nearest sensitive receivers for major construction phases are shown in Table 4.13 -9. These calculations were base d on the distances from the construction activity to the closest sensitive receiver.

❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.13-18 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.13-9

VIBRATION LEVELS OF TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment
PPV
at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Vibration
Decibels
at 25 feet
(VdB)
PPV
at 1,791 feet
(in/sec)a
Vibration
Decibels
at 1,791
feet
(VdB)a
PPV
at 99 feet
(in/sec)a
Vibration
Decibels
at 99 feet
(VdB)a
Loaded
Trucks 0.076 86 0.017 68
Jackhammer 0.035 79 0.00032 23
Small
bulldozer 0.003 58 0.00003 2.3
Large
bulldozer 0.089 87 0.00081 31
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems.

Note: PPV = peak particle velocity, VdB = vibration decibels, in/sec = inches per second. aApplies to onsite construction activities to the nearest sensitive receiver (12623 Muscatel Street).

As shown in Table 4.13-9, the PPV of construction equipment at the nearest sensitive receiver ( 99 feet) is at most 0.017 inch per second, which is less than the FTA damage threshold of 0.12 inch per second PPV for fragile historic buildings. It is also lower than the Hesperia Municipal Code §

16.20.130 standard of 0.2 inch per second. The maximum VdB are 68 VdB, which is below the FTA threshold for human annoyance of 80 VdB. Unmitigated vibration impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Operational Vibration
Operation of the proposed project would not involve significant sources of ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise. Thus, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact
The closest active airport is the Hesperia Airport , located 4.9 miles southeast of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 202 2). The project site is not located within the 65-dBA CNEL noise contours of that airport (City of Hesperia, 2019a). Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to a safety hazard or excessive noise levels associated with airports and no impact would occur.

❖ SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.14-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact
The project proposes the construction and operation of two truck warehouse developments, which does not propose a residential development that would cause direct population growth. The project would create limited employment opportunities (both during the construction and operational phases). However, it is anticipated that employees from the local workforce would be hired during both the construction and operational phases of the pr oject, and the project is not of the scope or scale to induce people to mov e from out of the project area to work at the proposed project.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.11, the City’s General Plan Land Use and zoning designation for the project site is Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP) under the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (MSFCSP) (City of Hesperia, 2023; City of Hesperia, 2010). Since the MSFCSP development accounts for this site being developed according to its current zoning designation, the project would not induce substantial unplanned growth in this area . Proposed offsite utility improvements would be minor and not of the scale to induce indirect unplanned population growth in the project area. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur regarding unplanned growth as a result of the project. Based on the discussion above, a less than significant impact would occur. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact
No housing exists onsite and no one currently resides on the project site. Therefore, the project would not displace any housing or people and the project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur.

❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.15-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.15 Public Services
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
a) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact
The City of Hesperia and the sphere of influence are served by the San Bernardino County Fire Department (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.13-1). The city has three fire stations within city boundaries – Fire Stations 302, 304, and 305. Station 305 is the closest station to the project site, approximately 0.95 mile southwest of the project site. Fire Station 305 is staffed by eight personnel daily, including one Battalion Chief, and serves as the Battalion 8 Quarters. Apparatus includes one paramedic engine, two paramedic ambulances, one battalion chief command vehicle, one brush engine, one urban and search and rescue (USAR) unit, one swift rescue unit and equipment (including rescue boat), and one mobile command post (City of Hesperia, 2022b).

As detailed in Section 4.11, development of the project site would be consistent with the project site’s General Plan land use and zoning designation of Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP), and the land use goals and policies included in the city’s General Plan and the Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (MSFCSP). Therefore, a development like the proposed project is expected and would be adequately served by the fire department. In addition, the Fontana Fire Protection District collects development mitigat ion fees for fire facilities which would be available to fund additional fire protection facilities as needed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact
The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department provides police protection and crime prevention services for the City of Hesperia and its sphere of influence on a contractual basis (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010 a, p. 3.13 -1). The Hesperia Police Department is comprised of 58 sworn law enforcement personnel including one captain, one lieutenant, seven sergeants, five detectives, and 44 deputy sheriffs (City of Hesperia, 2022a).

❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.15-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Development of the project site would be consistent with the project site’s General Plan land use and zoning designation of Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP), and the land use goals and policies included in the city’s General Plan and the Main Street Freeway Co rridor Specific Plan (MSFCSP). Therefore, a development like the proposed project is expected and would be adequately served by the police department. In addition, the police department collects development mitigation fees for police facilities which would be available to fund additional police protection facilities as needed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Schools?
No Impact
The Hesperia Unified School District (HUSD) provides school services to the City of Hesperia (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.13-2). The HUSD has 15 elementary schools, three middle schools, and six high schools (HUSD, 2022). Impact on school facilities is based on the direct population increase that the project would bring. As detailed in Section 4.13, as a non-residential development the proposed project would not induce a direct population increase and would most likely create employment for the local workfo rce. Therefore, there would be no population increase and no impacts on schools.
d) Parks?
No Impact
The Hesperia Recreation and Park District (HRPD) provides park and recreational amenities to the city (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.13-5). HRPD has 15 different parks and recreational centers to serve the city (HRPD, 2022). Impacts on park facilities are based on the direct population increase the project would have. As a non -residential development, the proposed project would not induce a direct population increase and would most likely create employment for the local workforce.

Therefore, there would be no population increase and no impacts on parks. e) Other Public Facilities?
No Impact
The County of San Bernardino Library operates the Hesperia Branch Library located at the Civic Center Plaza, 9650 Seventh Avenue in the City of Hesperia. This state -of-the-art 20,000 square foot facility, constructed in 2006, provides library services for the City of Hesperia and its Sphere of Influence (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010 a, p. 3.13 -5). The project would not induce population growth and would not impact libraries. Therefore, there would be no impact on libraries.

❖ SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.16-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.16 Recreation
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact
Recreational services in the City of Hesperia are provided by the City’s Recreation and Parks District, which maintains over 15 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (HRPD, 2022). The project proposes two truck warehouse developments. The residential population is not expected to increase as a result of the proposed project. While the project would create limited employment opportunities (both during the construction and operational phases), it is anticipated that employees from the local workforce would be hired during both phases. Therefore, there would be no impact in regards to recreational facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact
As described above, the project does not propose new or expanded recreational facilities that would have potential adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, no impact would occur.

❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.17-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.17 Transportation
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
The following analysis is based upon the Cargo Solution Express Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed project conducted by RK Engineering Group, Inc. dated May 23, 2025 (RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2025) (Appendix I).
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Applicable Plans, Ordinances, and Policies
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a multi -year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other funding sources. The proposed project development is not a transportation project and would not conflict with the STIP.

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) Assessment
As detailed in Section 4.17b) below, the project meets the requirement of a Low VMT Area and impacts would be less than significant in regards to VMT. In the TIA report, it was determined that the project would generate 402 passenger car equivalent (PCE) daily trips with 34 PCE trips in the AM peak hour and 36 PCE trips in the PM peak hours. With project implementation, there would be six intersections near the project site that would create several operationally deficient LOS and queueing intersections in the project area (RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2024, p. 4-1). However, the project would be required to implement MM TRANS -1, which would ensure that the Project

❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.17-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Applicant would implement all the necessary operational improvements listed in the Section 11.7 of TIA report to ensure that all affected intersections by project development would operate at an adequate LOS. Additionally, the project would implement MM TRANS-2, which would ensure that the Project Applicant contribute to fair -share contributions for intersection operational improvements, resulting in less than significant LOS at all intersections affected in the project area.

MM TRANS-1 The Project Applicant would be required to implement operational improvements detailed in section 11.7 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report to ensure that all affected intersections by project buildout would have an adequate level of service (LOS) (Appendix I).

MM TRANS-2 The Project Applicant would be required to contribute to fair-share contributions for intersection operational improvements in the project area. The contributions are identified in section 11.8 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report (Appendix I).

Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of MM TRANS-1 and MM TRANS -2, potential impacts in regard to LOS would be reduced to a less than significant level.

City of Hesperia General Plan—Circulation Element
The City of Hesperia General Plan’s Circulation Element has several goals and policies that apply to the proposed project. Refer to Table 4.17-1 below, which lists the applicable policies and how the proposed project would comply.

Table 4.17-1

PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF HESPERIA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING

MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION
General Plan Element Project Compliance
Goal CI -1: Develop a safe, efficient, convenient, and attractive transportation system throughout the community, providing links within the City and with neighboring regions, and accommodating automobile, truck, pedestrian, recreational, equestrian, rail, air, and public transit needs which will meet current and future development requirements within the planning area.

Implementation Policy CI -1.10: Ensure that
new development provides for adequate road
improvements to serve internal circulation
needs, as well as to mitigate the impacts of
increased traffic on the existing road system.

The proposed project would provide road
improvements such as widening Three Flags Avenue
and Poplar Street to include AC pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, and connection to existing utility
lines. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy.

Implementation Policy CI -1.12: Provide a
safe and efficient pedestrian network.

Sidewalks would be provided surrounding the project
site along Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue, where
there are currently none. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with this policy.

Goal: CI-4: Provide a circulation system that facilitates the movement of goods and services throughout the City while protecting residences, sensitive land uses, and pedestrians from activities along rail and truck corridors

❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.17-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
General Plan Element Project Compliance
Implementation Policy CI -4.2: Locate new
development and their access points in such a
way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local
residential streets for access to the
development and its parking.

The project site is located along the I -15 freeway and near U.S.-395. Additionally, the project is surrounded by commercial and industrial land uses. Therefore, the
project would not utilize residential streets for access and parking, and the project would not conflict with this policy.

Source: City of Hesperia, 2019a.

As detailed above, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable policies from the city’s General Plan that address the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.

San Bernardino Congestion Management Program (CMP)
The intent of the CMP is to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions through the STIP process. The San Bernardino County CMP, published by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority ( SBCTA), defines a network of state highways and arterials in the county and provides guidelines regarding the LOS standards, impact criteria, and a process for mitigation of impacts on CMP facilities. With certain exceptions, the minimum acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standards for CMP facilities is defined as LOS E. More specifically, the CMP states, “In no case shall the LOS standards established be below th e LOS E or the current level, whichever is farthest from LOS A.

When the LOS on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the established LOS standard, a deficiency plan shall be adopted pursuant to Section 65089.4” (SANBAG, 2016, p. 1-2).

As detailed above, the project would create operationally deficient intersections and would potentially impact LOS in the project area. However, with implementation of MM TRANS-1 and MM TRANS-2, the Project Applicant would be required to incorporate operational improvements and pay fair-share contributions, which would ensure adequate LOS at affected intersections with project buildout, resulting in less than significant LOS impacts. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
Less than Significant Impact
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b) pertains to the use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a method of determining the significance of transportation impacts. The SBCTA Senate Bill 743 Guidelines provide details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less -than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed analysis . Screening thresholds are broken into three categories: Transit Priority Area screening, Low VMT Area screening, and Project Type screening. A land use project need only meet one of the screening thresholds to result in a less -than-significant impact. As detailed in the traffic report, the project meets the requirement of a Low VMT Area and impacts would be less than significant ( RK Engineering, 202 5, p. 10 -4). Therefore, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, and impacts would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.17-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Construction
During the construction phase of the project, there may be temporary sidewalk and lane closures that could increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. However, the preparation of a construction management plan, as detailed in mi tigation measure TRANS-3, would reduce the potential for hazards due to geometric design features and incompatible uses to less than significant during the project construction phase.

MM TRANS-3 Prior to construction, the General Contractor shall submit a detailed Construction Management Plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Hesperia. The Construction Management Plan shall specify that the Construction Manager will schedule truck traffic and employee shifts to avoid creating trips during the peak traffic periods, as is feasible for construction operations. All measures, including identified truck routes and designated employee parking areas, shall be included in the Construction Management Pla n. The Plan shall include but is not limited to the following provisions:
• The Construction Management Plan shall specify how traffic will be routed and controlled during the construction phase, including which lane(s) of traffic will be temporarily blocked off for construction work.
• Specification of permitted hours for construction -related deliveries and removal of heavy equipment and material.
• Specification of where construction workers would park their personal vehicles during project construction with a requirement that at no time shall construction worker vehicles block any driveways. If complaints are received by the project applicant regarding issues with construction worker vehicle parking, the project applicant shall identify alternative parking options for construction workers so as not to interfere with any surrounding parking availability. • Identification of how emergency access to and around the project site will be maintained during project construction.
• Specification of haul routes for delivery or removal of heavy and/or oversized equipment or material loads. Where feasible, delivery or removal of oversized equipment or material loads shall be conducted during off-peak traffic periods. • Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections around the project site and designate safe crossing locations for all pedestrian detours.
• Maintain the security of the project site by erecting temporary fencing during the construction phase of the project. Any onsite night lighting used during the

❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.17-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
construction phase of the project shall be in compliance with the lighting requirements of the City of Hesperia.
• If temporary lane closures are necessary for the installation of utilities, emergency access should be maintained at all times.
• Flag persons and/or detours shall be provided as needed to ensure safe traffic operations.
• Construction signs shall be posted to advise of reduced construction zone speed limits.
• The project design shall include entry/exit gates for first responders’ vehicles to gain access to the project site.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of MM TRANS-3, potential impacts to transportation hazards during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation
Vehicular access to the project would be provided by four driveways, all located along Poplar Street.

The project’s circulation system, including driveways and parking areas, would be designed to meet the development standards of the City and would not result in uses or design features that would create traffic hazards. Therefore, impacts regarding increases in hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant during the operational phase of th e project.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated Construction
During the construction phase of the project, there may be temporary lane closures that could result in inadequate emergency access. However, the preparation of a construction management plan, as detailed in mitigation measure TRANS-3, would result in less than significant impacts in regard to inadequate emergency access to the project site during the project construction phase.

MM TRANS-3 Refer above in this section.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of MM TRANS-3, potential impacts in regard to emergency access would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation
The project would comply with applicable city regulations, such as the requirement to comply with the city’s fire code to provide adequate emergency access, as well as the California Building Standards

❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.17-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Hesperia would review project site plans, including the location of all buildings, fences, access driveways, and other features that may affect emergency access. The project’s site design includes access and fire lanes that would accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. All onsite access and sight -distance requirements would be in accordance with all applicable desi gn requirements. The city’s review process and compliance with applicable regulations and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided. Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access , and there would be less than significant impacts during the operational phase of the project.

❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.18-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources or in a local
register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code
§ 5020.1(k)?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is determined to be a
significant resource to a California
Native American tribe pursuant to
the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code
§ 5024.1(c)?
X
Information from UltraSystems’ Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the proposed project dated April 15, 2021 (refer to Appendix D1) is included in the analysis below. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k)?
No Impact
No traditional cultural sites within the area of the project boundary are documented in the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search. No resources as defined by Public Resources Code § 21074 have been identified (refer to Attachment C: “Native American Heritage Commission Records Search and Native American Contacts” in Appendix D 1 to this IS/MND). Additionally, the project site has not been recommended for historic designation for prehistoric and tribal cultural resources (TCRs). No specific tribal resources have been identified by local tribes responding to inquiries for the Cultural Resources Inventory.

No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the archaeological field survey conducted August 31, 2022 by Daniel Ballester, M.A., RPA, and Hunter O’Donnell, B.A., as part of the cultural resources investigation ( Section 4.3 , Appendix D 1). The results of the pedestrian assessment indicate that it is unlikely that prehistoric resources will be adversely affected by construction of the project . Findings of a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (the local California Historic Resources Information System facility) received October 4, 2022 indicated that a prehistoric isolate consisting of a single worked obsidian nodule was located in the north-central area of the project parcel; no other prehistoric resources were recorded within t he half-mile buffer of the project boundary.

❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.18-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
No tribal cultural resources onsite are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k). Therefore, the project would have no impact in this regard. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined to be a significant resource to a California Native American tribe pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Res ource Code § 5024.1(c)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on potential impacts on TCRs, as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074. TCRs are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects wi th cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources (CNRA, 2022).

As part of the AB 52 process, Native American tribes must submit a written request to the lead agency to be notified of projects within their traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal notification to those tribes within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project.

The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receiving this notification if they want to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the tribe’s request. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource, or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes mutual agreement cannot be reached.

The City of Hesperia (the lead agency) initiated AB 52 outreach to local tribes for the Cargo Solutions Warehouses project following submittal of the project cultural resources report to the City Planning Department so that it could be included in the consultation request package to the several tribes. The City Planning Department prepare d and sent letters to the several tribes on their list for AB 52 contact, informing them of the project. The letters were sent via certified mail to: the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) on September 22, 2022 by Ryan Leonard, Senior Planner with the City of Hesperia (Leonard, personal communication, 2022a). The letters conveyed that the recipient has 30 days from the receipt of the letter to request AB 52 consultation regarding the project.

On October 7, 2022, Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resource Analyst with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) (formerly the SMBMI) replied to Mr. Leonard via email stating that they wished to participate in AB 52 consultation. Mr. Nordness stated that the project area exists within Serrano ancestral territory and asked for the following documents for review: cultural report, geotechnical report, and project plans including depth of proposed disturbance. The project cultural resources report was provided to Mr. Leonard by Stephen O’Neil, UltraSystems Cultural Resources Manager, on October 27, 2022; it was then forwarded to the YSMN. On November 3, 2022, Mr. Nordness replied to Mr. Leonard stating that, following their review of the cultural resources report, they did “not have any concerns with the project’s implementation, as planned, at this time.” Mr. Nordness did provide three recommended Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures and two recommended Traditional Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures, whic h the City has agreed to implement. While the YSMN still requested “a final copy of the project/permit/plan conditions to review,” otherwise this concluded the tribe’s input and no additional consultation was required (Leonard, personal communication, 2022b).

❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.18-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
The other two contacted tribes did not request AB 52 consultation.

No traditional cultural sites within the area of the project boundary are documented in the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search. No resources as defined by Public Resources Code § 21074 have been identified (refer to Attachment C: “Native American Heritage Commission Records Search and Native American Contacts” in Appendix D1 to this IS/MND). Additionally, the project site has not been recommended for historic designation for prehistoric and TCRs. No specific tribal resources have been identified.

No prehistoric resources and one early twentieth -century refuse scatter were observed during the archaeological field survey. Findings of the records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center indicated a prehistoric isolate consisting of a single worked obsidian nodule was located in the north-central area of the project parcel; no other prehistoric resources were recorded within the half-mile buffer of the project boundary.

There were five responses to UltraSystems’ outreach contact s to NAHC listed tribes conducted as part of its cultural resources study . Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians indicated the project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area and that they are deferring any comments to closer tribes. Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer for the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation responded indicating that the tribe does not wish to comment on this project and defers to more local tribes. Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resources Analyst for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians indicated that the proposed project is located 0.4 miles south of two known prehistoric privy/scatter sites and 0.6 miles no rtheast from a lithic scatter and hearth site ; t he area is of concern to the tribe and the Band’s cultural resources department is interested to consult whenever this project moves into AB 52/CEQA territory .11 Chairperson Anthony Morales, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians indicated that he did not have much information about the project area. Christina Conley, Tribal Consultant and Administrator for the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council indicated that the tribe does not have any comment as it is outside of their tribal area , so they defer to sister tribes. (See Attachment C in Appendix D1).

Land at the project site has remained relatively undisturbed open desert into the early 21st century despite being part of a larger homestead established in the 1890s, with an historic road running north/south through the far eastern portion. In the past decade or so there has been shallow grading gathering soil to build berms along the parcel border, though not to the extent of removing several Joshua trees and a large juniper bush. Therefore, while the potential for subsurface prehistoric cultural depos its is considered to be moderate, the relatively undisturbed nature of the land in a region known to have been used for habitation and natural resource gathering by the local Serrano tribe (see Section 2.2.2 in Appendix D1) suggests the potential for the presence of cultural material.

The project proposes grading and trenching . Grading activities associated with development of the project would involve new subsurface disturbance and may result in the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources. The implementation of mitigation measures TCR MM-1 and TCR-MM 2 , as suggested and provided by the YSMN, upon the discovery of prehistoric cultural material would ensure impacts relate to such discoveries would be less than significant.

The ground disturbing construction work associated with the project also may result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains, including those interred outside of formal

11 The results of the AB52 consultation, which has concluded, are summarized above.

❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.18-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
cemeteries. In the unlikely event of an unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measure TCR-3 dealing with human remains are recommended to ensure that impacts related to the accidental discovery of human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1: The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the fin d be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

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

MM TCR-3: As specified by California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, if human remains are found on the project site during construction or during archaeological work, the San Bernardino County Coroner’s office shall be immediately notified and no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. The Coron er would determine within two working days of being notified, if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of MM TCR-1 and TCR MM-2 potential project impacts on TCRs would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM TCR-3 above, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to human remains and associated funerary objects.

❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.19-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of whi1ch could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 3.0, the proposed project would require a sewer, domestic water, fire water, stormwater drainage , gas and dry utilities connections to existing utility infrastructure in Poplar Street.

Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance – As detailed in Threshold 4.19 c) below, the current wastewater conveyance and treatment system servicing the project site would adequately serve the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.19-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Domestic Water – As detailed in Threshold 4.19 b) below, the project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Fire Water – Fire water would come from the same water line that supplies domestic water. A six- inch water line is proposed to connect to the existing main in Poplar Street. As detailed in Threshold

4.19 b) below, there would be sufficient water supply to serve the project site. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts regarding fire water supplies.

Stormwater – As detailed in Section 4.10 of this document, development of drainage management area (DMA)-1 and DMA -2 would ensure that t he proposed new development site would maintain consistency with the existing drainage pattern in the area (Allard Engineering, 2024, p. 1-2). Impacts regarding stormwater would be less than significant.

Electric Power: Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the project site. The proposed project is in a partially developed area, and infrastructure for providing electric power to the area is established. SCE typically utilizes existing utility corridors to reduce environmental impacts and has energy-efficiency programs to reduce energy usage and maintain reliable service for its service area (Southern California Edison, 2021).

Electrical utilities would be undergrounded. Construction would need to occur in the public right-of- way during installation of a new utility connections to the project site. The project would be constructed in accordance with applicable Title 24 regulatio ns. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Natural Gas: – Natural gas services to the project site would be provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). SoCalGas’s projections out to 2035 show available capacity that is well above the existing and future anticipated natural gas demand in the area (California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2022). Gas utilities would be installed underground to a gas service riser and meter the proposed building to be used for the HVAC units. Construction would need to occur in the public right-of-way during installation of a new utility connections to the project site. Th erefore, the proposed project would be adequately served and would not require new gas service facilities to be developed. Less than significant impact would occur.

Telecommunications Facilities: Spectrum serves internet & cable television customers in the project area (Cabletv, 2022). It is expected that facilities of the telecommunications provider would be extended into the project site from existing lines in adjacent roadways. The proposed project would not interfere with operation of telecommunications facilities, and therefore a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact
Water Supplies and Demands
The Hesperia Water District (HWD) provides water to the City (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010, p. 3.16-2). Groundwater is the primary water supply source for the City. The City pumps groundwater

❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.19-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
from the Alto Subarea of the Upper Mojave River Valley subbasin that is part of the groundwater basins covering the broader Mojave region. The groundwater system incorporates a number of sources that mix and blend to become the groundwater sources availabl e in the Mojave Basin Area.

Local supplies consisting of percolated natural supplies, wastewater imports, and return flows derived from wastewater and percolation make up the total groundwater supply. Percolated natural supplies are derived from stream flo w in the drainage basins like the Mojave River as well as infiltrating natural precipitation.

Wastewater imports come from Lake Arrowhead Community Services District, Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency, and Crestline Sanitation District also augment the supplies in the groundwater basin. Return flows are percolated supplies that are derived f rom non -consumptive uses including septic system percolation, applied irrigation water, treated wastewater, or returns through storm drains and other items. Desalination opportunities for the City water supply are not currently feasible and are not included in the projections. Mojave Water Agency (MWA) surface water imports are used to augment the groundwater supplies. All of these supplies together constitute the supplies available to meet demands in the City’s service area (Tully & Young, 2021).

HWD’s forecast retail water supplies in normal, dry, and multiple dry years are listed below in Table

4.19-1.

❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.19-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.19-1

CITY OF HESPERIA SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON (ACRE-FEET PER YEAR) Supply and Demand 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Average Year
Supply Totals 15,250 16,290 16,990 17,740 18,420
Demands Totals 15,250 16,290 16,990 17,740 18,420
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Single-Dry Year
Supply Totals 15,250 16,290 16,990 17,740 18,420
Demands Totals 15,250 16,290 16,990 17,740 18,420
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison
First Year Supply
Totals
15,250 16,290 16,990 17,740 18,420
Demand
Totals
15,250 16,290 16,990 17,740 18,420
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year Supply
Totals
15,460 16,430 17,140 17,880 18,540
Demand
Totals
15,460 16,430 17,140 17,880 18,540
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year Supply
Totals
15,670 16,570 17,290 18,020 18,660
Demand
Totals
15,670 16,570 17,290 18,020 18,660
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year Supply
Totals
15,880 16,710 17,440 18,160 18,780
Demand
Totals
15,880 16,710 17,440 18,160 18,780
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year Supply
Totals
16,090 16,850 17,590 18,300 18,900
Demand
Totals
16,090 16,850 17,590 18,300 18,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Tully & Young, 2021, p. 4.12-2 to 4.12-3.

As shown above, the City would have sufficient water supplies to meet demands in normal water year, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions over the 2020-2040 period.

Estimated project water demand is 1.94 acre-feet per year (afy), as shown below in Table 4.19-2.

The estimated project water demand is a small fraction of the City’s project water increase in the future (see Table 4.19-1 above).

❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.19-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.19-2

ESTIMATED PROJECT WATER DEMAND
Unit Water
Demand Factor
Gallons Per Day
(GPD)/per unita
Industrial Units
Estimated Water
Demand in
gallons per day
Estimated Water
Demand (gallons per
year)b
Estimated
Water Demand
(acre-feet per
year)
866 2 1,732 632,180 1.94
a 866 gallons per unit per day
b Assuming a 365 day per year operation.

Source: City of Hesperia, 2022e, Table 2
As detailed in Section 4.11, the proposed project would adhere to the project site’s development regulations. Therefore, although the project would use water during project operation, increased water use for the proposed project has been accounted for in the latest UWMP. The UWMP found that with its current water supplies, planned future water supplies, and water conservation, HWD will be able to reliably provide water to all current and future planned developments. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact
The Hesperia Water District (HWD) serves as a subsidiary special district of the City of Hesperia (City). The City owns, operates, and maintains a wastewater collection system that serves the entire city. The City’s sewer system connects to Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority’s (VVWRA) three‐mile interceptor that runs along the northeast boundary of the City, and ultimately flows to the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (RWWTP) that is owned and operated by the VVWRA. VVWRA was originally formed to meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and provide wastewater treatment for the growing area.

According to the City’s 2015 Wastewater Masterplan (WWMP) , approximately 11 percent of the geographic area studied in the WWMP is currently served by the City’s sewers which ultimately flow to the RWWTP. The remaining area is either undeveloped or served by on‐site systems (septic tanks).

Based upon the WWMP, the wastewater flow volume from the service area is 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd) or 2,240 acre-feet per year (afy). The City has future plans to expand its sewer collection system and in conjunction with VVWRA, construct sub‐regional wastewater treatment plants to treat the city’s future wastewater flows and create a supply source for its planned recycled water system (Tully & Young, 2021, p. 3-14).

As part of the adoption of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan and City of Hesperia General Plan, the availability of infrastructure and water/sewer services was assessed and determined that adequate water supply and sewer capacity is available for future residential and non-residential uses (Tully & Young, 2021, p. 2-9).

The project proposes two eight-inch sewer laterals connecting to an existing sewer in Poplar Street.

The proposed project would adhere to the project site’s General Plan land use and zoning regulations for the project site. Therefore, project -generated wastewater was taken account and would be

❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.19-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
adequately served by the RWWTP, and project development would not require construction of a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact
Advance Disposal Company, located at 17105 Mesa Street, Hesperia, CA 92345, currently provides residential and commercial waste collection and recycling programs under a franchise agreement with the City. This waste is processed and separated at the Advanc e Disposal Company facility into material that can be recycled while the remaining solid waste is transferred approximately 15 miles north for disposal at Victorville Sanitary Landfill. The Victorville Sanitary Landfill is located at 18600 Stoddard Wells R oad, Victorville, CA 92307 and is owned and operated by the County of San Bernardino (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010, p. 3 .16-8). Table 4.19-3 below summarizes the two facilities long-term and daily capacities for handling solid waste.

Table 4.19-3

SOLID WASTE FACILITIES SERVING HESPERIA
Facility and
Nearest
City/Community
Remaining
Capacity,
tons
Daily
Permitted
Disposal
Capacity,
tons
Actual Daily
Disposal,
tons
Residual Daily
Disposal
Capacity, tons
Estimated
Closing Date
Advance Disposal
Company Large
Volume
Transfer/Processing
Facility (Hesperia)
n/a 1,500 461a 1,039 n/a
Victorville Sanitary
Landfill
111,160,000 3,000 1,612b 1,388 10/1/2047
a Daily disposal quoted as the peak value observed on 7/7/2022 during most recent inspection report dated 7/28/2022. b Daily disposal quoted as the peak value observed on 8/2/2022 during most recent inspection report dated 8/10/2022.

Sources: CalRecycle. 2022a, b, c, e, f, g.

Construction
Materials generated during construction of the project would include paper, cardboard, metal, plastics, glass, concrete, lumber scraps and other materials. During construction (short -term) and operation (long-term), bulk solid waste, excess building material, fill, and other construction-related solid waste, would be disposed of in a manner consistent with State of California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (CIWMA) and would be removed from the project site. Existing regulations related to recycling during construction phase of the project require that the project provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals. Therefore, impacts during the construction phase would be less than significant.