Hesperia City Council
May 5, 2026

APPLICANT(S):

CARGO SOLUTIONS EXPRESS
FILE NO(S):

CUP22-00016 & TPM24-00003
LOCATION:

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THREE FLAGS ROAD AND
POPLAR STREET.

APNs:
3064-591-12,13,17,18, and 3064-631-01
PROPOSAL:

CONSIDERATION OF CON DITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP22-00016 TO CONST RUCT TWO 75,894 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSES WITH ONSITE TRUCK STORAGE AND TRACTOR STALLS ON 20.3 GROSS ACRES IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20883 (TPM24 -00003) TO CONSOLODTE 5 PARCELS INTO TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE COMMERCI AL INDUSTRIAL

BUSINESS PARK ZONE OF THE MAIN STREET AND FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN N


GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP
ATTACHMENT 2
SITE

APPLICANT(S):

CARGO SOLUTIONS EXPRESS
FILE NO(S):

CUP22-00016 & TPM24-00003
LOCATION:

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THREE FLAGS ROAD AND POPLAR
STREET.

APNs:
3064-591-12,13,17,18, and 3064-631-01
PROPOSAL:

CONSIDERATION OF CON DITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP22-00016 TO CONST RUCT TWO 75,894 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSES WITH ONSITE TRUCK STORAGE AND TRACTOR STALLS ON 20.3 GROSS ACRES IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20883 (TPM24 -00003) TO CONSOLODTE 5 PARCELS INTO TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE COMMERCI AL INDUSTRIAL

BUSINESS PARK ZONE OF THE MAIN STREET AND FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN N

AERIAL
ATTACHMENT 3
SITE

APPLICANT(S):

CARGO SOLUTIONS EXPRESS
FILE NO(S):

CUP22-00016 & TPM24-00003
LOCATION:

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THREE FLAGS ROAD AND POPLAR
STREET.

APNs:
3064-591-12,13,17,18, and 3064-631-01
PROPOSAL:

CONSIDERATION OF CON DITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP22-00016 TO CONST RUCT TWO 75,894 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSES WITH ONSITE TRUCK STORAGE AND TRACTOR STALLS ON 20.3 GROSS ACRES IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20883 (TPM24 -00003) TO CONSOLODTE 5 PARCELS INTO TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE COMMERCI AL INDUSTRIAL

BUSINESS PARK ZONE OF THE MAIN STREET AND FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN

COLOR ELEVATION
ATTACHMENT 4

APPLICANT(S):

CARGO SOLUTIONS EXPRESS
FILE NO(S):

CUP22-00016 & TPM24-00003
LOCATION:

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THREE FLAGS ROAD AND POPLAR
STREET.

APNs:
3064-591-12,13,17,18, and 3064-631-01
PROPOSAL:

CONSIDERATION OF CON DITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP22-00016 TO CONST RUCT TWO 75,894 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSES WITH ONSITE TRUCK STORAGE AND TRACTOR STALLS ON 20.3 GROSS ACRES IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20883 (TPM24 -00003) TO CONSOLODTE 5 PARCELS INTO TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE COMMERCI AL INDUSTRIAL

BUSINESS PARK ZONE OF THE MAIN STREET AND FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN

COLOR RENDERING
ATTACHMENT 5

CARGO SOLUTIONS TRUCK WAREHOUSES HESPERIA PROJECT
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) CEQA Analysis Prepared for:

City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345
Attn: Ryan Leonard, Senior Planner
Prepared by:

UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
Telephone: 949-788-4900
FAX: 949/788-4901
June 2025
Project No. 7187
Attachment 6

This page left intentionally blank.

❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET

1. Project Title Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouses Hesperia Project

2. CEQA Lead Agency City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345
Ryan Leonard, Senior Planner
(760) 947-1651
E: [email protected]

3. Project Applicant

4. Project Location
Bobby Kang, Owner
Cargo Solutions Express
14587 Valley Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
T: 909/263-6902
E: [email protected]

5. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers APNs 3064-591-17, 3064-591-18, and 3064-591- 12 6. Project Site General Plan
Designation(s)
Current: Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP)

7. Project Site Zoning Designation(s) Current: Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is located in a semi -rural, 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.

9. Description of Project The project proposes development of two truck warehouse building s with associated surface
parking lots.

10. Selected Agencies whose Approval
is Required
City of Hesperia

11. Have California Native American
tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1?
If so, has consultation begun?
Letters were sent by the City of Hesperia (the Lead
Agency) per Public Resources Code § 21074 to
three local Native American tribes asking if they
wished to participate in AB 52 consultation
concerning the proposed project in the City of
Hesperia. Native A merican Tribes have up to 30
days in which to respond to notification relating to

❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page ii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
this proposed project. The San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians (Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel) was
the only tribe requesting consultation. This was
conducted October and November 2022, and
concluded November 3, 2022.

12. Other Public Agencies Agencies that will review the proposed project include the following:
• California Regional Water Quality Control
Board – Lahontan
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• San Bernardino County Fire Department

❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page iii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table of Contents
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ........................................................................................................................ i Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................. iii Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1.1 Project Components ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1.2 Estimated Construction Schedule ................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation .................................................. 1-1

1.3 CEQA Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3.1 Purpose of CEQA ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA ................................................................................ 1-2

1.4 Purpose of Initial Study ..................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies .................................................................................. 1-3

1.6 Impact Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.7 Organization of Initial Study ........................................................................................................... 1-4

1.8 Findings from the Initial Study ....................................................................................................... 1-4

1.8.1 No Impact or Impacts Considered Less than Significant ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................. 1-4

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site ............................................................................................... 2-6

2.3.1 Climate and Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 2-6

2.3.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 2-6

2.3.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 2-6

2.3.4 Biology ...................................................................................................................................... 2-6

2.3.5 Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 2-7

2.3.6 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 2-7

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 Proposed Project Features ............................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.1 New Construction ................................................................................................................ 3-4

3.3.2 Parking ...................................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.3 Site Access and Circulation .............................................................................................. 3-7

3.3.4 Exterior Lighting .................................................................................................................. 3-7

3.3.5 Perimeter Fencing and Exterior Walls ........................................................................ 3-7

3.3.6 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.7 Security Features .................................................................................................................. 3-8

3.4 Offsite Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 3-8

❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page iv Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

3.5 Project Operations ............................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.6 Construction Activities ...................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.7 Discretionary Actions ....................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.7.1 Other Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................ 3-10

4.0 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................................. 4-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...................................................................................... 4-1 Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency) .............................................................. 4-1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-2

4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................... 4.2-9

4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 4.3-1

4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern ...................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Climate/Meteorology ...................................................................................................... 4.3-3

4.3.3 Local Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 4.3-4

4.3.4 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) ..................................................................... 4.3-5

4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors .......................................................................................................... 4.3-6

4.3.6 Applicable Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Rules .............. 4.3-6

4.3.7 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4.3-7

4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................ 4.4-1

4.4.1 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 4.4-1

4.4.2 Discussion of Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.4-2

4.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 4.5-1

4.5.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.3 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4.5-3

4.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................. 4.7-1

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Background Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................. 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................ 4.8-2

4.8.3 GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................... 4.8-8

4.8.4 Impact Thresholds ............................................................................................................ 4.8-9

4.8.5 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4.8-11

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 4.11-1

4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-1

4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.13.1 Characteristics of Sound .............................................................................................. 4.13-1

4.13.2 Noise Measurement Scales ......................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.13.3 Existing Noise .................................................................................................................. 4.13-2

4.13.4 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................... 4.13-6

4.13.5 Significance Thresholds ............................................................................................ 4.13-12

4.13.6 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................ 4.13-12

4.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 4.14-1

4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 4.15-1

4.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 4.16-1

4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 4.17-1

❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page v Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 4.18-1

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1

4.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................. 4.20-1

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 4.21-1

5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 CEQA Lead Agency ............................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. ................................................................................................. 6-1

6.3.1 Environmental Planning Team ....................................................................................... 6-1

6.3.2 Technical Team ..................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.3.3 Other Firms ............................................................................................................................. 6-1

7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ..................................................... 7-1

TABLES
Table 2.2-1 - Summary of Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations ...................................................... 2-1 Table 3.2-1 - Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3.6-1 - Construction Phasing and Equipment Details ............................................................................ 3-9 Table 3.7-1 - Permits and Approvals ....................................................................................................................... 3-10 Table 4.1-1 - Existing Visual Character and Land Uses in the Project Area ............................................ 4.1-6 Table 4.1-2 - Project Compliance with Scenic Regulations to the City of Hesperia Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 4.1-7 Tab le 4.3-1 - Federal and State Attainment Status .......................................................................................... 4.3-2 Table 4.3-1 - Federal and State Attainment Status ........................................................................................... 4.3-2 Table 4.3-2 - Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data ......................................................................................... 4.3-5 Table 4.3-3 - MDAQMD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants ............................................ 4.3-7 Table 4.3-4 - Construction Schedule ....................................................................................................................... 4.3-8 Table 4.3-5 - Maximum Annual Regional Construction Emissions ............................................................ 4.3-9 Table 4.3-6 - Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ................................................................ 4.3-9 Table 4.3-7 - Maximum Annual Project Operational Emissions ............................................................... 4.3-10 Table 4.3-8 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions ................................................................... 4.3-10 Table 4.6-1 - Estimated Project Operational Energy Use ............................................................................... 4.6-3 Table 4.7-1 - USDA Soils Mapped on the Project Site....................................................................................... 4.7-9 Table 4.7-2 - Paleontological Records Search Results .................................................................................. 4.7-11 Table 4.8-1 - City of Hesperia Community Business as Usual Emissions ................................................ 4.8-9 Table 4.8-2 - Project Construction-Related GHG Emissions ...................................................................... 4.8-12 Table 4.8-3 - Project Operational GHG Emissions .......................................................................................... 4.8-13 Table 4.11 -1 - Consistency Analysis: Proposed Project Compared to Applicable City of Hesperia General Plan Land Use Element Goals and Policies ......................................................................................... 4.11-3 Table 4.11-2 - Consistency Analysis: Proposed Project Compared to Applicable City of Hesperia Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Goals and Policies ................................................................... 4.11-4 Table 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers in Project Area ........................................................................................ 4.13-2 Table 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers in Project Area ........................................................................................ 4.13-2 Table 4.13-2 - Ambient Noise Measurement Results ................................................................................... 4.13-4 Table 4.13-4 - California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources ............................ 4.13-6

❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page vi Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.13-5 - City of Hesperia Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ................................................ 4.13-9 Table 4.13-6 - City of Santa Ana General Plan Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ................ 4.13-10 Table 4.13-7 – Construction Equipment Characteristics ......................................................................... 4.13-14 Table 4.13-8 - Maximum Estimated Construction Noise Levels During Grading .......................... 4.13-15 Table 4.13-9 - Vibration Levels of Typical Construction Equipment .................................................. 4.13-18 Table 4.17-1 - Project Compliance with City of Placentia General Plan Policies Regarding Mobility and Transportation ....................................................................................................................................................... 4.17-2 Table 4.19-1 - City of Hesperia Supply and Demand Comparison (Acre-feet Per Year) ................ 4.19-4 Table 4.19-2 – Estimated Project Water Demand .......................................................................................... 4.19-5 Table 4.19-3 – Solid Waste Facilities Serving Hesperia ............................................................................... 4.19-6 Table 4.19-4 - Estimated Project-Generated Solid Waste ........................................................................... 4.19-7 Table 7.0-1 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................................................................... 7-2

FIGURES
Figure 2.2-1 - Regional Location .................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2.2-2 - Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2.2-3 - Topographic Map .................................................................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2.2-4 - Project Site Photographs .................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 3.2-1 - Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.3-1 – Truck Warehouse Building Floor Plan ........................................................................................ 3-5 Figure 3.3-2 – Truck Warehouse Building Elevations ........................................................................................ 3-6 Figure 4.1-1 - State Scenic Highways ...................................................................................................................... 4.1-3 Figure 4.1-2 - Views for Surrounding Land Uses in the Project Area ....................................................... 4.1-5 Figure 4.2-1 - Important Farmland Categories ............................................................................................... 4.2-10 Figure 4.4-1 – Project Location and Biological Study Area ........................................................................... 4.4-4 Figure 4.4-2 – Land Cover Map ................................................................................................................................. 4.4-5 Figure 4.4-3 – CNDDB Known Occurrences Plant Species and Habitats ................................................. 4.4-9 Figure 4.4-4 – CNDDB Known Occurrences Wildlife Species .................................................................... 4.4-10 Figure 4.5-1 - Topographic Map ............................................................................................................................... 4.5-2 Figure 4.7-1 – Alquist Priolo Fault Zones ............................................................................................................. 4.7-3 Figure 4.7-2 – Regionally Active Faults ................................................................................................................. 4.7-4 Figure 4.7-3 - Landslides and Liquefaction .......................................................................................................... 4.7-6 Figure 4.9-1 - Project Cortese List Map ................................................................................................................. 4.9-7 Figure 4.9-2 - Airports in the Project Region ...................................................................................................... 4.9-8 Figure 4.9-3 - Fire Hazard Severity Zones - Local Responsibility Area ................................................. 4.9-11 Figure 4.9-4 - Fire Hazard Severity Zones - Local Responsibility Area ................................................. 4.9-12 Figure 4.10-1 - USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds ................................................................................ 4.10-3 Figure 4.11-1 - General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation .............................................................. 4.11-2 Figure 4.12-1 - Designated Mineral Resource Zones .................................................................................... 4.12-2 Figure 4.12-2 – Oil and Gas Wells ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-3 Figure 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers Near the Project Site ........................................................................... 4.13-3 Figure 4.13-2 - Ambient Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................. 4.13-5

ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A Project Plans and Drawings
Appendix B CalEEMod Input and Results for Air Quality Analysis and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis

❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page vii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Appendix C1 Biological Resources Evaluation
Appendix C2 Species Occurrence Potential Evaluation
Appendix D1 Cultural Resources Report
Appendix D2 Paleontological Resources Records Search
Appendix E Custom Soils Report
Appendix F Rec Check Report
Appendix G Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H Noise Data
Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix J Fuel Consumption

❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page viii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) AB 52 Assembly Bill 52
ACM(s) Asbestos-Containing Material(s)
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AFY Acre-feet per year
AIA Airport Influence Area
AMI Area Median Income
amsl above mean sea level
APE Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQA Air Quality Analysis
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AR4 Fourth Assessment Report
ARB California Air Resources Board
BAU business as usual
BIOS Biogeographic Information and Observation System
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAL Green California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAO(s) Cleanup and Abatement Order(s)
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring CAT Climate Action Team
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDO(s) Cease and Desist Order(s)
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
cfs cubic feet per second
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historic Resources Inventory System
City City of Hesperia
CMP Congestion Management Program
CMP corrugated metal pipe

❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page ix Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
CMPHS CMP Highway System
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRC California Residential Code
CWA Clean Water Act
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOSH California Division of Safety and Health
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
du/ac Dwellling units per acre
DWR Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ESRL Earth System Research Laboratory
EV electric vehicle
EVCS electric vehicle charging station
°F degrees Fahrenheit
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gases
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
GWP global warming potential
HABS Historic American Building Survey
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFCs hydroflourocarbons
HU Hydrologic Unit
HVAC heating, ventiliation and air conditioning
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISA International Society of Arboriculture
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
L90 noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time

❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page x Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
Leq equivalent noise level
LBP Lead-Based Paint
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax root mean square maximum noise level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM(s) mitigation measure(s)
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMTCO2e million metric tons of CO2e
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municiple Separate Storm Sewer permit
MT Metric tons
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
National Core National Community Renaissance
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
ND Negative Declaration
NO nitric oxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 Ozone
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
R-1 Single-family Residential zoning designation
R-3 High Density Residential zoning designation
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RECs Recognized Environmental Condition(s)
R-G Medium Density Residential zoning designation

❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page xi Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RMS root mean square
ROG Reactive organic gases
ROW Right-of-way
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
§ section
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison Company
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SR-55 State Route 55
SR-91 State Route 91
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRAs source receptor areas
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAPs Transportation Assembly Points
T-C Town Center zoning designation
TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources
TMP Traffic Management Plan
UFPO Urban Forest Protection Ordinance
UEI Ultrasystems Environmental, Inc.

U.S. United States
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VdB vibration decibels
VCP vitrified clay pipe
VHFHSZ(s) very high fire hazard severity zone(s)
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WEG wind erodibility group
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRI World Resources Institute
ybp years before present

❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Proposed Project
The City of Hesperia (City) is processing a request to implement a series of discretionary actions that would ultimately allow for the development of two truck warehouses with associated parking lots (project) at the southeast intersection of Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue in the City of Hesperia in San Bernardino County, California (APNs: 3064 -591-17, -18, -12, -13, and 3064-631-01). The project proposes development of two truck warehouse buildings with an associated surface parking lot on an approximately 20.32-acre site.

1.1.1 Project Components
The proposed project would develop two truck warehouse buildings with associated surface parking lots. Refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, of this document for additional details.

1.1.2 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction of the proposed project would be conducted in one phase. Construction is estimated to be from June 2025 to July 2026. Refer to Section 3.0 for details.

1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation The City of Hesperia is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations, 1 the Lead Agency has the principal responsibility for implementing and approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.3 CEQA Overview

1.3.1 Purpose of CEQA
All discretionary projects within California are required to undergo environmental review under CEQA. A Project is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 as the whole of the action having the potential to result in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment and is any of the following:

An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and t he adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements.

An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.

An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.

1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21177 and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.

❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 1-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
CEQA Guidelines § 15002 lists the basic purposes of CEQA as follows:

Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.

Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.

Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures (MMs) when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.

Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

1.3.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA
CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15041 a Lead Agency for a project has authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in or der to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus”2 and “rough proportionality”3 standards.

CEQA allows a Lead Agency to approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect. In such cases, the Lead Agency must specifically identify expected benefits and other overriding considerations from the project that outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.

1.4 Purpose of Initial Study
The CEQA process begins with a public agency making a determination as to whether the project is subject to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the process does not need to proceed any farther. If the project is not exempt, the Lead Agency takes the sec ond step and conducts an Initial Study to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

The purposes of an Initial Study as listed in § 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines are to:

Provide the Lead Agency with information necessary to decide if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be prepared.

Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a ND or MND.

Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on adverse effects determined to be significant, identifying the adverse effects determined not to be significant, explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant adv erse effects would not be

2 A nexus (i.e., connection) must be established between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest.
3 The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the Project.

❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 1-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
significant, and identifying whether a program EIR, or other process, can be used to analyze adverse environmental effects of the project.

Facilitate an environmental assessment early during project design.

Provide documentation in the ND or MND that a project would not have a significant effect on the environment.

Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.

Determine if a previously prepared EIR could be used for the Project.

In cases where no potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may issue a ND, and no MMs would be needed. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may determine that MMs would adequately reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The Lead Agency would then prepare a MND for the proposed project. If the Lead Agency determines that individual or cumulative effects of the proposed project would cause a significant adverse environmental effect that can not be mitigated to less than significant levels, then the Lead Agency would require an EIR to further analyze these impacts.

1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies
Other public agencies are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the IS/MND. Each of these agencies is described briefly below.

A Responsible Agency (14 CCR § 15381) is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that has discretionary approval power over the Project, such as permit issuance or plan approval authority.

A Trustee Agency 4 (14 CCR § 15386) is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California.

Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law (14 CCR § 15366) are any public agencies who have authority (1) to grant a permit or other entitlement for use; (2) to provide funding for the project in question; or (3) to exercise authority over resources which may be a ffected by the project.

Furthermore, a city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project when the city or county having primary jurisdiction over the area involved is: (1) the site of the project; (2) the area in which the major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental effects.

1.6 Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of potential impacts:

A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular environmental threshold in any way.

An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation.

An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment

4 The four Trustee Agencies in California listed in CEQA Guidelines § 15386 are California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California.

❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 1-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
with the inclusion of environmental commitments, or other enforceable measures, that would be adopted by the lead agency.

An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that the project could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.

An EIR is required if an impact is identified as potentially significant.

1.7 Organization of Initial Study
This document is organized to satisfy CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d), and includes the following sections:

Section 1.0 - Introduction, which identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND.

Section 2.0 - Environmental Setting , which describes location, existing site conditions, land uses, zoning designations, topography, and vegetation associated with the project site and surroundings.

Section 3.0 - Project Description, which provides an overview of the project, a description of the proposed development, project phasing during construction, and discretionary actions for project approval.

Section 4.0 - Environmental Checklist, which presents checklist responses for each resource topic to identify and assess impacts associated with the proposed project, and proposes MMs, as needed, to reduce potential environmental impacts to less than significant.

Section 5.0 - References, which includes a list of documents cited in the IS/MND.

Section 6.0 - List of Preparers, which identifies the primary authors and technical experts that prepared the IS/MND.

Technical studies and other documents, which include supporting information or analyses used to prepare the IS/MND, are included in the following appendices:

Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B CalEEMod Input and Results for Air Quality Analysis and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
Appendix C1 Biological Resources Evaluation
Appendix C2 Species Occurrence Potential Evaluation
Appendix D1 Cultural Resources Report
Appendix D2 Paleontological Records Search
Appendix E Custom Soils Report
Appendix F Rec Check Report
Appendix G Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H Noise Data
Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix J Fuel Consumption

1.8 Findings from the Initial Study

1.8.1 No Impact or Impacts Considered Less than Significant Based on IS findings, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental categories listed from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 1-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire

1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Based on IS findings, the project would have a less than significant impact on the following environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when proposed MMs are implemented.

Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Transportation and Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of Significance

❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Project Location
The proposed Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse s Hesperia Project is located at the southeast intersection of Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue in the City of Hesperia in San Bernardino County, California (APNs: 3064-591-17, -18, -12, -13, and 3064-631-01). Refer to Figure 2.1-1, which shows the project’s location in a regional context. Figure 2.1-2 depicts an aerial photo of the project site and the surrounding land.

2.2 Project Setting
The project site is currently undeveloped (Google Earth Pro, 2024). The project proposes two truck warehouse building s with associated surface parking lot s. See Figure 2.2-1, which depicts the topography of the site and surrounding area. Topography within the project site is relatively flat (Google Earth, 2024). Site photographs are provided in Figure 2.2-2.

2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning
The land use and zoning designations and existing development of the project site and its immediate vicinity are listed in Table 2.2-1. The City’s General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations for the project site are Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP) under the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (City of Hesperia, 2023; City of Hesperia, 2010).

Table 2.2-1

SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USE, ZONING AND SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS Location General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Existing Development
Project Site
Com/Ind Business Park
(CIBP) under the Main
Street and Freeway
Corridor Specific Plan
(MSFCSP)
Com/Ind Business Park
(CIBP) under the Main Street
and Freeway Corridor Specific
Plan (MSFCSP)
Undeveloped land
North CIBP under the MSFCSP CIBP under the MSFCSP Undeveloped land South CIBP under the MSFCSP CIBP under the MSFCSP
Industrial and
commercial land uses,
and undeveloped land
East CIBP under the MSFCSP CIBP under the MSFCSP Interstate-15 freeway, undeveloped land
West CIBP under the MSFCSP CIBP under the MSFCSP Commercial and undeveloped land
Source: City of Hesperia, 2023; City of Hesperia, 2010; Google Earth Pro, 2024.

❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 2.1-1

REGIONAL LOCATION

❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 2.1-2

PROJECT LOCATION

❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 2.2-1

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 2.2-2

PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site

2.3.1 Climate and Air Quality
The project site is located within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB), which encompasses the desert portions of Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The MDAB is classified as a dry-hot desert (BWh), with portions classified as dry-very hot desert (BWhh), to indicate that at least three months have maximum average temperatures over 100.4°F (MDAQMD, 2020a, p. 6 -7). The MDAB is currently in federal nonattainment for ozone and PM 2.5 and state nonattainment for ozone and PM10.

2.3.2 Geology and Soils
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 Pro, 2024). 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 A-P fault zone), is approximately eight miles to the east.

2.3.3 Hydrology
The project is located within the Mojave River Watershed (USGS HU code 18090208), which encompasses approximately 4,500 square miles. The Mojave River Watershed drains the northern areas of the San Bernardino Mountains (USEPA, 2022; Google Earth Pro, 202 4). 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 06071C6495H, effective August 28, 2008); the site is located in Flood Hazard Zone X, defined on this FIRM as Areas of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2008).

2.3.4 Biology
The climate of Hesperia is arid and characteristic of the regional Mojave Desert. In the vicinity of Hesperia, the Mojave Desert receives on average 8.5 inches per year. Summers are typically dry with occasional and scattered monsoon rain events that originate in the Gulf of California, whereas winter precipitation events are more significant and originate from the jet stream off the Pacific Ocean. The Mojave Desert exhibits a dry season extending from April through October, with an average of 0.1 inch of rain per month, and a wetter season between November through March, with an average of

0.5 inch of rain per month. Summers (June through September) are very hot, with an average high of 94 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and low of 65°F. Winters (November through March) are cooler, with an average high of 57°F and low of 35°F (WRCC, 2022a).

The project site is currently undeveloped and contains disturbed California juniper woodlands.

However, there is evidence that the project site has seen frequent disturbances resulting from grading, vehicle use, and other events. Therefore, the project site does not offer optimal habitat to support a diverse array of special -status species. Due to development and disturbances in the area, just a small diversity of native and non -native plant species were observed within the BSA. Species observed included non-native, ornamental species in developed areas, non -native, weedy species in disturbed areas, and remnants of California juniper woodland community including one California

❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
juniper and several western Joshua trees. During the field survey, five wildlife species were observed; no special-status plants or wildlife were observed during the field survey. There were also suitable burrows observed that were likely created by fossor ial mammals such as ground squirrels, which were also observed. Further details about biology on the project site are in Section 4.4.

2.3.5 Public Services
Police
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, p. 3.13 -1). The Hesperia Police Departme nt 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).

Fire
The City of Hesperia and the sphere of influence are served by the San Bernardino County Fire Department (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010, p. 3.13 -1). The city has three fire stations within city boundaries – Fire Stations 302, 304, and 305 (City of Hesperia, 2022b).

Schools
The Hesperia Unified School District (HUSD) provides school services to the City of Hesperia (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010, p. 3.13 -2). The HUSD has 15 elementary schools, three middle schools, and six high schools (HUSD, 2022).

Libraries
The County of San Bernardino Library operates the Hesperia Branch Library located in Civic Center Plaza, at 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, 2010a, p. 3.13-5).

Parks
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).

2.3.6 Utilities
Water
The City of Hesperia is served by the Hesperia Water District (HWD), which manages the City’s potable water system (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.16-2).

Water Reclamation

❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
The Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA) provides the treatment and distribution of reclaimed water within the City of Hesperia. During peak demand, recycled water is used to irrigate landscaping, offsetting potable water demands. During low water demand, the recycled water is used to recharge the groundwater basin (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p.

3.16-4 to 3.16-5).

Sewer
Wastewater services are also provided by the VVWRA (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.16- 6).

Solid Waste
Advance Disposal Company currently provides residential and commercial waste collection and recycling programs under a franchise agreement with the City (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.16-8).

Electricity
Electrical power is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.16-9).

Natural Gas
Natural gas services to the City would be provided by SoCalGas (SoCalGas, 2022).

❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Project Background
The City of Hesperia (City) is processing a request to implement a series of discretionary actions that would ultimately allow for the development of two truck warehouses (project) on an approximately

20.32-acre site located at the southeast intersection of Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue in the City of Hesperia in San Bernardino County, California (APNs: 3064-591-17, -18, -12, -13, and 3064- 631-01). The project proposes to develop Truck Warehouse Building 1 with an associated parking lot on the weste rn portion of the project site on an approximately 10.52 -acre lot, and Truck Warehouse Building 2 with an associated parking lot on the eastern portion of the project site on an approximately 9.8-acre lot. The City is the Lead Agency for the purposes of the CEQA.

The entire approximately 20.32-acre project site is currently undeveloped land. The project site is located in a semi-rural, 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, 2024).

The City’s General Plan Land Use and zoning designation for the project site is Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP) within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (City of Hesperia, 202 3; City of Hesperia, 2010). The CIBP zoning designation is to create employment -generating uses in a business park setting. This zone is intended to provide for service commercial, 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 include commercial storage facilities, manufacturing, offices, repair shops, warehousing and wholesale distribution centers, and other similar uses (The Arroyo Group, 2021, p. 196-197). Additional details on the land use and planning can be found in Section 4.11 of this document.

3.2 Project Overview
The project would consist of: (1) utility improvements; (2) construction of both truck warehouse buildings; (3) construction of a surface parking lot; and ( 4) landscaping. Figure 3.2-1 is a site plan depicting the layout of the proposed project. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the proposed project features.

❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 3.2-1

PROJECT SUMMARY
New Construction Proposed Uses/Features Square Feet No. of Stories
Approximate
Building Height
(feet)
Truck Warehouse
Building 1
Warehouse, office, and grade level
doors
75,894

3 42
Surface Parking Lot for
Truck Warehouse
Building 1
Passenger vehicle and truck/trailer
parking
121,975 N/A N/A
Landscaping Landscaping 26,864 N/A N/A
Total Developed Area for Truck Warehouse 1 224,733 N/A N/A Truck Warehouse
Building 2
Warehouse, office, and grade level
warehouse space 75,894 3 42
Surface Parking Lot for
Truck Warehouse
Building 2
Passenger vehicle and truck/trailer
parking 143,708 N/A N/A
Landscaping Landscaping 58,389 N/A N/A
Total Developed Area for Truck Warehouse 2 277,991 N/A N/A Source: Amor Architectural Corporation, 2024

❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 3.2-1

SITE PLAN

❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

3.3 Proposed Project Features

3.3.1 New Construction

3.3.1.1 Truck Warehouse Buildings
The proposed truck warehouse buildings would be identical. Each truck warehouse building would be approximately 42 feet tall with three stories of office space overlooking an open warehouse floor and grade level warehouse space. Truck Warehouse Building 1 would be located on the west side of the project site and Truck Warehouse Building 2 would be located on the east side of the project site.

Figures 3.3-1 to 3.3-2 depict floor plans and elevations of the proposed truck warehouse buildings.

Complete plans of the project can be found in Appendix A.

❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 3.3-1

TRUCK WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS FLOOR PLAN

❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 3.3-2

TRUCK WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS ELEVATIONS

❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

3.3.2 Parking
Based on the § 16.20.080, Parking Requirements of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed truck warehouses would be required to have 238 auto parking stalls (City of Hesperia Municipal Code, 2024). The project proposes to develop 264 auto parking stalls that would consist of 123 auto parking stalls for Truck Warehouse Building 1 and 141 auto parking stalls for Truck Warehouse Building 2. Additionally, the project would provide tractor/trailer, tractor only parking, and dock door parking for each proposed building. Parking for each proposed building is detailed in Table

3.3-1.

Table 3.3-1

PROJECT PARKING SUMMARY
Proposed Building Type of Parking Number of Parking Stalls Truck Warehouse Building 1 Auto parking 123
Tractor/trailer parking 101
Tractor only parking 59
Dock door parking 32
Total Parking 315
Truck Warehouse Building 2 Auto parking 141
Tractor/trailer parking 76
Tractor only parking 51
Dock door parking 32
Total Parking 300

3.3.3 Site Access and Circulation
The project site would have four driveways along Poplar Street for project ingress and egress. Each of the buildings would have two driveways. Circulation within the project site would be along the surface parking lot shown in the project site plan, Figure 3.2-1.

3.3.4 Exterior Lighting
The project proposes lighting throughout the site for safety and security purposes. Lighting for the project would comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, the project would be required to comply with § 16.16.410, Industrial Design Standards and Guidelines, which would ensure exterior lighting would not cause significant lighting and glare impacts (City of Hesperia Municipal Code, 2024).

3.3.5 Perimeter Fencing and Exterior Walls
The project site would be surrounded by an eight-foot-tall decorative screen wall with gates at entry ways. An approximately eight -foot-tall wrought iron fence would sep arate both truck warehouse buildings one and two.

3.3.6 Utilities
The project would require a sewer, domestic water, fire water, irrigation, gas and dry utilities connections to existing utility infrastructure in Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue.

❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Sanitary Sewer - The project proposes two eight-inch sewer lateral connecting to an existing sewer in Poplar Street.

Domestic Water - The City of Hesperia is served by the Hesperia Water District (HWD), which manages the City’s potable water system. New domestic water meters would be installed as required to meet project demands in compliance with the requirements of the city’s Public Works Department. Construction would need to occur in the public right -of-way during installation of domestic water lines from the an existing main in Poplar Street to the project site.

Fire Water - The project proposes construction of a new six-inch fire water line from Poplar Street to the project site.

Dry Utilities - Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the project site.

Electrical utilities would be underground. Construction would need to occur in the public right -of- way during installation of a new utility connections to the project site.

Stormwater - The proposed site development and its drainage system would be comprised of storm drain pipe, concrete channel, onsite grate inlets with filtration device, and the infiltration/retention basin-1. The infiltration/retention basin-1 is sized to qualify for both WQMP volume as well as the detention volume for the proposed developed site. Detention volume has been calculated based upon the City of Hesperia "13.5-cf of retention per 100-sf of impervious area" rule (Allard Engineering, 2024).

Trash Service - Advance Disposal Company currently provides residential and commercial waste collection and recycling programs under a franchise agreement with the City (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010, p. 3.16-8).

Gas – Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) would provide gas service to the project site. Gas utilities would be installed underground to a gas service riser and meter at each building to be used for the AC units.

3.3.7 Security Features
The project site would be surrounded by a combination of eight-foot-tall decorative wall and gates at entry ways. Additionally, there would be 24-hour security cameras on the project site.

3.4 Offsite Improvements
The proposed project would widen the streets of Three Flags Avenue and Poplar Street to include AC pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and connection to existing utility lines.

3.5 Project Operations
The truck warehouses would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Each truck warehouse is estimated to have approximately 224 total employees, resulting in a total of approximately 448 employees.

3.6 Construction Activities
Construction of the proposed project would be conducted in one phase. Construction is estimated to take place from October 2025 to November 2026. Further construction details for each construction phase are shown in Table 3.6-1.

❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
For safety reasons, temporary barricades would be used to limit access to the site during project construction and maintain safe access for construction workers. Construction would occur during daylight and during regular business hours. Lighting for the construction site would be limited to the minimum amount of light needed for safety and security.

After site preparation is completed, infrastructure such as sewer laterals and storm drains would be installed and/or connected to existing facilities. The building foundations would be poured and framing of the buildings would begin. The final steps of co nstruction would involve interior furnishings, detail work, and completion of common areas and outside landscaping.

The only offsite improvements would be installation of utility laterals and connections of laterals to mains. The construction contractor would use heavy equipment during grading; estimated numbers and types of equipment per construction phase are identifi ed below in Table 3.6 -1.

Construction staging would be limited to the project site; no offsite areas would be used.

Construction Employees
Project construction workers would park their vehicles on the project site. Below is the anticipated number of construction employees by construction phase:
• Grading:
➢ 30-40 employees

• Offsite Phase:
➢ 20-30 employees

• Vertical / Sitework Phase:
➢ 20-30 employees
Table 3.6-1

CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND EQUIPMENT DETAILS
Phase Name Equipment Type Number
per Day
Hours
Per
Day
Horsepower Load
Factor
Grading Phase (2 months)
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37
Scrapers 4 8 423 0.48
Off-Site Phase (2 months)
Excavators 2 8 36 0.38
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37
Vertical/Site Work Phase- Building
Construction (7 months)
Rough Terrain Forklifts 4 8 96 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 84 0.37
Skid Steer Loaders 4 8 46 0.45
Vertical/Site Work Phase- Paving
(1month)
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38
Vertical/Site Work Phase-
Architectural Coating (1 month) Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 Source: Amor Architectural Corporation, 2024

❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

3.7 Discretionary Actions
The proposed project includes applications for the following discretionary approvals by the City of Hesperia:
• Building permits
• Engineering permits
• Site Design

3.7.1 Other Permits and Approvals
Following the City’s approval of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following permits/approvals, as shown in Table 3.7-1, would be required prior to construction.

Table 3.7-1

PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
City of Hesperia Building & Safety
Division
Site Plan review and approval and Grading and Building
Permits
City of Hesperia Planning Division Conditional Use Permit Design Review
San Bernardino County Fire Protection
District
Building plan check and approval. Review for compliance with the current California Fire Code, current California Building Code, California Health & Safety Code and City of Hesperia Municipal Code.

Plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and automatic sprinklers.

Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Region 6)
Water quality permits

❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenc ed information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors, as well as g eneral standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).

All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significan t Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
“Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to less than significant level.

Earlier analyses may be use where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an affect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. (See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where the earlier analysis available for review.

Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.

Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a ref erence to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

The explanation of each issue should identify:

The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment (such as hills, vegetation, rock outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils) features. Visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity, duration, and visual resources characterize views. Visual qualit y refers to the general aesthetic quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity. Viewer groups identify who is most likely to experience the view. High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas. Duration of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer group. Visual resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or of specific unique structures or landscape features.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact
Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance, and focal views that focus on a particular object, s cene or feature of interest. The city’s General Plan Open Space Element contains scenic vistas including Mojave River to the east, the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountain ranges to the south and the surrounding Victor Valley, along with neighboring hillsides and the natural desert environment. These scenic resources provide a visual

❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
relief from the man -made structures in the city and also connect its residents to the natural environment (City of Hesperia, 2019a, p. OS-13). The project site is located in a semi-rural portion of the city and would not impact hillsides and natural desert environment. The Mojave River runs along the city’s eastern border (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 2-1). However, the project site is located on the western portion of the city, and has intervening developments that block views of the Mojave River. There are partial views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains at the existing project site from the surrounding developments adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would develop buildings up to a height of approximately 4 2 feet tall, which would adhere to the project site’s allowable maximum building height of 60 feet (The Arroyo Group, 2021, p. 198), and would be similar to the approximately 20 - to 30 -foot-tall industrial and commercial buildings surrounding the project site. Additionally, the project area does not have sensitive receivers such as residences adjacent to the site where views of the mountains would be permanently blocked. Viewers of the area would likely be people driving through the project area. The project area is largely vacant and viewers would have undisrupted views of the mountains continuing along Poplar Street or Three Flags Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact views of scenic vis tas compared to the existing setting, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides information regarding officially designated or eligible state scenic highways, designated as part of the California Scenic Highway Program. As shown in Figure 4.1 -1, t he closest officially designated state scenic highway to the project site is a portion of the State Route 2 (SR-2), which is approximately 15.1 miles southwest; portions of SR-138, which is eligible for designation but not officially designated, are approximately

6.7 miles south o f the site (Caltrans, 202 4). Due to the large distance between the project site and these highways , construction and implementation of the project would have no impacts on state scenic highways. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/ Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.1-1

STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS

❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located within an emerging semi -rural portion of the city characterized by commercial, industrial and undeveloped land uses as shown in Figure 4.1-2. Table 4.1-1 details the existing visual character and land uses of the project site and surrounding area . Table 4.1-2 details applicable scenic quality goals and regulations, and how the proposed project would adhere to them.

❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.1-2

VIEWS FOR SURROUNDING LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA

❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.1-1

EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER AND LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA Location General Characteristics Existing Lighting Building Height & Design Landscaping Project
Site Undeveloped None None Undeveloped
Surrounding Areas
North Undeveloped None None Undeveloped
South
Industrial (Truck repair
shop)/commercial (truck
car wash)
Exterior lighting
for security
purposes
Approximately 20-to 30-
feet tall buildings with
plastered concrete tilt-up
exterior walls in varying
colors.

Ornamental
East Undeveloped None None Undeveloped
West Industrial Park and
Business
Exterior lighting
for security
purposes
Approximately 20 feet tall
buildings with plastered
concrete tilt-up exterior
walls in varying colors.

Ornamental
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2024 and UltraSystems Environmental, 2022.

Construction
Construction of the proposed project would include views associated with construction activities, construction staging areas, grading, excavation, construction equipment, material storage areas, construction debris, exposed trenches, etc. Construction elem ents would be inconsistent with the visual character of the project vicinity. Project construction could temporarily degrade the existing visual character of the project area and its immediate surroundings. However, this impact would be short term and thes e elements would be removed following construction. Therefore, impacts in regard to construction would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed project would develop two truck warehouses with associated surface parking lot and ornamental landscaping. The proposed project would be designed to adhere to the City’s design guidelines to complement the existing buildings and architecture surrounding the project site.

Additionally, the project area is part of the Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, which plans to develop the project area with similar industrial developments such as the proposed project due to its prime regional location to transportation corridors (The Arroyo Group, 2021, p. 196). Therefore, the project would not significantly impact the characteristics of the project area or public views.

Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.1-2

PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SCENIC REGULATIONS IN REGARDS TO THE CITY OF HESPERIA

MAIN STREET FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN
Policy Compliance
Goal UD-1: Strengthen the identity of the City of Hesperia and the Specific Plan area by building upon the surrounding natural resources and amenities, and create a new image for Main Street and the Freeway Corridor that expresses an attractive, inviting, high quality character and commercial vitality.

Policy UD -1.4: Preserve views of the mountains –
San Gabriel Mountains to the southwest and San
Bernardino National Forest to the southeast
As detailed in Section 4.1a), the project’s buildings
would adhere to the Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP)
height requirements. Additionally, the proposed
buildings would conform to the height requirements
of the general plan and zoning, and be similar to
surrounding developments. Therefore, views of the
mountains would not be significantly impacted by
the project, and the project would be consistent with
this policy.

Goal UD-2: Create distinctive and attractive communities with a strong sense of place (Smart Growth principle).

Policy UD -2.1: Establish development and design
standards that encourage high quality of
construction and lead to the creation of attractive
developments.

The project site is currently an undeveloped lot with
no significant aesthetic resources. The proposed
project would adhere to the Com/Ind Business Park
(CIBP) development requirements, which would
create a high -quality development to the Specific
Plan area. Therefore, the project would be consistent
with this policy.

Goal UD-5: Encourage good design, and high-quality development within the Specific Plan area.

Policy UD-5.3: Through design review, ensure that
new development enhances the character of the
Specific Plan area by requiring design qualities and
elements that contribute to an active pedestrian
environment, where appropriate, and ensuring that
architectural elements support high -quality
development.

The proposed project would adhere to the Com/Ind
Business Park (CIBP) development requirements,
which would create a high-quality development that
would enhance character of the Specific Plan area.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with this
policy.

Source: City of Hesperia, 2021, p. 25 to 27
As shown above, the project would adhere to all applicable scenic regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact

❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Project construction and operation would adhere to the Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (MSFCSP) site design standards and guidelines, which would ensure that exterior light and glare would not significantly impact surrounding land uses or nighttime skies (The Arroyo Group, 2021, p. 268). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.2-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
§ 12220(g)), timberland (as defined
by Public Resources Codes § 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code § 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact
The project site is designated by the Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP) as Grazing Land, which is not farmland (DOC, 2018) (see Figure 4.2 -1 below). Grazing Land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock (DOC, 2019). Therefore, no farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur.

❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.2-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.2-1

IMPORTANT FARMLAND CATEGORIES

❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.2-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
The project site is zoned Commercial/Industrial Business Park (CIBP (City of Hesperia, 2020), and is not zoned for agricultural use. Williamson Act contracts are made only on land within agricultural reserves, and the project site is not within an agricultural reserve. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
The project site is zoned Commercial/Industrial Business Park (CIB P) (City of Hesperia, 2020) . The site is not zoned for forest, timberland, or timberland production use. Therefore, project development would not conflict with zoning for forest land or timberland, and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
The project site is currently undeveloped and does not have forest land . Therefore, project development would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
The project site is undeveloped and has a zoning designation of Commercial/Industrial Business Park (CIBP) (City of Hesperia, 2020). No important farmland is near the project site; the nearest such farmland is Unique Farmland approximately seven miles southeast. No forest land is present on or near the project site. Therefore, project development would not cause conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impacts would occur.

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.3 Air Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X

4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern
Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and an ambient air quality standard has been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and/or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). T he criteria air pollutants of concern are nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and ozone, and their precursors, such as reactive organic gases (ROG) (which are ozone precursors). Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects.

The project is in the southwestern San Bernardino County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB), for which the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) is substantially responsible for air pollution control. The MDAB is classified as a dry-hot desert (BWh), with portions classified as dry -very hot desert (BWhh), to indicate that at least three months have maximum average temperatures over 100.4°F (MDAQMD, 2020a, p. 6 -7). Table 4.3-1 shows the attainment status of the MDAB for each crite ria pollutant for both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects.

Nitrogen oxides (NOX) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production and are precursors for certain particulate compounds that are formed in the atmosphere, and for ozone. A precursor is a directly emitted air contaminant that, when released into the atmosphere, forms, causes to be formed, or contributes to the formation of a secondary air contaminant for which an ambient air quality standard (AAQS) has been adopted, or whose presence in the atmosphere will contribute to the violation of one or more AAQSs. When NO X and ROG are released into the atmosphere, they can chemically react with one another in the presence of sunlight

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
to form ozone. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO 2 is a reddish-brown pungent gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NO 2 acts as an acute respiratory irritant and eye irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens (USEPA, 2011).

Table 4.3-1

FEDERAL AND STATE ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification
Ozone (O3) – 1-hour standard No Federal Standard
Nonattainment
Ozone (O3) – 8-hour standard Nonattainment
Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Sulfates No Federal Standards Attainment
Lead (Pb) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles
Sources: ARB, 2020a; USEPA, 2022a.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless non -reactive pollutant produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains . In urban areas, automobile exhaust accounts for most CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions – primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface -based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood’ s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. High concentrations are lethal (USEPA, 2010).

Particulate matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids, such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes and mists. Primary PM is emitted directly into the atmosphere from activities such as agricultural operations, industrial processes, construction and demolition activities, and

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
entrainment of road dust into the air. Secondary PM is formed in the atmosphere from predominantly gaseous combustion by-product precursors, such as sulfur oxides, NOX, and ROGs.

Particle size is a critical characteristic of PM that primarily determines the location of PM deposition along the respiratory system (and associated health effects) as well as the degradation of visibility through light scattering. In the United States, federal and state agencies have focused on two types of PM. PM10 corresponds to the fraction of PM no greater than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter and is commonly called respirable particulate matter, while PM 2.5 refers to the subset of PM 10 of aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometers, which is commonly called fine particulate matter.

PM10 and PM 2.5 deposition in the lungs results in irritation that triggers a range of inflammation responses, such as mucus secretion and bronchoconstriction, and exacerbates pulmonary dysfunctions, such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis. Sufficiently small p articles may penetrate the bloodstream and impact functions such as blood coagulation, cardiac autonomic control, and mobilization of inflammatory cells from the bone marrow. Individuals susceptible to higher health risks from exposure to PM 10 airborne pollution include children, the elderly, smokers, and people of all ages with low pulmonary/cardiovascular function. For these individuals, adverse health effects of PM10 pollution include coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, phlegm, bronchitis, and aggravation of lung or heart disease, leading, for example, to increased risks of hospitalization and mortality from asthma attacks and heart attacks (USEPA, 2022a).

Reactive organic gases (ROG) are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding CO, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. It should be noted that there are no state or national ambient air quality standards for ROG because ROGs are not classified as criteria pollutants. They are regulated, however, because a reduction in ROG emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formation of ozone. ROGs are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility. The term “ROG” is used by the ARB for this air quality analysis and is defined the same as the federal term “volatile organic compound” (VOC).

Ozone is a secondary pollutant produced through a series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NO X. Ozone creation requires ROG and NO X to be available for approximately three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Because of the long reaction time, peak ozone concentrations frequently occur downwind of the sites where the precursor pollutants are emitted. Thus, ozone is considered a regional, rather than a local, pollutant. The health effects of ozone include eye and respiratory irritati on, reduction of resistance to lung infection and possible aggravation of pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. Ozone is also damaging to vegetation and untreated rubber (USEPA, 2020c).

4.3.2 Climate/Meteorology
Air quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions, and by meteorological conditions that influence movement and dispersal of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local topography, provide the link between air pollutant emissions and air quality.

The Project site is located within the Mojave Desert portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB), which is bordered in the southwest by the San Bernardino Mountains, which are separated from the

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
San Gabriel Mountains by the Cajon Pass (4,200 feet elevation). The MDAB is an assemblage of mountain ranges interspersed with long broad valleys that often contain dry lakes. Many of the lower mountains which dot the vast terrain rise from 1,000 to 4,000 feet above the valley floor. Prevailing winds in the MDAB are out of the west and southwest. These prevailing winds are due to the proximity of the MDAB to coastal and central regions and the blocking nature of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the north; air masses pushed onshore in Southern California by differential heating are channeled through the MDAB (MDAQMD, 2020).

The nearest meteorological station is the Hesperia station (#043935, latitude 34.41667°, longitude:
- 117.3°) (WRCC, 2022a), which is approximately 5.1 miles west of the project site , with a period of record from January 1, 1910 to June 30, 1977. However, data from another station near the project site, Victorville Pump Pt meteorological station (#049325; latitude 34.5350°, longitude: - 117.3058°) (WRCC, 2022b), approximately 9.5 miles north of the project site, were used because the period of record (November 1931 – November 2008) is more recent. The average high and low temperatures recorded there are 77.5°F and 43.9°F, respectively. Average winter (December, January, and February) high and low temperatures are approximately 60.1°F and 30.7°F, respectively, and average summer (June, July, and August) high and low temperatures are approximately 95.6°F and 58.4°F , respectively. The annual average of total precipitation is approximately 5.52 inches, which occurs mostly during the winter and relatively infrequ ently during the summer. Monthly precipitation averages approximately 0.93 inch during the winter (December, January, and February), approximately 0.43 inch during the spring (March, April, and May), approximately 0.35 inch during the fall (September, October, and November), and approximately 0.13 inch during the summer (June, July, and August).

4.3.3 Local Air Quality
The project site is served by the MDAQMD’s Hesperia -Olive Street air monitoring site (ARB Number 36201), 6.0 miles east at 17288 Olive Street in Hesperia. This station monitors ozone and PM 10. The nearest station that monitors PM2.5 and NO2 is Victorville-14306 Park Avenue at 14306 Park Avenue in Victorville (ARB Number: 36306), about 4.4 miles north of the project. The ambient air quality data in the project vicinity as recorded from 20 21 through 202 3, along with applicable standards, are shown in Table 4.3-2.

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.3-2

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Air
Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2021 2022 2023
Ozone – Hesperia-
Olive Street
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm)
# Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.09 ppm
# Days > California 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm

0.114

0.101
55 9
60 0.108

0.090
49 11
52 0.110

0.098
53 11
54 PM10 – Hesperia-Olive
Street
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
Est. # Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 150 µg/m3
Federal Annual Arithmetic Mean (12 µg/m3)
426.5
1 28.7
135.0
0 27.2
176.2
1 27.9
PM2.5 - Victorville-
14306 Park Avenue
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
# Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/m3
State Annual Average (12 µg/m3)

87.1 1

10.2 24.6
0 9.0

25.6 0

7.8 NO2 – Victorville-
14306 Park Avenue
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
State Annual Average (0.030 ppm)
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.18 ppm

0.060

0.012
0 0.060

0.012
0 0.060

0.010
0 Source: ARB, 2022a.

4.3.4 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
The MDAQMD’s jurisdiction comprises the Mojave Desert Air Basin, which encompasses the desert portions of Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The MDAQMD is required to produce plans to show how air quality would be improved in the region. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that these plans be updated triennially to incorporate the most recent available technical information.5
The Project is located in the jurisdiction of the MDAQMD. Under the Federal Clean Air Act the MDAQMD has adopted a variety of attainment plans for a variety of nonattainment pollutants. T he District has primary responsibility for regulating stationary sources of air pollution located within its jurisdictional boundaries. It implements air quality programs required by state and federal mandates, enforces rules and regulations based on air pollution laws and educates businesses and residents about their role in protecting air quality and the risks of air pollution (MDAQMD, 2022).

The 1995 Final Mojave Desert Planning Area, Federal Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment Plan (MDAQMD, 1995) was adopted by the MDAQMD board on July 31, 1995. A Certification of District Measures to Reduce PM Pursuant to Former Health & Safety Code §39614(d) was received and filed by the ARB on January 27, 2020 (MDAQMD, 2020a). The 2008 MDAQMD Fede ral 8 -Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Non-attainment Area) was adopted by the MDAQMD board.

The USEPA designated the Western Mojave Desert area as non -attainment for the 8 -hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). A portion of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) is included in the Western Mojave D esert non -attainment area. The most recent attainment plan that was approved by USEPA is the MDAQMD 2008 Ozone Attainment Plan adopted in 2008. The most recently

5 CCAA of 1988.

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
adopted State plan is the 1996 Triennial Revision to the 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan (MDAQMD, 2008).

4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of other illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to certain pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the MDAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds and medical facilities. The following project types proposed for sites within the specified distance to an existing or planned (zoned) sensitive receptor land use must be evaluated with a health risk assessment (MDAQMD, 2020a):
• Any industrial project within 1,000 feet.
• A distribution center (40 or more trucks per day) within 1,000 feet. • A major transportation project (50,000 or more vehicles per day) within 1,000 feet. • A dry cleaner using perchloroethylene within 500 feet. • A gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet.

The proposed project’s distance from the nearest sensitive receptor exceeds all these threshold distances. Therefore, a health risk assessment is not needed.

4.3.6 Applicable Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Rules Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Control Rule)
During construction, the project would be subject to MDAQMD Rule 403 (fugitive dust control) (MDAQMD, 2020c). The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source , except during high winds. MDAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits construction activity from causing incremental PM 10 concentrations to exceed 100 micrograms per cubic meter when determined as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on federal reference method samplers at the property line for a minimum of five hours, except during high winds.

Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings)
Construction of this project will include the application of architectural coatings and be subject to MDAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Among other applicable entities, Rule 1113 requires anyone who supplies, sells, offers for sale, manufactures, blends or repackages any architectural coating for use within the MDAQMD, as well as any person who applies or solicits the application of any architectural coating within the District, o use coatings that contain VOC less than or equal to the VOC limits specified in Table 1 of the rule.

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.3.7 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project site is located in the western portion of the City of Hesperia, within the jurisdiction of the MDAQMD. The project is compatible with the general plan land use and zoning discussed in detail in Section 4.11. The air quality plans are based upon existing and projected land uses in the planning area. The most recent air quality plan is the MDAQMD Federal 8 -Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Non-attainment Area), which was adopted on June 9, 2008.

The project is compatible with the air quality plan.

The MDAQMD has developed criteria in the form of emissions thresholds for determining whether emissions from a project are regionally significant. They are useful for estimating whether a project is likely to result in a violation of the NAAQS and/or whether the project is in conformity with plans to achieve attainment . Table 4.3 -3 shows MDAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for both construction and operation. A project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its construction and/or operational activities exceed the corresponding MDAQMD significance thresholds.

Table 4.3-3

MDAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutant
Emission
Threshold
(lbs/day)
Emission Threshold
(short tons/year)
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) 137 25
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 137 25
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 548 100
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 137 25
Particulate Matter (PM10) 82 15
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 65 12
Source: MDAQMD, 2020a, Table 6.

Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the project’s onsite and offsite project activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1.1.29 .

CalEEMod (CAPCOA, 2023) is a planning tool for estimating emissions related to land use projects.

The construction emissions accounted for the wall construction, while operational emissions did not consider the wall as an emission source. To ensure accuracy, two separate CalEEMod analyses were conducted—one for construction emissions and another for operational emissions. Model-predicted project emissions are compared with applicable thresholds to assess regional air quality impacts. The project traffic study (RK Engineering, 2024) provided the vehicle miles traveled and number of trips for the operational emissions . It was also assumed that the construction contractor would comply

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
with all pertinent MDAQMD rules. CalEEMod inputs and detailed results are provided in Appendix B.

Table 4.3-4 shows the project schedule used for the air quality analysis. The proposed project would be built in one phase. Construction is estimated to take place in five subphases from October 2025 to November 2026:
• Grading
• Off-Site Trenching
• Vertical/Site Work- Building Construction
• Vertical/Site Work- Paving
• Vertical/Site Work- Architectural Coating

Details for each construction subphase are shown in Table 4.3-4.

Table 4.3-4

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Subphase Start Date End Date
Grading October 1, 2025 November 28, 2025
Off-site Trenching November 29, 2025 February 13, 2026
Vertical/Site Work-
Building Construction February 14, 2026 September 17, 2026 Vertical/Site Work-
Paving September 18, 2026 October 20, 2026
Vertical/Site Work-
Architectural Coating October 21, 2026 November 16, 2026 Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023).

These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. Mobile sources (such as diesel -fueled equipment onsite and traveling to and from the project site) would primarily generate NO X emissions. The quantity of emissions generated daily would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities occurring at the same time.

As shown in Table 4.3-5, the project’s annual emissions would not exceed Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant during construction.

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.3-5

MAXIMUM ANNUAL REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year
Maximum Emissions (Tons/year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Annual Emissions, 2025 0.08 0.73 0.70 0.08 0.03 Maximum Annual Emissions, 2026 0.51 1.09 1.87 0.11 0.05 MDAQMD Significance Thresholds
(short tons per year) 25 25 100 15 12
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023).

As shown in Table 4.3-6 maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed MDAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, the project’s short -term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.3-6

MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activity
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions, 2025 3.47 31.79 29.02 3.38 1.43 Maximum Daily Emissions, 2026 41.10 12.14 22.34 1.28 0.50 MDAQMD Significance Thresholds 137 137 548 82 65
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023).

Regional Operational Emissions
The project proposes to develop Truck Warehouse Building 1 with an associated parking lot on the western portion of the project site, and Truck Warehouse Building 2 with an associated parking lot on the eastern portion of the project site. Operational emis sions generated by area sources, motor vehicles, and energy demand would result from normal day -to-day activities of the project. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 4.3-7 and Table 4.3-8. As seen in the tables, for each criteria pollutant, operational emissions would be below the pollutant’s MDAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, regional operational emissions would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.3-7

MAXIMUM ANNUAL PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational Emission Source
Pollutant (short tons/year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 0.73 0.01 0.59 <0.005 <0.005
Energy Source Emissions 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.01 0.01
Mobile Source Emissions 0.08 0.61 0.78 0.33 0.09
Maximum Annual Operational
Emissions 0.82 0.77 1.5 0.34 0.1
MDAQMD Significance Thresholds
(short tons per year) 25 25 100 15 12
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023).

Table 4.3-8

MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 4.57 0.06 6.6 0.01 0.01
Energy Source Emissions 0.05 0.85 0.71 0.06 0.06
Mobile Source Emissions 0.47 3.34 5.0 1.8 0.5
Total Operational Emissions 5.09 4.25 12.31 1.87 0.57
MDAQMD Significance Thresholds 137 137 548 82 65
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023). b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact
Since the MDAB is currently in federal nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5 and state nonattainment for ozone and PM 10, related projects may exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. However, as discussed above, the mass daily and annual

❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
construction and operational emissions generated by the project would not exceed any of the MDAQMD’s significance thresholds . Therefore, the project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of the pollutants for which the MDAB is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction of the project would generate short -term and intermittent emissions. Following the MDAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (MDAQMD, 2020a), residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities are considered sensitive land uses. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single- family residence 1,114 feet southeast of the project boundary.

The following project types proposed for sites within the specified distance to an existing or planned (zoned) sensitive receptor land use must be evaluated:
• Any industrial project within 1,000 feet.
• A distribution center (40 or more trucks per day) within 1,000 feet. • A major transportation project (50,000 or more vehicles per day) within 1,000 feet. • A dry cleaner using perchloroethylene within 500 feet. • A gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet.

The project proposes to develop to develop Truck Warehouse Building 1 with the associated parking lot on the western portion of the project site, and Truck Warehouse Building 2 with the associated parking lot on the eastern portion of the project site. It does not meet the criteria listed above. Thus, the impacts on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact
A project -related significant adverse effect could occur if the construction or operation of the proposed project would result in the generation of odors that would be perceptible in adjacent sensitive areas. Potential odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction associated with the proposed project’s long-term operational uses. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the construction and are thus considered less than significant. Therefore, the project would not create substantial objectionable odors and this impact would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:

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

4.4.1 Methodology
This section is based on the biological surveys, research, and analyses conducted for the Biological Resources Evaluation (BRE; UltraSystems, 2022), provided in Appendix C1 of this document.

UltraSystems biologists researched readily available information, including relevant literature, databases, agency web sites, various previously completed reports and management plans, GIS data, maps, aerial imagery from public domain sources, and in -house records to identify the following: 1) habitats, special-status plant and wildlife species, jurisdictional waters, critical habitats, and wildlife

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
corridors that may occur in and near the project site; and 2) local or regional plans, policies, and regulations that may apply to the project. Plant and wildlife species protected by federal agencies, state agencies, and nonprofit resource organizations, such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as special-status species. Some of these plant and wildlife species are afforded special legal or management protection because they are limited in population size, and typically have a limited geographic range and/or habitat. The following data sources were accessed by UltraSystems for synthesis of data within this report. • Information on California plants for education, research and conservation , provided by Calflora (Calflora, 2022)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Life History Accounts and Range Maps (CDFW, 2022a)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer (CDFW, 2022b). • U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -Minute Topographic Map Baldy Mesa Quadrangle (USGS, 2015) and current aerial imagery (Google Earth, 2022).
• The Web Soil Survey, provided by the U . S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Survey Staff, 2022). • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CNDDB, 2022a).
• Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC), provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; USFWS, 2022a).
• Critical Habitat Portal, provided by the USFWS (USFWS, 2022b). • Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 8th Edition, provided by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS, 2022a).
• National Hydrography Dataset, provided by the USGS (USGS, 2022c). • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), provided by the USFWS (USFWS, 2022c). • Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, J.M. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition, provided by California Native Plant Society Press. • EPA Waters GeoViewer, provided by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA; USEPA, 2022h).

4.4.2 Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Plant and wildlife species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) are referred to collectively as listed species in this section.

Plant and wildlife species not listed under ESA or CESA but still protected by federal agencies, state agencies, local or regional plans, and/or nonprofit resource organizations, such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as sensitive species in this section. The term special-status species is used when collectively referring to both listed and sensitive species.

Environmental Setting
The City of Hesperia is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, California. The biological study area ( BSA) is surrounded by primarily vacant land with some commercial developments, as shown in Figure 4.4-1. The BSA may potentially provide some suitable habitat for special status plant and wildlife species , although not optimal . The project site itself has a relatively flat topography.

Elevations in the BSA range from 3,606 to 3,620 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The project site is currently undeveloped. Stormwater runoff generated on the project site is discharged as sheet flow in a northeast direction to Poplar Street.

Habitat Assessment Survey
UltraSystems Enviro nmental, Inc (UltraSystems) biologist Dr. Michael Tuma conducted a habitat assessment survey on March 4, 2022 and staff biologist Matthew Sutton completed the survey on August 24, 2022 to assess the habitats, plants and wildlife that occur within the BSA. Three land cover types were mapped within the BSA , and are described later in this section (see Figure 4.4 -2).

Disturbed California juniper covers nearly 100 percent of the project site (see Appendix C2 Figure 6, Land Cover Types ). The B SA is comprised of developed/ornamental and disturbed California juniper woodlands. Six living Joshua trees (State Candidate Threatened, or SCT) and one California juniper were observed on the project site; however, the project site is dominated by ruderal species such as red brome and prickly Russian thistle. There is evidence that the project site was formerly vegetated with Joshua tree/juniper woodlands, but past significant disturbances have occurred that have resulted in compacted soils and dominance by rud eral species. Plant and wildlife species that were recorded during the habitat assessment survey can be accessed in Appendix C2, Plant and Wildlife Species Recorded During the Field Surveys.

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.4–1

PROJECT LOCATION AND BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025 Figure 4.4–2

LAND COVER MAP

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Impacts to Special Status Plants
One western Joshua tree ( SCT) was observed on the project site. The literature review and field surveys concluded that the remaining plant species in the plant inventory have no more than a low potential to occur within the BSA due to a lack of suitable habitat, soils, and/or other factor s to support them; these species are not anticipated to be significantly impacted as a result of the project.

Direct and indirect impacts to western Joshua tree are anticipated as a result of project construction.

Therefore, acquisition of a California Fish and Game Code (FGC) § 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP), which is discussed below, will be required. The ITP may require on- or offsite mitigation, as well as a monitoring plan. Additionally, mitigation will be required to maintain compliance with the native desert vegetation protection as provided in the City of Hesperia Municipal Code.

Based on a literature review of publicly available databases (hereafter, plant inventory; USFWS 2022a, CNDDB 2022a, CNPS, 2022a) for reported observations within a ten-mile radius of the project site, one listed and seven sensitive plant species identified by one of the following means: of those eight total plant species, six sensitive plant species were determined to have a low potential to occur in the BSA, including within the project site , due to one or more of the following reasons: species were reported by the CNDDB or IPaC in the plant inventory, were recognized as occurring based on previous surveys or knowledge of the area, or were observed during the habitat assessment survey or other surveys (see Figure 4.4-3). In addition, Joshua tree was observed on the project site during the field surveys. Joshua tree is a state candidate for listing as a threatened species (CNDDB, 2022b).

These species a nd the remaining species determined to be unlikely to occur within the BSA are identified in Appendix C2, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination .

The project site contains low-quality suitable habitat for six of the seven sensitive plant species documented in the plant inventory , and therefore these six species were determined to have a low potential to occur in the BSA. No other special-status plant species were observed during the surveys, including the remaining seven sensitive plant species determined to have a low potential to occur.

Joshua tree was observed during the field survey and, it is anticipated that construction of the project will result in significant impact s to listed plant species within the BSA . Therefore, mitigation is required.

Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife
Literature Review Results and Discussion
Based on a literature review of publicly available databases (hereafter, wildlife inventory; USFWS 2022a, CNDDB 2022a) for reported observations within a ten-mile radius of the project site, 16 listed and 20 sensitive wildlife species were reported within a 10-mile radius of the BSA because they were either reported in the wildlife inventory, recognized as occurring based on previous surveys or knowledge of the area, or observed during the habitat assessment survey or other surveys (see Figure 4.4-4, which displays species identified in the CNDDB wildlife inventory within a two -mile radius of the BSA ). Of those 36 total species , four listed and 1 3 sensitive wildlife species were determined to have a low potential to occur , and 19 special-status wildlife species were determined to be unlikely to occur or are not expected to occur because the BSA lacks suitable habitat or is outside of the geographic range of these species. All species that were evaluated and their occurrence potential determinations are provided in Appendix C2, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination . Nine special-status wildlife species were determined to have a low potential to occur in the BSA and it is anticipated that construction of the project will have less than a significant impact to these nine wildlife species.

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
High Potential to Occur in the BSA
Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl (BUOW) is a small, crepuscular (active at dusk and dawn), ground-inhabiting owl that is found largely throughout the southern United States. Typical BUOW habitat is open, dry, flat ground or low rolling hills with sparse vegetation and available burrows (Gallagh er, 1997). BUOWs spend most of their time on the ground or on low perch sites such as fence posts and dirt mounds.

They are generally found in open country, where tree or shrub canopies cover less than 30 percent of the habitat (Center for Biological Diver sity et al., 2003). Typical habitat includes annual and perennial grasslands, shortgrass prairies, open agricultural areas (particularly rangelands), desert floors, and vacant lots in residential areas and university campuses. Other habitat includes oak savannah; grass, forb, and open shrub stages of pinyon -juniper and ponderosa pine habitat; sandy beaches and coastal dunes; and river bottom lands (Center for Biological Diversity et al., 2003).

BUOWs inhabiting urban landscaped areas may live in vacant fiel ds/lots, pastures, airports, athletic fields, golf courses, cemeteries, city parks, road shoulders, drainage sumps, railroad beds, irrigation ditches, and road cuts (Center for Biological Diversity et al., 2003). The BUOW is primarily a dry grassland species, but it persists and can even thrive in some landscapes that are highly altered by human activity, such as agricultural areas in the Central and Imperial Valleys (Shuford et al., 2008).

They require large open expanses of sparsely vegetated areas on gen tly rolling or level terrain with an abundance of active small mammal burrows (Shuford et al., 2008). Vegetation cover and height that prevents the owl from observing approaching predators places the BUOW at a severe disadvantage (Center for Biological Div ersity et al., 2003). They are the only small owl likely to be seen perched in the open daylight (Sibley, 2000).

Suitable BUOW habitat must also support the primary prey items for BUOWs, such as insects and small mammals. BUOWs are opportunistic predators preying primarily on a broad array of arthropods (centipedes, spiders, beetles, crickets, and grasshoppers), and small rodents, but they also eat birds, amphibians, reptiles, and carrion. They may hunt from a perch, hover, hawk, run, walk, dive or hop after prey.

There is suitable nesting, sheltering, and foraging habitat within the BSA for BUOW. The project site contains sparse shrub cover and friable soils which are preferred conditions for BUOW. Furthermore, burrowing owl are generally adaptive to disturbances a nd the frequent grading of the project site would not necessarily deter this species from establishing there. It is anticipated that construction of the project could have a significant impact to BUOW and therefore mitigation is proposed.

Moderate Potential to Occur in the BSA
Loggerhead shrike
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CD FW) Species of Special Concern, which is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal (fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal) native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) cri teria: is extirpated from the state or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; is listed as federally -, but not state -, threatened or endangered; meets the state definition of threatened or endangered, but has not formally been listed; is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, co uld qualify it for state threatened or endangered status; has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any

❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for state threatened or endangered status. Loggerhead shrike is also a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC), which is a bird species listed in the USFWS 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report. The report identifies species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory and non -migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or e ndangered) that, without additional conservation actions, are likely t o become candidates for listing under the ESA. While all of the bird species included in the report are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing.

Loggerhead shrike is a common resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California. This species inhabits areas with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other hardwood – conifer, valley foothill riparian, pinyon-juniper, juniper, desert riparian, and Joshua tree habitats. The BSA is in the known distributional range of the species and contains potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat (open habitat, Joshua trees). Due to these factors, there is moderate potential for the species to occur in the BSA. Construction of the project would involve grading of the entire project site and the Joshua trees and juniper would be significantly impacted as a result.

Although there is suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike on the project site, the area of suitable habitat that would be destroyed by grading activities is relatively small and does not represent an expansive area of suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, the loss of this area would not have a substanti al effect on the availability of loggerhead shrike habitat or population levels statewide. These impacts do not meet the threshold of significance set forth in § 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Therefore, construction of the project would have a less than significant impact to loggerhead shrike.

❖ 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).