Hesperia City Council
May 5, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROJECT CORTESE LIST MAP

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

AIRPORTS IN THE PROJECT REGION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, there would be no impact.

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

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES - STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA

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

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES - LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA

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

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or offsite; X
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on - or
offsite;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
X
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant Impact
The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requires its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to develop water quality control plans (Basin Plans) designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all Regional waters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USGS SURFACE WATERS AND WATERSHEDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

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

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

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, the project would be consistent with this
policy.

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

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

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

Therefore, the project would be consistent with this
policy.

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

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

Therefore, the project would comply with this policy.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, the project would be consistent with this
policy.

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

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

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

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

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

4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:

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

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

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

DESIGNATED MINERAL RESOURCE ZONE

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

OIL AND GAS WELLS

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

4.13 Noise
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4.13-1

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

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

SENSITIVE RECEIVERS NEAR THE PROJECT SITE

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

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

Table 4.13-2

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

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

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS

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

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

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

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

Table 4.13-4

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

Residential – Multiple Family

Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters

Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16.20.130.

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

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

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

Table 4.13-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B) Noise Standards.

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

Table 4.13-6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Emergency equipment, vehicles and devices;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4.13-8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:

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

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

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

4.15 Public Services
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

4.16 Recreation
Would the project:

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

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

4.17 Transportation
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4.17-1

PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF HESPERIA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: City of Hesperia, 2019a.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MM TRANS-3 Refer above in this section.

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

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

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

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

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.19-1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4.19-3

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

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

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

❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.19-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Operation
The project proposes development of two truck warehouse buildings and a surface parking lot for 448 employees in the City of Hesperia in San Bernardino County, California. Industrial units in the City generated an average of 8.93 pounds of solid waste per employee per day in 2014, the latest year for which data are available. 12 Thus, the proposed industrial development with 448 employees is estimated to generate 4,001 pounds of solid waste per day or 731 tons per year, as shown below in Table 4.19-4.

Table 4.19-4

ESTIMATED PROJECT-GENERATED SOLID WASTE
Land Use Generation Rate*
Approximate Waste
(pounds/year)
Approximate
Waste
(tons/year)
Industrial 8.93 pounds per
employee per day 1,460,224 731
*(CalRecycle, 2022d).

Two facilities are involved in the processing and disposal of solid waste within the city, and both are analyzed to ensure that they have sufficient capacity to satisfy the demands of the project. The Advance Disposal Company Large Volume Transfer/Processing facility has remaining processing capacity of 1,039 tons per day or 379,235 tons per year. The remaining solid waste capacity at Advance Disposal Company Large Volume Transfer/Processing facility is unknown at this time. The project is under daily maximum capacity of this facility. But should the landfill be filled, the remaining solid waste would go to Victorville Sanitary Landfill.

The Victorville Sanitary Landfill facility has remaining disposal capacity of 1,388 tons per day or 506,620 tons per year. For the purposes of this analysis only, a worst -case scenario is used that 100 percent of the project waste goes to landfill. Estimat ed project operational solid waste disposal of 731 tons per year is approximately 0.0 0007 percent of remaining disposal capacity at Victorville Sanitary Landfill. Sufficient processing and disposal capacity is available in the region for estimated project solid waste generation, and project impacts on solid waste disposal capacity would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact
In 1989, the California Legislature enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), in an effort to address solid waste problems and capacities in a comprehensive manner.

The law required each city and county to divert 50 percent of its wa ste from landfills by the year 2000.

Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341; Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increases the statewide waste diversion goal to 75 percent by 2020, and mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land

12 The estimate is based on an assumed operation of 365 days per year producing 8.93 lbs total solid waste generation from each employee per day, which yields 183 tons per year or 1,000 pounds per day. Source: CalRecycle, 2022d.

❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.19-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
uses. To comply with the State requirements of AB 341, the City has an exclusive franchise agreement with Advance Disposal Co. to collect, process, recycle and dispose of solid waste from residential premises and commercial businesses in the City of Hesperia. This process is considered to be the equivalent of mandatory commercial recycling in that all solid waste generated by businesses and multifamily units will be collected by Advance Disposal Co. using existing trash enclosures and bins, and processed through a mixed waste materials recovery facility. This eliminates the need to modify existing bin enclosures to accommodate separate recycling bins and train employees on recycling requirements. As required by AB 341, the City and Advance Disposal Co. track, monitor and report to the State on program effectiveness and diversion data (Advance Disposal Company, 2022).

The proposed project would comply with applicable local, state and federal solid waste disposal standards; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.20 - WILDFIRE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.20-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact
As shown in Figure 4.9-3 in Section 4.9 of this IS/MND, the project site is not located in or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), where the State is responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and suppression . The nearest SRA to the project site is in unincorporated San Bernardino County approximately 2.15 miles to the south of the site (CAL FIRE, 2022). As shown in Figure 4.9-4 in Section 4.9 of this IS/MND, the project site is not located within or adjacent to a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), where cities or counties are responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and suppression . The nearest VHFHSZ in LRA to the project site is about 6.8 miles to the southeast. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact in this regard.
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other

❖ SECTION 4.20 - WILDFIRE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.20-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact
The project site is not located in or near VHFHSZs. Therefore, the proposed project would have a no impact in this regard.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact
The project site is not located in or near VHFHSZs. Therefore, the proposed project would have a no impact in this regard.
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact
The project site is not located in or near VHFHSZs. Therefore, the proposed project would have a no impact in this regard.

❖ SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.21-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the project have:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
a) Would the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As detailed in Section 4.4, the project site is undeveloped and contains Western Joshua Trees with a low-to- medium potential of wildlife on the project site. However, with the implementation of MM BIO-1 to BIO-7, impacts to plant and wildlife species would be less than significant.

As detailed in Section 4.5, the project site does not contain any significant historic or archaeological resources. However, if archaeological or human remains are discovered during project construction, MM CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be implemented to ensure impacts would be less than significant.

❖ SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.21-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
b) Would the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated In the short term, there would be a potential for cumulative effects on traffic, air quality, and noise if other development projects were implemented concurrently with the project.

As shown in Figure 4.21-1, Cumulative Projects, there are several current projects within the City of Hesperia’s Commercial/Industrial Business Park. However, a s analyzed throughout this document, the proposed project would create less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.

Therefore, the project would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts in the area with mitigation incorporated.
c) Would the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As detailed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, after implementation of MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2, potential impacts from hazard materials storage and transportation would be reduced to less than significant. As discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.20 of this document, after the implementation of mitigation measures, potential adverse environmental effects were found to be less than significant on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 4-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.21-1

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

5.0 REFERENCES
Advance Disposal Company, 2022. Rules and Regulations. Accessed online at:
https://www.advancedisposal.com/rules-and-regulations, on September 16, 2022.

Allard Engineering. 2024. City of Hesperia Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan for APN 3064-591-12, 12, and 631-01. Prepared for Cargo Solutions Express. Prepared August 8, 2022; revised September 20, 2022; September 30, 2023; and September 3, 2024.

Anaheim High School Unified School District, 2022. Viewed at https://www.auhsd.us/District/Department/14207-ANAHEIM-UHSD/80408-About- Anaheim-Union-High-School-District.html. Accessed September 22, 2022.

ARB, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change. California Air Resources Board.

Accessed online at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_sc oping_plan.pdf, on September 13, 2022.

ARB, 2011. Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document. California Air Resources Board. Accessed online at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/document/Suppleme nt_to_SP_FED.pdf, on September 12, 2022.

ARB, 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework. California Air Resources Board. Accessed online at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_up date_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf, on September 13, 2022.

ARB, 2016. Changes to California's Commercial Vehicle Idling Regulation. Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
12/commercial_vehicle_idling_requirements_July%202016.pdf, accessed on September 28, 2022.

ARB, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. California Air Resources Board. Accessed online at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, on September 12, 2022.

ARB, 2020 a. State Area Designations. Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area- designations, on October 5, 2022.

ARB, 2020 b. Zero -Emission Vehicle Program. Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/zero-emission-vehicle-program/about, on September 12, 2022.

ARB. 2022a. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics . Accessed online at https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/, on October 14, 2022.

ARB, 2022 b. EMFAC (Emission Factor 2021 v1.0.2 webtool). California Air Resources Board.

Accessed online at: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions - inventory/9c58d8e2272c09ba5e63b138e60b1bddee9e5f51, on September 28, 2022.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
ARB, 2022c. Appendix b. Notice of Decision. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality California Air Resources Board. Accessed online at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp-appendix-b-notice-of- decision.pdf. Accessed on July 6, 2023.

Baldwin, R. A. 2019. Pest Notes: Pocket Gophers. UC ANR Publication 7433, revised July 2019.

University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Available at http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7433.html.

Accessed on August 9, 2022.

Bell, Alyssa, 2022. Paleontological resources for the Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project (7187).

August 28, 2022. Research and Collections, Natural History Museum Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California.

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Lab or Statistics), 2022. BLS Data Viewer. Accessed online at:
https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view. Accessed on September 2, 2022.

Cabletv, 2022. Accessed online at: https://www.cabletv.com/ca/hesperia?zip=92344, on September 21, 2022.

CalEPA, 2022. Cortese List. Accessed online at https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ , accessed on September 28, 2022.

CAL FIRE, 202 0. FRAP - FHSZ Viewer. Accessed online at: http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, on September 28, 2022.

Calflora, 2022. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation.

Observation Search. Available at https://www.calflora.org/entry/observ.html. Accessed on August 14, 2022.

California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 11. CALGreen Code. 2022. Accessed online at:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen on October 13, 2022.

California Department of Conservation (DOC a). 1993. Mineral Land Classification Map, Concrete Aggregate Resources Barstow-Victorville Area. Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc on September 07, 2022.

California Department of Conservation (DOCc), 2022 a. Accessed online at: Division of Mine Reclamation (ca.gov)on September 09, 2022.

California Department of Conservation (DOCd), 2022 b. Accessed online at: Geologic Energy Management Division (ca.gov)on September 09, 2022.

CalHCD ( California Department of Housing and Community Development) , 2019 . 2019 California Green Building Standards Code —CALGreen. Accessed online at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-standards/calgreen/index.shtml, on September 22, 2022.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, California (September). http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013A.pdf.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2024, Traffic Census Program. Accessed online at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census on May 1, 2024.

California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2022. 2022 California Gas Report. Accessed online at https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Calif ornia_Gas_Report_2022.pdf, accessed on October 12, 2022.

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2022. Tribal Affairs Departmental Overview. Revised

09.21.2022. Maintained by CNRA Tribal Affairs
www.resources.ca.gov/initiative/tribal/affairs/.

California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) . 2022. Details for CASGEM Well #4044. Available at California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) .

Accessed on September 12, 2022.

Caltrans, 2022. Scenic Highway Mapper. Accessed online at https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46c c8e8057116f1aacaa , accessed on September 8, 2022.

CAPCOA, 2008. CEQA & Climate Change. Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Accessed online at
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CAPCOA-1000-2008-010/CAPCOA-1000- 2008-010.pdf, on September 12, 2022.

CAPCOA, 202 2. CalEEMod Version 202 2.1.1.14. Accessed online at https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide , on September 28, 2022.

Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council), 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal -IPC Publication 2006 -02. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Accessed online at:
https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/ Accessed on August 6, 2022.

CalRecycle, 2022a. SWIS Facility/Site Summary for Advance Disposal Center for the Environm ent (36-AA-0337). Accessed online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2724, on September 16 , 2022.

CalRecycle, 2022b. Site Activity Details for Advance Disposal Center for the Environm ent (36-AA- 0337). Accessed online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1942?siteID=2724, on September 16, 2022.

CalRecycle, 2022c. Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility Inspection Report 7/28/2022 for Advance Disposal Center for the Environm ent (36-AA-0337). Accessed online at :
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/343986, on September 16, 2022.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
CalRecycle, 2022d. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates . Accessed online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, on September 19, 2022.

CalRecycle, 2022e. SWIS Facility/Site Summary for Victorville Sanitary Landfill (36 -AA-0045).

Accessed online at : https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2652, on October 11, 2022.

CalRecycle, 2022f. Site Activity Details for Victorville Sanitary Landfill . Accessed online at :
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1870?siteID=2652, on October 11, 2022.

CalRecycle, 2022g. Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility Inspection Report 8 /10/2022 for Victorville Sanitary Landfill . Accessed online at :
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/344395, on October 11, 2022.

CASGEM (California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program). 2022. Well Details for State Well Number 04N05W21H001S. Available at https://www.casgem.water.ca.gov/.

Accessed on August 18, 2022.

CDF ( California Department of Finance) , 2022. E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2020 -2022. Accessed online at:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/, on July 8, 2022.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843 CDFW. 2022a. CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Life History Accounts and Range Maps.

Available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. Accessed on May 20, 2022.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) 2022b. BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer.

Accessed at ftp://ftp.dfg.ca.gov/BDB/GIS/BIOS/Habitat_Connectivity/. Accessed on April 20, 2021.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Game). 2022 c. California Natural Community List.

Retrieved from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Accessed on July 3, 2022.

CEMA, CGS, and USC (California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California). 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning:

County of Los Angeles, California. Scale 1:24,000. Available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.

Center for Biological Diversity et al. 2003. Petition to the California Fish and Game Commission and Supporting Information for Listing the California Population of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as an Endangered or Threatened Spec ies under the California Endangered Species Act. October.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
CGS (California Geological Survey ), 2021. California Tsunami Maps and Data . Accessed online at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps on August 22, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 1997. Protected Native Vegetation. Available at:
https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/1765/PL-16-PROTECTED- VEGETATION-5-29-09?bidId=
City of Hesperia, 2008. City of Hesperia Water District, 2008 Consumer Confidence Report. Available at: https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/600/2008 -CCR Accessed on August 10, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 2010. Zoning Map. Accessed online at
http://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/1505/Hesperia_Zoning?bidId= , accessed on August 9, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 2017. Accessed online at
https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/14830/2017-Hazard-Mitigation- Plan?bidId=, accessed on September 26, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 2018. Planning Division. Developer Workshop. Available at:
https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/15127/Developer-Workshop- Handout Accessed on August 20, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 2019a. City of Hesperia General Plan. Accessed online at https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/15728/General-Plan-Update- August-2019 , accessed on August 16, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 2019b. Hesperia Recreation and Park District Master Plan. Accessed online at https://www.hesperiaparks.com/files/0d8778e7c/Hesperia+Recreation+and+Park+Distr ict+Master+Plan.pdf , accessed on August 29, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 2021. Hesperia Main Street And Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. Accessed online at MSFCSP-update (cityofhesperia.us) , accessed on September 09, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 2022a. Police. Accessed online at https://www.cityofhesperia.us/306/Police , accessed on August 26, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 2022b. Fire Stations. Accessed online at https://cityofhesperia.us/183/Fire- Stations , accessed on August 26, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 2022d. Housing Element Update 2021 -2029. Accessed online at https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/17392/Hesperia-DRAFT- Housing-Element-8_24_22?bidId= , accessed on September 9, 2022.

City of Hesperia, 2022e. DARA Industrial Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, Appendix I:

Water Supply Assessment July 2022. Accessed online at:
https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/17720/Dara- Industrial_DEIR_July2022--DARA-Industrial-?bidId=, on September 21, 2022.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
City of Hesperia, 2023. General Plan Land Use Map. Accessed online at https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/15727/General-Plan-Zoning- Map?bidId= , accessed on August 9, 2024.

City of Hesperia Municipal Code, 202 4. Accessed online at https://library.municode.com/ca/hesperia/codes/code_of_ordinances , accessed on August 15, 2024.

CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2022a. RareFind 5 (Internet). California Department of Fish and Wildlife (5.2.14). Available at
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed on August 18, 2022.

CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database) 2022b. CNDDB. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Last updated July 2022. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. Accessed on August 20, 2022.

CNDDB, 2022c. Special Animals List . State of California, The Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, Sacramento, CA. Updated on July 7, 2022. Accessed on August 22, 2022 CNPS (California Native Plant Society) , 2022a. Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8 -03 0.39). Retrieved from:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed on August 14, 2022.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022b , A Manual of California Vegetation Online Edition.

California Native Plant Society, CA. 1300 pp. Retrieved from:
https://www.cnps.org/vegetation/manual-of-california-vegetation/. Accessed on August 15, 2022.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2022. All About Birds. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at https://www.allaboutbirds.org Accessed on August 20, 2022.

County of San Bernardino, 2016. Mojave River Watershed Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans Available online at: Accessed on August 20, 2022.

County of San Bernardino, 2003. Storm Water Management Program for the Mojave River Watershed.

August, 2003. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/swmp/mojave_s wmp.pdf Accessed on September 9, 2022.

DOC (Department of Conservation), 1993. Mineral Land Classification Map - Concrete Aggregate Resources Barstow-Victorville Area. Accessed on September 9, 2022.

DOC, 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed online at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ , accessed on August 24, 2022.

DOC, 2019. Important Farmland Categories. Accessed online at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland- Categories.aspx , accessed on August 24, 2022.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
DOC, 2022 a. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. Accessed online at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlcon September 09, 2022.

DOC, 2022 b. Cal Gem GIS Well Finder. Accessed online at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/117.39327/34.36756/ 12 on September 09, 2022.

DOF (Department of Finance), 2019. E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021 -2022 with 2020 Benchmark . Accessed online at http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ , on September 2 , 2022.

Dudek, 2022. I-15 Industrial Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Drafted April, 2022.

DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 200 4. Bulletin 118: California’s Groundwater, Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (Groundwater Basin Number 8-002). Available at https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater -Management/Bulletin-118. Accessed on August 19, 2022.

DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2022. Division of Safety of Dams, California Dam Breach Inundation Maps. Available at https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/. Accessed on August19, 2022.

EDD ( State of California Employment Devalopment Department).2022. San Bernardino County Profile. Accessed online at:
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSResults.as p?menuChoice=&state=true&geogArea=0604000071&selectedArea=San%20Bernardino %20County. Accessed on September 8, 2022.

ESRL, 2020. Recent Global Monthly Mean CO 2. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Earth System Research Laboratory. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accessed online at https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html, on September 5, 2022.

Environmental Records Search, 2022. RecCheck Report. September 15, 2022.

Fehr & Peers , 20 20. San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment. February 2020.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas (Map Number 06071C6495H).

Effective August 28, 2008. Accessed on September 10, 2022.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2022. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer.

Available at: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-layer, Accessed on March 10, 2022.

FTA (Federal Transit Administration), 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Accessed online at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report- no-0123_0.pdf, on September 29, 2021 and May 1, 2024.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Final Report. FHWA -HEP-05-054. January. Accessed online at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf on October 14, 2022.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), 2019. Technical Manual. Traffic Noise Model 3.0. Office of Natural Environment, Washington, D.C. December. Accessed at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/48763 on October 13, 2022.

Gallagher, Sylvia. 1997. Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California. Sea and Sage Audubon Press, Irvine, CA.

GMI, 2019. What is a Global Warming Potential? And Which One Do I Use? GHG Management Institute.

Accessed online at https://ghginstitute.org/2010/06/28/what-is-a-global-warming- potential/, on September 12, 2022.

Google Earth Pro , 2022. V 7.3. 4.8642. City of Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California, U.S.A.

34.°07’57.12”N-117°27’08.31”W. Eye alt 4765 ft. Imagery date October 2, 2020 Available at https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed on August 15, 2022.

Gucker, Corey L. 2006. Yucca brevifolia. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us
/database/feis/plants/tree/yucbre/all.html Accessed on July 1, 2022.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.

State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, California Department of Fish & Game, Sacramento, Calif. 156 pp.

HRPD (Hesperia Recreational and Parks District), 2022. Park and Facility Map. Accessed online at https://www.hesperiaparks.com/park-facility-map , accessed on August 26, 2022.

HUSD (Hesperia Unified School District), 2022. Schools. Accessed online at https://www.hesperiausd.org/ , accessed on August 26, 2022.

IPCC, 2007a. Historical Overview of Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. C hen, M.

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Accessed online at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-frontmatter-1.pdf, on September 13, 2022.

IPCC, 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K; Reisinger,

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
A., eds., 2007. Accessed online at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr/, on September 13, 2022.

Leonard, Ryan. 2022a. Personal Communication - Leonard Ryan, Senior Planner, City of Hesperia, email to Stephen O’Neil, Cultural Resources Manager, UltraSystems Environmental.

Concerning AB 52 Consultation. November 1, 2022.

Leonard, Ryan. 2022b. Personal Communication - Leonard Ryan, Senior Planner, City of Hesperia, email to Stephen O’Neil, Cultural Resources Manager, UltraSystems Environmental.

Concerning AB 52 Consultation. November 1, 2022.

Michael Brandman Associates, 2010 a. City of Hesperia General Plan EIR. Accessed online at https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/1588/Hesperia-2010-GPU-Draft- EIR-121610?bidId= , accessed on August 26, 2022.

Michael Brandman Associates, 2010 b. City of Hesperia Climate Action Plan. Accessed online at :
http://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/1291/23660023-Hesperia-CAP- July-20?bidId=, accessed on September 26, 2022.

MDAQMD (Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District), 2016, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines. August. Accessed online at:
https://www.mdaqmd.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/192/6363056880647300 00, Accessed on October 7, 2022.

MDAQMD (Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District), 1995. Final Mojave Desert Planning Area, Federal Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment Plan. Accessed online at https://www.mdaqmd.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/176/6363056890578700 00, October 5, 2022.

MDAQMD, 2008. Federal 8 -Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Non -attainment Area). Accessed online at
https://www.mdaqmd.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/168/6363056900883300 00, on October 5, 2022.

MDAQMD, 2020a. CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines. Accessed online at https://www.mdaqmd.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8510/637406182097070 000, on October 5, 2022.

MDAQMD, 2022a. About MDAQMD. Accessed online at https://www.mdaqmd.ca.gov/about-us, on October 5, 2022.

MDAQMD, 2020b. Certification of District Measures to Reduce PM Pursuant to Former Health & Safety Code §39614(d). Accessed online at
https://www.mdaqmd.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7061/637159054823270 000, on October 5, 2022.

MDAQMD, 2020c. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust Control. Accessed online at https://www.mdaqmd.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8482/637393282546170 000, on October 5, 2022.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
NASA, 2018. Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. National Air and Space Administration.

Accessed online at: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/, on September 12, 2022.

NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), 2021. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024 -2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks , 86 FR 49602, August 3. Accessed online at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/03/2021-17496/corporate- average-fuel-economy-standards-for-model-years-2024-2026-passenger-cars-and-light- trucks, on August 11, 2023.

OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research), 2017. General Plan Guidelines. Accessed online at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf , accessed on October 13, 2022.

Orange County Public Works. 2022. School Districts GIS (DAMP). Available at https://data - ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/school-districts/explore. Viewed on September 21, 2022.

Quinn, N. M. et al. 2018. Pest Notes: Ground Squirrels. UC ANR Publication 7438, revised December 2018. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Available at
http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7438.html. Accessed on August 9, 2022.

Ray A. Vidal, 1991. Hesperia Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Accessed online at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/Airports/Hesperia.pdf, on September 28, 2022.

RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2025. Cargo Solution Express Warehouse Project Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Hesperia, California. May 23, 2025.

RWQCB (Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board). 1995. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan), with amendments effective 2010. Available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ Accessed on July 27, 2022.

SANBAG (San Bernardino Association of Governments), 2016. San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program. Accessed online at https://www.gosbcta.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/10/2016-Congestion-Management-Plan-.pdf , accessed on September 15, 2022.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, J.M. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition .

California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast.

Accessed online at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file - attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579, on August 1, 2022.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District), 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15, September 28. Accessed online at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15- minutes.pdf, accessed on October 17, 2024.

SCEC ( Southern California Earthquake Center ), 2013. Hazards and T hreats Earthquakes – List of Major Active Surface Faults in Southern California. Accessed online at https://ceo.lacounty.gov/wp-
content/uploads/OEM/HazardsandThreats/Earthquakes/LIST%20OF%20MAJOR%20SO UTHERN%20CALIFORNIA%20EARTHQUAKE%20FAULTS.pdf, accessed September 26, 2022.

Shuford et al. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camari llo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Sibley, David Allen. 2000. National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Smith, Steve and Krause, Michael. 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources. Diamond Bar, CA. October. Accessed online at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf, accessed on October 17, 2024.

SoCalGas, 2022. List of Communities Served. Accessed online at https://tariff.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/tariffs/GAS_G- CITIES_CITIES.pdf?_ga=2.13241459.519790361.1665601868-2720343.1665601868 , accessed on October 12, 2022.

Soil Survey Staff, 2022. Web Soil Survey. Available at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Last accessed on August 22, 2022.

Southern California Edison (SCE), 2021. 2021 Sustainability Report. Accessed online at:
https://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/sustainability/eix-2021- sustainability-report.pdf, on September 16, 2022.

Stamos, Christina L.; Martin, Peter; Nishikawa, Tracy and Cox, Brett F. 2001. Simulation of Ground - Water.Flow in the Mojave River Basin, California. U. S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 01-4002, Version 1.1. 129 p
Stamos, Christina L. and Predmore, S.K. 1995. Data and Water -Table Map of the Mojave River.

Ground-Water Basin, San Bernardino County, California, November 1992. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4148
SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board), 2022. Construction Stormwater Program.

Available online at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.html . Accessed on September 23, 2022.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
The Arroyo Group, 202 1. Hesperia Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. Accessed online at https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/15940/MSFCSP-update , accessed on August 26, 2022.

Tully and Young, 2021. Hesperia Water District Urban Water Management Plan . Accessed online at:
https://www.cityofhesperia.us/DocumentCenter/View/17573, on September 9, 2022.

US Census Bureau (USCB). 2021. Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD). OnTheMap.

Accessed online at: http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/, on September 8, 2022.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture ), 2022a. Custom Soil Resource Report for San Bernardino County, California, Mojave River Area.

USDA, 2022b. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Cooperative Soil Survey. San Bernardino County, California, Mojave River Area, Version 13, Sep 13, 2021.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2010. I ntegrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Carbon Monoxide (Final Report, Jan 2010) . Accessed online at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686, on October 14, 2022.

USEPA, 2011 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Control Regulations. Accessed online at https://www3.epa.gov/region1/airquality/nox.html, on October 5, 2022.

USEPA, 2019a - Nitrogen Dioxide (1971) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment) State/Area/County Report.: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current Accessed online at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/nmcs.html, on September 13, 2022.

USEPA, 2019b. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview -greenhouse-gases, on October 2, 2022.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2022a. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book) Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/green-book, on October 5, 2022.

USEPA, 2022b Particulate Matter (PM) Pollution. Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/pm- pollution, on October 5, 2022.

USEPA, 2022c. What is Ozone? Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution-and-your- patients-health/what-ozone, on October 5, 2022.

USEPA, 2022d. Final Rule for Model Year 2012 - 2016 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-model-year- 2012-2016-light-duty-vehicle, on September 12, 2022.

USEPA, 2022e. Regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Passenger Cars and Trucks. Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations- greenhouse-gas-emissions-passenger-cars-and, on September 12,2022.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
USEPA, 2022h. WATERS GeoViewer. Available at https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters - geoviewer. Accessed on August 25, 2022.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022a. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Official Species List: Consultation Code: 2022 -0077464. Carlsbad, California. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed on August 22, 2022.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service) 2022b USFWS Critical Habitat Portal:
http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. Latest database search conducted on May 13, 2022.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022c. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) website, National Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed on July 8, 2022.

USFWS, 2022d. Conservation Plan Boundaries - HCP/NCCP, Southern California. Available at https://map.dfg.ca.gov/metadata/ds0760.html. Accessed on August 24, 2022.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2015. Baldy Mesa Quadrangle, Orange County, California, 7.5 -Minute Series Topographic [map]. Scale 1:24,000.. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/.

Downloaded on September 6, 2022.

USGS, 2022a. Earthquake Glossary. Accessed online at:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=magnitude. Accessed August 4, 2022.

USGS, 2022b. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Accessed online at:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html, on September 16, 2022.

USGS, 2022 a. National Hydrography Dataset (ver. USGS National Hydrography Dataset Best Resolution (NHD) for Hydrologic Unit (HU) 12. Available at https://www.usgs.gov/core- science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography/access-national-hydrography-products.

Accessed on August 14, 2022.

WBWG (Western Bat Working Group), 2022. Species Matrix. Available at http://wbwg.org/matrices/species-matrix/. Accessed on August 14, 2022.

WRCC, 2022a Hesperia, California (043935). Accessed online at https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3935, on October 5, 2022.

WRCC, 2022 b. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries, Western Regional Climate Center. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html. Accessed August 11, 2022.

WRI (World Resources Institute), 2022a. This Interactive Chart Shows Changes in the World's Top 10 Emitters. Accessed online at https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows- changes-worlds-top-10-emitters, on September 12, 2022.

WRI, 2022b. 4 Charts Explain Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Countries and Sectors. Accessed online at https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries- and-sectors, on September 12, 2022.

❖ SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Warehouse Hesperia Project Page 5-14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
WRI, 2021c. 8 Charts to Understand US State Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Accessed online at https://www.wri.org/insights/8-charts-understand-us-state-greenhouse-gas-emissions, on September 12, 2022.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988 -1990., California's Wildlife.

Vol. I-III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

❖ SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 6-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

6.1 CEQA Lead Agency
Ryan Leonard, Senior Planner
City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92354
T: (760) 947-1651
E: [email protected]

6.2 Project Applicant
Bobby Kang, Owner
Cargo Solutions Express, Inc.
15487 & 14589 Valley Boulevard, Fontana, CA 92335
Fontana, CA 92335
E: [email protected]

6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc.

6.3.1 Environmental Planning Team
Betsy Lindsay, MURP, ENV SP, Project Director
Victor Paitimusa, BS, ENV SP, Assistant Project Manager Robert Reicher, MBA, B.S., Environmental Consultant

6.3.2 Technical Team
Amir Ayati, B.S., Staff Scientist
Megan Black, M.A., Archaeological Technician
Allison Carver, B.S., B.A., Senior Biologist
Stephen Chesterman, BEng, GIS Analyst
Hina Gupta, MURP, LEED-AP, Senior Project Manager
Gulben Kaplan, M.S., B.S., GIS Analyst
Swarnalatha Kumaresan, M.S., BEng, Environmental Engineer Audrey McNamara, B.A., Staff Biologist
Brandie Metcalf, M.S., M.A., Senior Marketing Specialist Stephen O’Neil, M.A., RPA, Cultural Resources Manager
Michael Rogozen, D. Env., Senior Principal Engineer
Matthew Sutton, M.S., B.A., ISA, Staff Biologist

6.3.3 Other Firms
IBI – VMT Analysis
Mike Arizabal, Project Manager
RK Engineering Group, Inc. – Transportation Impact Analysis Report Justin Tucker, PE, Principal Engineer

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with § 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and § 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting program s whenever approval of a project relies upon a MND or an EIR. The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the use of monitoring and reporting. Monitorin g is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person.

It is the intent of the MMRP to: (1) provide a framework for document implementation of the required mitigation; (2) identify monitoring/reporting responsibility; (3) provide a record of the monitoring/reporting; and (4) ensure compliance with those MM that are within the responsibil ity of the City and/or Applicant to implement.

The following table lists impacts, mitigation measures adopted by the City of Hesperia in connection with approval of the proposed project, level of significance after mitigation, responsible and monitoring parties, and the project phase in which the measures are to be implemented.

Only those environmental topics for which mitigation is required are listed in this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 7.0-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE

4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold 4.4a)
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?
MM BIO-1: 2081 Incidental Take Permit

Western Joshua trees are a state candidate for listing under CESA and will require a 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) with compensatory mitigation for impacts, in addition to the surveys that are recommended in the discussion of MM BIO-7. 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 Borrowing Owl Survey

Although BUOW was not detected 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.

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 Applicant

Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During project
design, during
project
construction
activities, and
during
operation

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
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, p rior 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 EMD 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

Applicant

Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During project
design, during
project
construction
activities, and
during operation

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
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 will help to reduce direct and indirect impacts caused by construction on various sensitive species to less than significant levels.

• 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 identified 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 receive d 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.

Applicant

Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During project
design, during
project
construction
activities, and
during operation

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
• 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 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 season to avoid potential direct impacts on 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 wit hin the project site during the breeding season and during construction activities.

Applicant

Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During project
design, during
project
construction
activities, and
during operation

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
• 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 disturba nce. 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 activities planned near the nest and the ty pe 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 determined 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

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
Threshold 4.4b)
Have 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?
MM BIO -6: Mitigation for Impacts to Western Joshua Tree and California Juniper Woodlands

Avoidance and Minimization Measures

The entirety of the project area is currently planned for development.

Approximately 19 acres is California juniper woodland. The California juniper woodland is a sensitive natural community, as such, impacts as a result of the project, shall be mitigated so that all impacts to these habitats are mitigated on acreage and tree basis.

Proposed project activities including the construction phase, operations, and maintenance phase shall be designed to avoid California juniper woodland (and Joshua tree) habitat to the full extent practicable. If the California juniper (or associated Joshua trees) are removed as a result of project activities, then compensatory mitigation is required, as follows.

The preferred compensatory mitigation is through an in -lieu fee to a qualified mitigation bank within the service area of the site, ideally within the same watershed. The project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW to identify appropriate mitigation banks and number of required mitigation credits to fully offset site impacts at a minimum of a 2:1 replacement to impact ratio.

However, applicant -responsible compensatory mitigation is acceptable through preparation of a Habitat Preservation and Protection Plan, to be approved by CDFW prior to project approval.

Habitat Preservation and Protection Plan

For applicant -responsible compensatory mitigation, then the project proponent shall enter into a binding legal agreement regarding the preservation of offsite lands describing the terms of the acquisition, enhancement, and management of those lands. Fee ti tle to acquired habitat lands, or a conservation easement over these lands, shall be transferred to CDFW or to an entity approved by CDFW, along with Applicant

Field
Verification

1 City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During project
design, during
project
construction
activities, and
during
operation

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
financial assurances (funds) for preservation, rehabilitation, and enhancement of the land, and an endowment for permanent management of the lands.

A formal Habitat Preservation and Protection Plan to detail methods for site preservation, restoration, monitoring, and protection shall be written. The plan will include permanent photo documentation points from the pre -restoration stage to the conclusion of the monitoring requirement. Photo documentation shall occur on a quarterly and annual basis or as required by CDFW. The number of western Joshua and California juniper trees existing onsite, transplanted, installed as container stock, will be recorded and qualitatively assessed quarterly and quantitatively assessed on an annual basis until performance criteria and/or contingency criteria are successfully attained. A final monitoring report will be provided at the conclusion of the post-construction restoration phase. The project proponent shall provide the final monitoring report to CDFW for approval of completion for the project.

Threshold 4.4e)
Have 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?
MM BIO-7: 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 evaluat e 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 Applicant

Field
Verification
1 City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During project
design, during
project
construction
activities, and
during
operation

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
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.

4.5 Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.5b)
Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5.

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 a rchaeologist 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 th is 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 protecti on of any other resources that may be in the area. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded 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.

Qualified
Archaeologist
and Project
Contractor
Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During
construction
activities
MM CUL 3

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 Qualified
Archaeologist
and Project
Contractor
Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

3. During
construction
activities
Threshold 4.5c):

Disturb any human
remains, including
those interred outside
of formal cemeteries.

MM CUL 2

If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work will stop within a 30 -foot radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino County Coroner will be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). 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 archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they will contact the NAHC. The NAHC will be responsible fo r designating the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) will be responsible for the ultimate disposition 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).

Project
Construction
Contractor
Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During project
construction
activities

4.7 Geology and Soils
Threshold 4.7f):

Would the project
directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature?
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 accredited repository for paleontological resources. Subseque ntly, 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
Project
Applicant,
Qualified
Paleontologist
Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During
construction
activities

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold 4.9a) MM HAZ-1 Project
Applicant
Field
Verification

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
Would the project
create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
In the event that the future tenant will handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity threshold, the lease agreement with the future tenant shall require the tenant to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan which would include an inventory of all hazardous materials used, stored, or otherwise managed onsite to the County of San Bernardino County Fire Department – Hazardous Materials Division and the Fontana Fire Prot ection District. The recommendations of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan would be included in the lease agreement (signed by the tenant) as mandatory measures required to be implemented by the tenant

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

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During project
design, during
project
construction
activities, and
during
operation
Threshold 4.9b)
Would the project
create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and
accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials
into the environment?

Refer to MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 in Threshold 4.9a).

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
Threshold 4.9f)
Would the project
impair implementation
of or physically
interfere with an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?

Refer to MM TRANS-3 in Threshold 4.17c).

4.17 Transportation
Threshold 4.17a)
Would the project
conflict with a program
plan, ordinance or
policy addressing
circulation system,
including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?

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

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

Project
Applicant
Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia

2. City of Hesperia

3.Before
construction

MM TRANS-3
Prior to construction, the General Contractor shall submit a detailed Construction Management Plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Hesperia. The Construction Management Plan shall specify that the Construction Manager will schedule truck traffic and employee shifts to avoid creating trips during the peak traffic periods, as is feasible for construction operations. All measures, including identified truck routes and designated employee parking areas, shall be included in City of Hesperia
and Construction
Manager
Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia

2. City of Hesperia

3. During
Construction

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
Threshold 4.17c)
Would the project
substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?

the Construction Management Plan. The Plan shall include but is not limited to the following provisions:

• The Construction Management Plan shall specify how traffic will be routed and controlled during the construction phase, including which lane(s) of traffic will be temporarily blocked off for construction work.
• Specification of permitted hours for construction -related deliveries and removal of heavy equipment and material.
• Specification of where construction workers would park their personal vehicles during project construction with a requirement that at no time shall construction worker vehicles block any driveways. If complaints are received by the project applicant regard ing issues with construction worker vehicle parking, the project applicant shall identify alternative parking options for construction workers so as not to interfere with any surrounding parking availability.
• Identification of how emergency access to and around the project site will be maintained during project construction.
• Specification of haul routes for delivery or removal of heavy and/or oversized equipment or material loads. Where feasible, delivery or removal of oversized equipment or material loads shall be conducted during off -peak traffic periods.
• Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections around the project site and designate safe crossing locations for all pedestrian detours. • Maintain the security of the project site by erecting temporary fencing during the construction phase of the project. Any onsite night lighting used during the construction phase of the project shall be in compliance with the lighting requirements of the City of Hesperia.
• If temporary lane closures are necessary for the installation of utilities, emergency access should be maintained at all times.
• Flag persons and/or detours shall be provided as needed to ensure safe traffic operations.

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
• Construction signs shall be posted to advise of reduced construction zone speed limits.
• The project design shall include entry/exit gates for first responders’ vehicles to gain access to the project site.

Threshold 4.17d)
Would the project
result in inadequate
emergency access?

MM TRANS-3. Refer to Threshold 4.17c).

City of Hesperia
and Construction
Manager
Construction
Management
Plan

1. City of Hesperia

2. City of Hesperia

3. During
Construction

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Threshold 4.18b):
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource that is
determined to be a
significant resource to a
California Native
American tribe
MM TCR-1
The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CR -1, of any pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archa eologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a Qualified
Archaeologist
and Project
Contractor
Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During
construction
activities

❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 7-15 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY

2. MONITORING
AGENCY

3. MONITORING
PHASE
pursuant to the criteria
set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource
Code § 5024.1(c)?
monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

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

Qualified
Archaeologist
and Project
Contractor
Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During
construction
activities
MM TCR-3
As specified by California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, if human remains are found on the project site during construction or during archaeological work, the San Bernardino County Coroner’s office shall be immediately notified and no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98.

The Coroner would de termine within two working days of being notified, if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent.

Qualified
Archaeologist
and Project
Contractor
Field
Verification

1. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

2. City of Hesperia
Planning
Department

3. During
construction
activities

ATTACHMENT 6A

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

CARGO SOLUTIONS TRUCK WAREHOUSE AND TRUCK STOP

HESPERIA, CA

Prepared for:

City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345
Attn: Ryan Leonard, Senior Planner
E: [email protected]

Prepared by:

UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
T: (949) 788-4900
F: (949) 788-4901

September 2025
Project No. 7187

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
7187/Cargo Solutions Warehouse and Truck Stop Page i
Responses to Comments September 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background of Environmental Review Process for the Project ............................................. 1

1.2 Tribal Consultation ................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Responses to Comments ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Intended Uses of this IS/MND ............................................................................................................. 3

2.0 Public Comment letters ......................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Errata ......................................................................................................................................................... 19

4.0 Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .............................................................. 22

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) Attachment B NOI Posting at the State of California, Office of Planning and Research Clearinghouse
Attachment C County Clerk-Recorder NOI Posting
Attachment D AB 52 Tribal Consultation Letters from the City to the Native American Tribes Attachment E Public Comment Letters

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 1 Responses to Comments September 2025

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Responses to Comments (RTC) document, in conjunction with the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) responds to comments on the proposed Cargo Solutions Warehouse and Truck Stop (project). While the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines do not require a final initial study or the preparation of for mal responses to comment s received during t he public review period for an Initial Study/Mitigated N egative D eclaration,1 to provide further disclosure about the proposed project the City of Hesperia (City) is making available responses to the comments it received during the public review process.

1.1 Background of Environmental Review Process for the Project The IS/ MND, along with a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI, s ee Attachment A), was released for public and agency review on June 18, 2025, with a 30-day review period ending on July 21, 2025. In addition, the NOI was posted on the State Clearinghouse on June 19, 2025. See Attachment B.

The NOI was also posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk-Recorder on or around June 2, 2025 (see Attachment C), and copies of the IS/MND were made available for review at the following locations:
 City of Hesperia Website: https://www.cityofhesperia.us/1466/Environmental-Documents  City of Hesperia Planning Division, 9700 Seventh Avenue, Hesperia, CA 92345 A hard copy of the NOI was mailed to:
 Residents and property owners, located within 500 feet of the project site.

A hard copy of the NOI was sent via US Mail on July 18, 2025 to the following entities:
 Oak Hills Prop. Assoc.
 CEQA Reviewer; Mojave Water Agency
 Mitchell M. Tasi Law
 CEQA Reviewer; Mojave Desert AQMD
 Department of Water Resources
 CEQA Reviewer; City of Victorville
 CEQA Reviewer; City of Apple Valley
 Native American Heritage Commission
 CEQA Reviewer; San Bernardino County Fire
 CEQA Reviewer; Sheriff
 306459104 KAUR RAJINDER
 Angel Esparza; (SW Carpenters)
 Oscar Ocastaneda
 Richard Drury, Komalpreet Toor, Stacey Oborne; Lozeau Drury LLP  CEQA Reviewer; Southern California Edison
 France Tinney; Center for Biological Diversity

1 CEQA only requires the lead agency to respond to comments that are received in response to an environmental impact report (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, § 15088, Evaluation of and Response to Comments).

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 2 Responses to Comments September 2025
 Kevin Johnston; Requestor
 Alexandra McCleary; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians  CEQA Reviewer; City of San Bernardino
 James Brownyard; Requestor
 306463103 TIGER PAW LAND LLC
 CEQA Reviewer; Snowline Joint Unified School District  Jeff Modrzejewski; Creed LA
 Sean Silva; CARE CA
 306459114 LITTLE SISTER'S CALIFORNIA REALTY LL
 Rick Engineering Company
 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
 306464124 GARTIZ PROPERTIES LLC
 CEQA Reviewer; County of San Bernardino
 Jacquelyn Barnum; Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
 Planning Division; City of Hesperia
 Adam Salcido; Requestor
 Golden State Envriomental Justice Alliance
 State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water  Alicia Reed; Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
 Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice  Hesperia Rec/Park Dist
 Blum Collins LLc; Golden State Envriomental Justice Alliance  Aria Soeprono; Advocates for the Environment

1.2 Tribal Consultation
The City of Hesperia (the lead agency) initiated AB 52 outreach to three local tribes for the Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project on or around September 2022 , pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21074. (see Attachment D) The City prepared letters to these tribes on their list for AB 52 contact, informing them of the project. The letters were sent by Ryan Leonard, AICP, Senior Planner, on September 22, 2022 via email to the following tribes:
 San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
 Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

The City received one response from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. The City contacted the Tribe’s representative directly. After consultation occurred, Tribal Cultural Resources ( TCR) mitigation measures were included to address the tribe ’s concerns and to include the tribal monitoring measures. With these actions , AB 52 consultation was concluded in January 2023 .

Section 4.18 of the Initial Study documents all consultation held between t he City and Native American Tribes.

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 3 Responses to Comments September 2025

1.3 Responses to Comments
This document provides a response to comments received on the IS/ MND. Several comment letters were received during the public review period. (see Attachment E) These letters are in Section 2.0, Public Comment Letters.

1.4 Intended Uses of this IS/MND
The IS/MND will be used by the City in considering approval of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15074, the IS/MND will be used as the primary environmental document in consideration of all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the proposed project, to the extent such actions require CEQA compliance and as otherwise permitted under applicable law.
15074. CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
(a) Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision -making body shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation.
(b) Prior to approv ing a project, the decision -making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
(c) When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. (d) When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. (e) A lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if a comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted, for a project within two nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, without first considering whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area.
(f) When a non-elected official or decision-making body of a local lead agency adopts a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, that adoption may be appealed to the agency’s elected decision-making body, if one exists. For example, adoption of a negative declaration for a project by a cit y’s planning commission may be appealed to the city council . A local lead agency may establish procedures governing such appeals.

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 4 Responses to Comments September 2025
Upon review and consideration of the IS/MND, the City may take action to adopt, revise, or reject the proposed project . A dec ision to approve the proposed project would be made in a resolution recommending certification of the IS/MND as part of the consideration of the proposed project. The City has prepared this IS/MND and has determined that the environmental impacts of the proposed project have been reduced to a less than significant level through mitigation measures.

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 5 Responses to Comments September 2025

2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS
The following agencies and entitles submitted written comments on the IS/ MND, during the public review period. The comment letters are provided in Attachment E of this document.

Letter Agency, Organization, or Individual Date
A Mojave Water Agency June 23, 2025
Comment A-1 This confirms that the Mojave Water Agency has no conflict with this project.

Response A-1 Comment noted. No further action.

B Lozeau Drury June 23, 2025
Comment B-1
We hereby request that the City of Hesperia (“City”) send by electronic mail, if possible, or U.S. Mail to our firm at the address below notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivisions, and/or supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of assistance from the City, including, but not limited to the following:
• Notice of any public hearin g in connection with the Project as required by California Planning and Zoning Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65091.
• Any and all notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), including, but not limited to:
 Notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA.
 Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is required for the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4.
 Notices of any scoping meeting held pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9.
 Notices of preparation of an EIR or a negative declaration for the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.  Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.  Notices of approval and/or determination to carry out the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law.
 Notices of any addenda prepared to a previously certified or approved EIR.
 Notices of approval or certification of any EIR or negative declaration, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law.
 Notices of determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law.
 Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA.
 Notice of determination, prepared purs uant to Public Resources Code Section 21108 or Section 21152.

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 6 Responses to Comments September 2025
Letter Agency, Organization, or Individual Date
Please note that we are requesting notices of CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings to be held under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code Section 65092, which requires agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the cl erk of the agency’s governing body.

Response B-1
The City acknowledges receipt of the commenter’s request for notice pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code Section 65092. This request has been forwarded to the appropriate City staff and will be included in the City’s records for this Project. The City will provide the commenter with all future notices concerning the project as required by CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law, including but not limite d to notices of public hearings and notices of CEQA determinations. No further response to this comment is required under CEQA.

C SoCalGas June 26, 2025
Comment C-1
SoCalGas Distribution does not appear to have a conflict with this project. Please note on case to have Developer contact 811 / USA at DigAlert | Utility Locating California | Underground Wire & Cable Locator prior to any excavation / demolition activities so we can Locate & Mark out our facilities.

Response C-1 Comment noted. Applicant will contact prior to excavation.

Comment C-2
If the Developer needs new gas service, please have them contact our Builder Services group to begin the application process as soon as practicable, at https://www.socalgas.com/foryour-business/builder-services.

Response C-2 Comments noted. Applicant will contact if a new gas line will be installed.

Comment C-3
Please notify Southern California Gas Company 4 months prior to start of Pavement projects for the gas company to complete leak survey & repair leaks if found.

Response C-3 Comment noted. Applicant will contact SoCalGas four months prior to the pavement process.

Comment C-4
Please provide Southern California Gas Company with your signed designed Plans with gas company facilities posted on your design plans, 4-6 months prior to start of construction for possible relocation of SCG medium pressure facilities and 9-12 months for possible relocation of SCG high pressure facilities.

Response C-4 Comment noted. Applicant will provide SoCalGas with plans four to six months prior to the start of construction.

D Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District July 9, 2025 Comment D-1
We have reviewed the project as proposed and based on the information available to us at this time, the District requires that the owner/operator obtain a Dust Control Plan (DCP) for the planned project. The most current Dust Control Plan Requirements and Dust Control Plan Submission Form are available at https://www.mdaqmd.ca.gov/permitting/compliance-forms.

Other District requirements include:
 Signage compliant with Rule 403 Attachment B shall be erected at each project site entrance not later than the commencement of construction.  Use a water truck to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and actively spread water dur ing visible dusting episodes to minimize visible

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 7 Responses to Comments September 2025
Letter Agency, Organization, or Individual Date
fugitive dust emissions. For projects with exposed sand or fines deposits (and for projects that expose such soils through earthmoving), chemical stabilization or covering with a stabilizing layer of gravel will be required to eliminate visible dust/sand from sand/fines deposits.  All perimeter fencing shall be wind fencing or the equivalent, to a minimum of four feet of height or the top of all perimeter fencing. The owner/operator shall maintain the wind fen cing as needed to keep it intact and remove windblown dropout. This wind fencing requirement may be superseded by local ordinance, rule or project-specific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.
 All maintenance and access vehicular roads and parki ng areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel or asphaltic pavement sufficient to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion.

Take actions to prevent project -related trackout onto paved surfaces, and clean any project -related trackout within 24 hours. All other earthen surfaces within the project area shall be stabilized by natural or irrigated vegetation, compaction, chemical or other means sufficient to prohibit visible fugitive dust from wind erosion.
 Obtain District perm its for any miscellaneous process equipment that may be required under District Rule 219 including, but not limited to:

Internal Combustion Engines with a manufacturer's maximum continuous rating greater than or equal to 50 brake horsepower.  Comply with all applicable provisions listed in Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust Control.

Response D-1 Comment noted . The project would incorporate a dust plan that would incorporate all these outlined steps that would be consistent with Rule 403.

E California Department of Fish and Wildlife July 11, 2025 Comment E-1
Mohave ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus mohavensis)
Section #4.4 Biological Resources, Page #72-73
Issue: The Project has the potential to result in take of Mohave ground squirrel, a CESA listed species, and in the permanent loss of potential habitat for the species. California Fish and Game Code section 86 defines “take” as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”.

Specific impact: Mohave ground squirrel was i dentified by the MND to have a low potential to occur within the biological study area (BSA), but no focused surveys were conducted, nor were any species-specific avoidance or mitigation measures included in the MND.

Why impact would occur: The Project would permanently impact 20.32 acres of open space through grading, staging, construction of two large warehouses, and installation of parking lots. CDFW is concerned that the Project may impact Mohave ground squirrel considering that the MND mentions the pr esence of burrows and creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), which are known to provide habitat for Mohave ground squirrel and no focused surveys to determine presence/absence of Mohave ground squirrel were conducted.

Evidence impact would be significant: The MND mentions that Mohave ground squirrel has a low potential to occur onsite and that the BSA offers minimal habitat value for fossorial species, such as Mohave ground squirrel. Thus,

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 8 Responses to Comments September 2025
Letter Agency, Organization, or Individual Date
considering that the Project site offers some habitat value and there is vegetation suitable for Mohave ground squirrel (i.e., creosote bush), CDFW is concerned that mitigation measures were not included in the MND to ensure impacts to Mohave ground squirrel are mitigated to a level of less than significant. Furthermore, Calif ornia Natural Diversity Database (CNNDB) indicates the Project is within the Mohave ground squirrel distribution range and Mohave ground squirrel occurs within 2.5 miles of the Project site. In fact, burrows were detected onsite, which the MND attributes t o belonging to an unknown ground squirrel species.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measures to reduce impacts to less than significant: CDFW offers the following measure for inclusion in the final MND:

Mitigation Measure Biological Resources 6 (MM-BIO-6) (New): Mohave ground squirrel

Visual surveys for Mohave ground squirrel shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to ground disturbing activities. Visual surveys shall be conducted between March 15 and April 15 according to the Califo rnia Department of Fish and Game Mohave Ground Squirrel Survey Guidelines (CDFW 2023). Visual surveys shall be conducted on the Project site during daylight hours by a qualified biologist who can readily identify Mohave ground squirrel and white- tailed ant elope squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus). If the survey or monitoring throughout the duration of the Project confirms presence of Mohave ground squirrel, the Project proponent shall fully avoid impacts to Mohave ground squirrel or should obtain an Incide ntal Take Permit (ITP) for Mohave ground squirrel if impacts are unavoidable.

Response E-1
The Project applicant will incorporate and comply with this recommended mitigation measure addition. As MM BIO -6 and MM BIO -7 are existing mitigation measures, this new mitigation measure will be incorporated as MM BIO-8 to reduce confusion of changed mitigation measures.

Comment E-2
Western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia)
Section #2.3.4 Environmental Setting, 4.4 Biological Resources, Page #25, 67, 72, 73, 77, 80-81, 191
Issue: The Project may impact western Joshua tree; a candidate species protected under CESA and Fish and Game Code section 1927.

Specific impact: The Project, as described, will result in the lethal take of western Joshua trees present onsite. In fact, the MND confirms that direct and indirect take of western Joshua tree is likely to occur.

Why impact would occur: Project activities, such as grubbing and grading may result in removal of western Joshua tree or may impact their root system. Under Fish and Game Code section 1927, the take of western Joshua trees and parts thereof, including roots, is prohibited. Damage to roots can lead to the death of the tree.

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 9 Responses to Comments September 2025
Letter Agency, Organization, or Individual Date

Evidence impact would be significant: The MND is not clear regarding how many western Joshua trees are present on site, but states that there are between 1 to 6 western Joshua trees present and CDFW confirmed the presence of western Joshua trees onsite through aerial imagery. The MND also does not provide information regarding the extent th at the Project may impact the species but in BIO -1 (see below) discusses the need for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Fish and Game Code section 2081. Please note that the Project may also receive an ITP under Fish and Game Code section 1927 through the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (WJTCA), which will require a census of all trees dead or alive within the Project site and a 50-foot buffer. For further information please visit Western Joshua Tree Conservation Permitting.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measures to reduce impacts to less than significant: CDFW offers the following revisions to BIO-1 for inclusion in the final MND (edits are in strikethrough and bold):

MM-BIO-1 (Revised): Section 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 except ions 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. The Project may also obtain take authorization through § 1927 of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (WJTCA).

Per Section 1927.4 of the WJTCA, CDFW may authorize, by permit, the taking of a wester n Joshua tree if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The permittee submits to CDFW for its approval a census of all western Joshua trees on the Project site, including photographs, that categorize the trees according to the following size classes: a. Less than one meter in height. b. One meter or greater but less than five meters in height. c. Five meters or greater in height. (2) The permittee avoids and minimizes impacts to, and the taking of, the western Joshua tree to the maximum extent practicable. Minimization may include trimming, encroachment on root systems, relocation, or other actions that result in detrimental but nonlethal impacts to western Joshua tree. (3) The permittee mitigates all impacts to, and taking of, the western Joshua tree through the payment of in lieu mitigation fees. For the current fees, please visit: Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act Incidental Take Permit. Each western Joshua tree stem or trunk arising from the ground shall be considered an individual tree requiring mitigation, regardless of proximity to any other western Joshua tree stem of trunk. Mitigation is required of all trees, regardless of whether they are dead or alive. (4) CDFW may require the permittee to relocate one or more of the western Joshua trees.

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 10 Responses to Comments September 2025
Letter Agency, Organization, or Individual Date
Response E-2
The Project applicant will incorporate and comply with this recommended mitigation measure revision. Revisions were made in the biology section of the MND. After review of the Section 2.3.4 of the Environmental Setting, there was no indication of the take of Joshua tree; the subsection simply stated there were Joshua Trees on the project site and therefore, no revisions to this section.

Comment E-3
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)
Section #4.4 Biological Resources, Page #68, 73, 76-77

Issue: The Project has the potential to significantly impact burrowing owl; a candidate species protected under CESA.

Specific impact: The Project may result in take of burrowing owl through Project activities such as mass grading. Additionally, th e Project may lead to the permanent elimination of habitat for burrowing owls from warehouse development.

Why impact would occur: The MND states that suitable habitat is present onsite for burrowing owl; for example, sparse vegetation, burrows, and suitab le soils.

As a result, the MND included BIO-2 (see below). CDFW appreciates that BIO-2 considers focused surveys for burrowing owls and is in line with previous guidance provided by CDFW. However, CDFW would like to note that since burrowing owl became a CESA candidate species in March 2024, CDFW cannot accept relocation plans outside of a CESA ITP. Instead, BIO -2 should consider obtaining an ITP if burrowing owls are detected and impacts cannot be avoided.

Thus, the change in regulatory status for burrowin g owl requires changes to measure BIO-2 as recommended by CDFW below.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measures to reduce impacts to less than significant: CDFW offers the following revisions to BIO-2 for inclusion in the final MND (edits are in strikethrough and bold):

MM-BIO-2 (Revised): 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 shall 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 shall prepare a letter report summarizing the results of the survey. The report would be submitted to the CDFW and 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.

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 11 Responses to Comments September 2025
Letter Agency, Organization, or Individual Date
If BUOW or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey, the site shall be considered occupied and the Project proponent shall fully avoid impacts to burrowing owl or should obtain a CESA ITP if impacts are unavoidable.

Response E-3 The Project applicant will incorporate and comply with this recommended mitigation measure revision.

Comment E-4
Nesting Birds
Section #4.4 Biological Resources, Page #68, 69, 72, 73, 75-77

Issue: The Project has the potential to impact nesting birds, including CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC), and common birds that are subject to Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

Specific Impact: Project implementation could result in the loss of nesting and/or foraging habitat for (non-)passerine and raptor species.

Why impact would occur: Nesting avian species could be directly or indirectly impacted during construction and for the life of the Project through the removal of potential foraging habitat, loss of and/or modification of habitat features, construction of warehouses, installation of new artificial lighting, creation of noise and vibration, and the remov al of vegetation. Nest destruction, nest abandonment, behavioral disturbance, increased risk of predation, and degradation of suitable habitat could also lead to significant impacts to nesting avian species and local populations.

The MND indicates that pre-construction nesting bird surveys would only occur during February -August. However, CDFW recommends the completion of nesting bird survey regardless of time of year to ensure compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to nesting and to avoid take of nests. This is in consideration that the timing of the bird nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as the bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long -term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.).

CDFW staff have also observed that changing climate conditions may result in the nesting bird season occurring earlier and/or later in the year than historical nesting season dates.

Evidence impact would be significant: Fish and Game Code section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongam e bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, po ssess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of-prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 12 Responses to Comments September 2025
Letter Agency, Organization, or Individual Date
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measures to reduce impacts to less than significant: CDFW offers the following revisions to BIO-5 for inclusion in the final MND (edits are in strikethrough and bold):

MM-BIO-5 (Revised): 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 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. • 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 within 72 hours prior to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. • If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the pre -construction survey
or they are observed and the qualified biologist determines they 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, f lagging, 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 activities 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 determined 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.

 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 13 Responses to Comments September 2025
Letter Agency, Organization, or Individual Date
• 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, including CDFW , 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 c oncurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency, including CDFW.
• Birds or their active nests will not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved.

Response E-4 The Project applicant will incorporate and comply with this recommended mitigation measure revision.

F Lozeau Drury July 16, 2025
Comment F-1
SAFER is concerned that the IS/MND is improper under the California Environmental Quality Act due to the IS/MND’s failure to adequately assess and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. SAFER requests that an environmental impact report be prepared for the Project rather than an MND because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. An EIR will ensure that potentially significa nt impacts of this Project are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated.

Response F-1
The commenter asserts, in general terms, that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A) and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared. However, the commenter has not identified any specific substantial evidence in the record that demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels.

The IS/MND prepared for the project includes a comprehensive analysis of the project’s potential impacts on the environment, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Where potentially significant impacts were id entified, feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. The IS/MND therefore appropriately concludes that no significant unavoidable impacts would occur with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

Under CEQA, preparation of an EIR is only required when there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated. No such evidence has been provided by the commenter. Therefore, an MND is the appropriate level of environmental review for the Project.

The IS/MND complies with CEQA’s requirements to disclose, analyze, and mitigate the project’s potential environmental impacts.

G Caltrans July 21, 2025
Comment G-1
Safety Reviews:

The proposed project will generate additional trips on the State Highway System on US-395 and I-15. Please provide a Safety Analysis Report for I-15 and US-395 facilities affected by the proposed projec t. The Safety Analysis Report shall follow the attached guidance. See the attached guidance: Local Development Review (LDR) Safety Review Practitioner’s Guidance. Please follow the steps below: