Tuesday, May 5, 2026
Meeting Agenda
HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HOUSING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
WATER DISTRICT
HESPERIA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - SPECIAL MEETING
No Closed Session
Regular Meeting - 6:30 PM
City Council Chambers
9700 Seventh Ave., Hesperia CA, 92345
City Clerk's Office: (760) 947-1007
City Council Members
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
Josh Pullen, Mayor Pro Tem
Cameron Gregg, Council Member
Allison Lee, Council Member
Chris Ochoa, Council Member
Rachel Molina, City Manager
Pam K. Lee, City Attorney
NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (760) 947-1007 or (760) 947-1026. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
To leave a Public Comment by phone, call and leave a recorded message at (760) 947-1026 up to 5:30 pm on the day of the scheduled meeting. City Council meetings may be viewed live or after the event on the City’s website at www.hesperiaca.gov.
May 5, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HESPERIA HOUSING AUTHORITY
HESPERIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT
HESPERIA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - SPECIAL MEETING
9700 7th Avenue, Council Chambers, Hesperia, CA 92345
As a courtesy, please silence your cell phones and other electronic devices while the meeting is in session. Thank you.
Prior to action of the Council, any member of the audience will have the opportunity to address the legislative body on any item listed on the agenda, including those on the Consent Calendar.
Individuals wishing to speak during General Public Comments or on a particular numbered item must submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to the public comment portion of the agenda or before an agenda item is discussed. Comments will be limited to three minutes for General Public Comments, Consent Calendar items and New Business items. Comments are limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.
In compliance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not discuss or take action on non-agenda items or engage in question and answer sessions with the public. The City Council may ask brief questions for clarification; provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information and direct staff to add an item to a subsequent meeting.
NO CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 PM
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
C. Roll Call
Mayor Brigit Bennington
Mayor Pro Tem Josh Pullen
Council Member Cameron Gregg
Council Member Allison Lee
Council Member Chris Ochoa
D. Agenda Revisions and Announcements by City Clerk
E. Closed Session Reports by City Attorney
ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of City Hall Employee of the Quarter Recognition to Henry Corona, Custodian, by Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works/City
May 5, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
Engineer.
2. Presentation on San Bernardino County Fire Department Drone Program by Battalion Chief Chris Bowden and Engineer Jeff Alexy.
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items and matters not listed on the agenda) Individuals wishing to speak during General Public Comments or on a particular numbered item are requested to submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to the public comment portion of the joint agenda or before an agenda item is discussed. Comments will be limited to three minutes for General Public Comments, Consent Calendar items and New Business items. Comments are limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.
In compliance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not discuss or take action on non-agenda items or engage in question and answer sessions with the public. The City Council may ask brief questions for clarification; provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information and direct staff to add an item to a subsequent meeting.
JOINT CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Consideration of the Draft Minutes from the Special Meeting held Tuesday, April 21, 2026.
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council approve the Draft Minutes from the Special meeting held Tuesday, April 21, 2026.
Staff Person: Assistant City Clerk Jessica Giber
Draft CC Min 2026-04-07Attachments:
2. Warrant Run Report (City - Successor Agency - Housing Authority - Community Development Commission - Water)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.
Staff Person: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
SR Warrant Run 5-5-2026
Attachment 1 - Warrant Run
Attachments:
3. Acceptance of Public Improvements for Tract 16591-2
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia
May 5, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
Water District adopt Resolution No. 2026-08 accepting the public improvements
for Tract 16591-2 located on the west side of Newcastle Avenue and south of Muscatel Street. (Applicant: Harris Homes Inc.) Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR Tract 16591-2 Acceptance of Public Improvements 5-5-2026 Resolution 2026-08
Attachments:
4. D&H Water Systems - New Contract
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council and Board Members of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to enter into a one (1) year agreement with D&H Water Systems for the purchase of calcium hypochlorite chlorine in the not-to-exceed amount of $100,485, which includes a 10% contingency.
Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR D&H Water Systems 5-5-2026Attachments:
5. Vehicle Procurement - One (1) 2,000-Gallon Water Truck Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Valew Quality Truck Bodies - 1954 MFG for the purchase of one (1) 2027 Mack MD642R water truck in the not-to-exceed amount of $119,883.
Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR Vehicle Procurement - 2,000 Gallon Water Truck 5-5-2026 Attachment 1- Bid Comparison
Attachments:
PUBLIC HEARING
Individuals wishing to comment on public hearing items must submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the numbered agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to an agenda item being taken up.
Comments will be limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.
WAIVE READING OF ORDINANCES
Approve the reading by title of all ordinances and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.
6. Appeal to the City Council (APP25-00003 - Appellant: Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”): Applicant: Bobby Kang, CEO- Cargo Solutions Express; APNs: 3064-591-12,13,17,18, and 3064-631-01 Recommended Action:
May 5, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-02, denying appeal
APP25-00003 and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) associated with the approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP22-00016 and Tentative Parcel Map TPM24-00003.
Staff Person: Principal Planner Ryan Leonard
SR Appeal APP25-00003 5-5-2026
Resolution 2026-02
Attachment 2 - Appeal Application
Attachment 3 - General Plan and Zoning Map
Attachment 4 - Aerial
Attachment 5 - IS-MND
Attachment 6a - Mojave Water Agency Comment Letter
Attachment 6b - Lozeau Drury Comment Letter
Attachment 6c - Southern California Gas Comment Letter
Attachment 6d - MDAQMD Comment Letter
Attachment 6e - CDFW Comment Letter
Attachment 7 - Responses to Comments
Attachment 8 - Final MMRP
Attachment 9 - Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments Attachments:
7. Conditional Use Permit CUP24-00012; Applicant: AUE Energy LLC; APN:
3064-401-10
Recommended Action:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-07 Approving Conditional Use Permit CUP24-00012 and adopting the associated mitigated negative declaration pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
Staff Person: Associate Planner Leilani Henry
May 5, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
SR Conditional Use Permit CUP24-00012 5-5-2026
Resolution 2026-07
Attachment 2 - Site Plan
Attachment 3 - Floor Plan
Attachment 4 - Aerial Photo
Attachment 5 - General Plan Map
Attachment 6 - Census Tract Map
Attachment 7 - Colored Elevations
Attachments 8 - Comment Letters
Attachment 9 - Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 10 - Draft Conditions of Approval
Attachment 11- March 26, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report/Attachments Attachments:
NEW BUSINESS
8. FY 2026-27 Budget Workshop #1 - Operating Budget
Recommended Action:
It
is recommended that the City Council/Board receive and file this staff report, which provides information about the current status of the City of Hesperia’s proposed operating budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27.
Staff Person: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
FY 2026-27 Budget Workshop #1 - Operating Budget 5-5-2026Attachments:
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COMMENTS
The Council may report on their activities as appointed representatives of the City on various Boards and Committees and/or may make comments of general interest or report on their activities as a representative of the City.
CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY/STAFF REPORTS
The City Manager, City Attorney or staff may make announcements or reports concerning items of interest to the Council and the public.
ADJOURNMENT
May 5, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
I, Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Hesperia, California do hereby certify that I caused to be posted the foregoing agenda on Thursday, April 30, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. pursuant to California Government Code §54954.2.
_____________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk
Documents produced by the City and distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting regarding items on the agenda will be made available in the City Clerk's Office during normal business hours.
City of Hesperia
Meeting Minutes – Draft
City Council
Tuesday, April 7, 2026 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HESPERIA HOUSING AUTHORITY
HESPERIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT
CLOSED SESSION – 5:00 PM
Roll Call
Present: 5 - Mayor Bennington, Mayor Pro Tem Pullen, Council Member Gregg, Council Member Lee, and Council Member Ochoa
Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation:
Government Code Section – 54956.9(d)2
1. One (1) Case
Conference with Real Property Negotiators – Property Negotiations Government Code Section – 54956.8
1. Real Property Negotiations
Negotiating Parties: City of Hesperia and Hesperia Park and Recreation District Location: APN 0398-0131-34
Under Negotiations: Price and Terms
CALL TO ORDER - 6:31 PM
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
C. Roll Call
Present: 5 - Mayor Bennington, Mayor Pro Tem Pullen, Council Member Gregg, Council Member Lee, and Council Member Ochoa
City Council Chambers
9700 Seventh Ave.
Hesperia CA, 92345
D. Agenda Revisions and Announcements by City Clerk
E. Closed Session Reports by City Attorney
ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of Proclamation to The San Bernardino County Children’s Network declaring April as Child Abuse Prevention Month.
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items and matters not listed on the agenda)
The following people commented:
Bob Nelson via voicemail
Kim Jones
Al Vogler
Hesperia News
Ken Anderson
JOINT CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Gregg, seconded by Pullen, that the Joint Consent Calendar minus item 3, 7, and 12 be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Gregg, Bennington, Lee, Ochoa, and Pullen
Nay: 0
1. Consideration of the Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, March 17, 2026.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, March 17, 2026.
Sponsors: Assistant City Clerk Jessica Giber
2. Warrant Run Report (City - Successor Agency - Housing Authority - Community Development Commission - Water)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.
Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
3. Ratification of Emergency Purchases from Winter Storm 2025
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council and the Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District (District) ratify, by Resolution No. 2026- 18, emergency purchases in the amount of $1,047,222 made in response to the December 23, 2025 storm event. It is further recommended that the City Council and Board adopt Resolution No. 2026- 03 amending the Fiscal Year 2025- 26 Budget by $1,276,587 to account for total storm-related costs
Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
4. OpenGov, Inc. for Financial Reporting and Budgeting & Planning Software Contract
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a five- year (5) agreement with OpenGov, Inc. (OpenGov), in an amount not-to-exceed $289,516, to continue providing software pertaining to its financial transparency portal and the development and preparation of the City’s budget.
Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
5. Attachment Procurement - Sweeper and Loader Bucket
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Sonsray Machinery for the purchase of one (1) sweeper attachment and one (1) 4 x 1 loader bucket in the not-to-exceed amount of $55,000.
Sponsors:
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez
6. Vehicle Procurement - One (1) 8-Yard Dump Truck
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Valew Quality Truck Bodies - 1954 MFG for the purchase of one (1) 2027 Mack MD7 8- Yard dump truck in the not-to-exceed amount of $136,863.
Sponsors: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez
7. Amend Professional Services Agreement for Construction Support Services for the Ranchero Road Aqueduct Crossing Project, C.O. No. 7139
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council amend Professional Services Agreement No. 2021- 22-064 with TranSystems Corporation for additional construction support services for the Ranchero Road Aqueduct Crossing Project, C.O. No. 7139, in amount of $65,000, for a not-to-exceed total of $213,500.
Sponsors:
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez
8. Acceptance of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant - Tank Coatings - Plant 23, Plant 21, and Plant 22 Projects
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Accept the completed Tank Coatings - Plant 23-R23/1 (C.O. No. 8094), Plant 21 -R21/1 (C.O.
No. 8095), and Plant 22-R22/2 (C.O. No. 8090) Projects; and
2. Authorize staff to record a “Notice of Completion;” and
3. Release all withheld retention amounts after a minimum of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of recordation.
Sponsors: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez
9. Amendment to Street Sweeper Rental Agreement with Haaker Equipment Company
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the existing street sweeper rental agreement with Haaker Equipment Company to increase contract authority by $40,000, for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $125,000.
Sponsors: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez
10. D&H Water Systems - Increase to Contract
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council and Board Members of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to amend the agreement with D&H Water Systems in the amount of $15,000 in the new not-to-exceed amount of $101,405, for the purchase of calcium hypochlorite chlorine.
Sponsors: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez
11. Acceptance of Public Improvements for Tract 16591-1
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District adopt Resolution No. 2026-06 accepting the public improvements for Tract 16591- 1 located on the west side of Tamarisk Avenue and south of Muscatel Street. (Applicant: Harris Homes Inc.) Sponsors: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez
12. Animal Shelter Evaporative Cooler Replacement
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Allison Mechanical Inc to replace (10) Evaporative Coolers at the Animal Shelter in the not -to-exceed amount of $98,995 that includes a contingency of 10%.
Sponsors: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez
A motion was made by Ochoa, seconded by Lee, that items 3, 7, and 12 be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Gregg, Bennington, Lee, Ochoa, and Pullen
Nay: 0
13. Annual Report on Status and Implementation of the General Plan
Recommended Action:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council review this annual report, and direct staff to transmit copies to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and the Department of Housing and Community Development as required by law.
Sponsors: Principal Planner Ryan Leonard
14. CalRecycle Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-013 authorizing the City Manager to submit payment program applications for the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
City/County Payment Program for all CalRecycle payment programs for a period of five (5) years from the date of adoption of this resolution.
Sponsors: Assistant to the City Manager Tammy Pelayes
NEW BUSINESS
15. Consideration of Resolution No. 2026- 017 Approving the Measure I Continuation Expenditure Plan Developed by the San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026- 017 approving the Measure I Continuation Expenditure Plan developed by the
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority.
Sponsors:
Assistant to the City Manager Tammy Pelayes
A motion was made by Ochoa, seconded by Lee, that this item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Gregg, Bennington, Lee, Ochoa, and Pullen
Nay: 0
16. Reject all Bids and Appropriate Funding for Waterline Material Betterment for the Highway 395 Waterline Relocation Project, Construction Order No. 8096
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District:
1. Reject all submitted bids for the Highway 395 Waterline Relocation Project (Construction Order No. 8096).
2. Adopt Joint Resolution No. 2026- 05 and Hesperia Water District Resolution No. 2026- 03, amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025- 26 Capital Improvement budget by appropriating an additional $24,000, for a total of $274,000 to Water Capital Fund 701 for waterline betterments associated with the project.
Sponsors:
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez
A motion was made by Gregg, seconded by Pullen, that this item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Gregg, Bennington, Lee, Ochoa, and Pullen
Nay: 0
17. Acceptance of Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Funds
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Accept Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant funds in the amount of $1,577,600 for the City of Hesperia Vision Zero Action Plan, the supplemental Complete Streets Plan, and supporting studies.
2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all grant-related documents, agreements, and amendments as necessary to implement the grant.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-04, accepting SS4A grant funds, authorizing execution of the grant agreement.
Sponsors: Project Manager Deanna Lestina
A motion was made by Ochoa, seconded by Gregg, that this item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Gregg, Bennington, Lee, Ochoa, and Pullen
Nay: 0
Al Vogler commented on item #17.
18. Contract Award - Dirt Road & Shoulder Repair and Retention Basin Rehabilitations
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the award of up to four (4) contracts for dirt road repairs, dirt shoulder repairs, Tamarisk Basin rehabilitation, and H -01 Basin rehabilitation, in a combined not-to-exceed
amount of $1,001,356.
Sponsors:
Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
A motion was made by Ochoa, seconded by Pullen, that this item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Gregg, Bennington, Lee, Ochoa, and Pullen
Nay: 0
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COMMENTS
The Mayor and Council Members reported from various events and Committees.
Council Member Gregg requested a memo regarding the County’s Rock Springs Road project.
CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY/STAFF REPORTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. in memory of Taylor Cole.
___________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 5, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members
City Council, as Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency
Chair and Commissioners, Hesperia Housing Authority
Chair and Commissioners, Community Development Commission Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Casey Brooksher, Assistant City Manager
Keith Cheong, Deputy Finance Director
Verenise Fierros, Accountant
SUBJECT: Warrant Run Report (City – Successor Agency – Housing Authority – Community Development Commission – Water)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.
BACKGROUND
The Warrant Run totals represented below are for the period March 14, 2026, through March 27, 2026.
CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM
Financial Health – Maintain a balanced budget and adequate reserves.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Warrant Runs
Agency/District Accounts Payable Payroll Wires Totals
City of Hesperia $4,481,122.87 $332,657.88 $0.00 $4,813,780.75 Successor Agency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Authority 10,739.00 162.98 0.00 10,901.98
Community Development Commission 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water 221,679.52 147,353.85 0.00 369,033.37
Totals $4,713,541.39 $480,174.71 $0.00 $5,193,716.10
* Includes debt service payments made via Automated Clearing House (ACH) electronic deposit of funds.
YEAR-TO PRIOR FY YTD
W/E W/E WARRANT DATE DATE
FUND # FUND NAME 3/20/2026 3/27/2026 TOTALS Wires TOTALS * TOTALS Accounts Payable
100 GENERAL 2,328,237.60$ 332,563.55$ 2,660,801.15$ -$ 30,891,280.15$ 28,543,783.94$ 105 PENSION OBLIGATION TRUST -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
106 OPEB TRUST -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
110 SILVERWOOD 6,076.00$ -$ 6,076.00$ -$ 89,370.75$ 95,258.67$ 200 HESPERIA FIRE DISTRICT -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
204 MEASURE I - RENEWAL 60,285.70$ -$ 60,285.70$ -$ 2,548,554.27$ 37,231.76$ 207 LOCAL TRANSPORT-SB 325 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.64$
209 GAS TAX-RMRA 2,360.24$ -$ 2,360.24$ -$ 4,336.73$ -$ 210 HFPD (PERS) -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,896,318.00$ 1,755,819.00$ 241 CFD 2021-1 Resid Maint. & Serv -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,890.00$ 1,280.00$ 242 CFD 2022-1 Non-Resd Maint & Serv -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,373.00$ 1,280.00$ 243 CFD 2023-1 Silverwood Maint -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,344.00$ 1,280.00$ 251 CDBG -$ 9,153.25$ 9,153.25$ -$ 1,505,202.39$ 2,909,005.65$ 254 AB2766 - TRANSIT -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
255 AB3229 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
256 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS GRANT -$ -$ -$ -$ 31,306.39$ 36,804.87$ 262 SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT 8,361.25$ -$ 8,361.25$ -$ 173,101.01$ 104,497.49$ 263 STREETS MAINTENANCE 21,162.80$ 10,762.17$ 31,924.97$ -$ 1,161,430.92$ 2,184,120.67$ 300 DEV. IMPACT FEES - STREET -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 171,147.82$ 301 DEV. IMPACT FEES - STORM DRAIN -$ -$ -$ -$ 59,843.30$ 149,218.71$ 306 DEV. IMPACT FEES - 2018-STREETS -$ 240,850.88$ 240,850.88$ -$ 1,773,685.15$ 1,230,619.55$ 307 DIF 2018-DRAINAGE FACILITIES -$ -$ -$ -$ 26,353.00$ 168,099.30$ 309 DIF 2018-CITY HALL FACILITIES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 312 DIF 2018-POLICE FACILITIES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
313 DIF A-04 DRAINAGE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,154,638.51$ 402 WATER RIGHTS ACQUISITION -$ 249,150.82$ 249,150.82$ -$ 1,376,791.79$ 1,912,552.24$ 403 2013 REFUNDING LEASE REV BONDS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 404 2023 REFUNDING LEASE REV BONDS -$ -$ -$ -$ 577,279.98$ 2,500.00$ 504 CITY WIDE STREETS - CIP -$ 651,429.90$ 651,429.90$ -$ 1,951,953.29$ 2,785,354.47$ 509 CITY FACILITIES CIP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
800 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 247,196.73$ 152,709.67$ 399,906.40$ -$ 7,629,243.61$ 7,264,131.69$ 801 TRUST/AGENCY 159,983.50$ 838.81$ 160,822.31$ -$ 1,728,190.11$ 1,305,432.47$ 802 AD 91-1 AGENCY -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
804 TRUST-INTEREST BEARING -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,854.70$ 42,379.11$ 807 CFD 2005-1 -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,278,658.33$ 1,186,302.97$ 808 HFPD (TRANSITION) -$ -$ -$ -$ 335,635.00$ 317,435.02$ 815 PLAN REVIEW TRUST - FRONTIER -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CITY 2,833,663.82$ 1,647,459.05$ 4,481,122.87$ -$ 55,049,995.87$ 53,360,175.55$ 163 REDEVELOP OBLIG RETIREMENT-2018 -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,475,979.87$ 9,690,950.62$ SUCCESSOR AGENCY -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,475,979.87$ 9,690,950.62$ 370 HOUSING AUTHORITY 9,500.00$ 1,239.00$ 10,739.00$ -$ 26,031.92$ 44,027.53$ HOUSING AUTHORITY 9,500.00$ 1,239.00$ 10,739.00$ -$ 26,031.92$ 44,027.53$ 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 700 WATER OPERATING 68,782.09$ 47,889.96$ 116,672.05$ -$ 16,855,123.99$ 11,109,271.28$ 703 WATER CAPITAL REHAB AND REPLACE -$ -$ -$ -$ 545,796.29$ -$ 705 WATER PENSION OBLIGATION TRUST -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,250,000.00$ 706 WATER OPEB TRUST -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000.00$
701 WATER CAPITAL 4,744.30$ -$ 4,744.30$ -$ 1,011,784.44$ 16,473.00$ 710 SEWER OPERATING 91,699.88$ 8,503.17$ 100,203.05$ -$ 10,771,270.17$ 4,656,273.24$ 711 SEWER CAPITAL -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,330,766.95$ 1,999,242.79$ 720 RECLAIMED WATER OPERATIONS 60.12$ -$ 60.12$ -$ 263,600.85$ 277,364.29$ WATER 165,286.39$ 56,393.13$ 221,679.52$ -$ 30,778,342.69$ 19,558,624.60$ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TOTAL 3,008,450.21$ 1,705,091.18$ 4,713,541.39$ -$ 94,330,350.35$ 82,653,778.30$ REG. PAYROLL
City -$ 332,657.88$ 332,657.88$ -$ 6,325,676.23$ 6,439,068.23$ Housing Authority -$ 162.98$ 162.98$ -$ 3,059.38$ 4,981.18$ Water -$ 147,353.85$ 147,353.85$ -$ 2,992,194.06$ 2,986,996.39$ PAYROLL TOTAL -$ 480,174.71$ 480,174.71$ -$ 9,320,929.67$ 9,431,045.80$ City of Hesperia
WARRANT RUNS
3/14/2026-03/27/2026
Attachment 1
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 5, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Savannah Routh, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Public Improvements for Tract 16591-2
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District adopt Resolution No. 2026-08 accepting the public improvements for Tract 16591-2 located on the west side of Newcastle Avenue and south of Muscatel Street. (Applicant: Harris Homes Inc.)
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2021, the City Council approved Final Tract Map No. 16591-2 to create 42 Single- Family Residential lots on 10.72 gross acres zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1), located on the west side of Newcastle Avenue and south of Muscatel Str eet. The map was recorded on March 5, 2021. As part of the infrastructure associated with Final Tract Map No. 16591-2, it was required to install water, sewer, asphalt , concrete paving , and storm facilities . The public improvements have been inspected, and they are found to be acceptable by the City Engineer.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
There are no issues identified with this item.
CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM
Future Development - Facilitate balanced growth to ensure cohesive community development and pursue economic development.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no significant fiscal impacts to the City related to this action. Long -term maintenance of the improvements will be the City’s o bligation and funding from the City of Hesperia and the City’s Water District will be used to meet this obligation.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Resolution 2026-08
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
TRACT 16591 -2 LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NEWCASTLE
AVENUE AND SOUTH OF MUSCATEL STREET (APPLICANT: HARRIS
HOMES INC.)
WHEREAS, Harris Homes Inc. proposed a development of Tract 16591-2 which included, in part, the construction of public improvements; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2021, the City Council approved Final Tract Map No. 16591- 2 for approval and had not accepted the public improvements; and
WHEREAS, Harris Homes Inc. completed public improvements of water, sewer, asphalt, concrete paving, and storm facilities.
WHEREAS, the public improvements have been inspected, and they are found to be acceptable by the City Engineer.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HESPERIA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Hesperia and the Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District accept the completed public improvements as required and subject to the conditions of approval for Final Tract No. 16591-2.
Section 2. That the City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 5th day of May 2026.
____________________________
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 5, 2026
TO: Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jeremy McDonald, Water Operations Manager
SUBJECT: D&H Water Systems - New Contract
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council and Board Members of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City Manager to enter into a one (1) year agreement with D&H Water Systems for the purchase of calcium hypochlorite chlorine in the not -to-exceed amount of $100,485, which includes a 10% contingency.
BACKGROUND
The Hesperia Water District disinfects the water pumped from the ground to control microbial contaminants and comply with State and Federal water quality regulations set by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Chlorine is used to disinfect the groundwater and is treated at each well site. The required chlorine residual is 0.2 to 4.0 parts per million (ppm), and the District has continued to m eet these standards with an average of 0.5 ppm as stated in the District’s 2025 Annual Water Quality Report.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The chlorinators at each well site are designed to use a specific chlorine tablet, which are the Constant Chlor Plus Briquettes. These are supplied by D&H Water Systems, Inc., which is the sole distributor of this product.
CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM
Public Safety: Ensure public safety resources adequately protect our community.
FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funding will be included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2026 -27 Water Operating Fund 700 Budget.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
None
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 5, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Brian Blackwell, Streets Operation Manager
SUBJECT: Vehicle Procurement – One (1) 2,000-Gallon Water Truck
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Valew Quality Truck Bodies – 1954 MFG for the purchase of one (1) 2027 Mack MD 642R water truck in the not-to-exceed amount of $119,883.
BACKGROUND
This new water truck will replace a twenty-one-year-old unit that has reached the end of its useful life, as annual maintenance costs now exceed its salvage value. Assets that require higher-than-expected lifetime maintenance expenditures to remain operational are recommended for replacement.
Water trucks play a critical role on worksites throughout the City, particularly in areas with limited or unreliable water sources. Applying moisture before compaction is necessary to achieve proper density, which is vital for stable road bases. Water trucks are also essential for controlling dust generated by shoulder and road-grading activities.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Hesperia Public Works released a Request for Bid (RFB) 2025 -26-018 for one (1) 2,000 -gallon water truck on April 5, 2026, soliciting bids from twenty -one (21) vendors, both locally and from surrounding regions, to maximize bid response. The bid closed on April 21, 2026, with three (3) responses received. Staff recommends awarding the bid to Valew Quality Truck Bodies – 1954 MFG, who has been deemed the lowest responsive and responsible bidder with a total bid amount of $119,883.
The existing twenty -one-year-old unit has experienced increasing mechanical failures and escalating repair costs over the past several years. Continued investment in major repairs is no longer cost-effective and results in operational downtime that impacts field crews. Replacing the unit will improve reliability, reduce maintenance expenses, and ensure that Public Works has the necessary equipment to support construction, grading, dust control, and emergency response activities.
Staff Report to the City Council
Vehicle Procurement - One 2,000-Gallon Water Truck
April 21, 2026
CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM
Public Safety- Ensure public safety resources adequately protect our community.
Financial Health - Maintain a balanced budget and adequate reserves.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adequate reserves exist in the Public Works Streets fund 263 for the proposed purchase of this one (1) 2,000–gallon water truck.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Bid Comparison
Item No. Qty Description Unit Cost Extended Amount Unit Cost Extended Amount Unit Cost Extended Amount 1 1 2,000 Gallon Water Truck 109,900.00 109,900.00 122,668.00 122,668.00 136,000.00 136,000.00 Document Fee 1,455.00 0.00 0.00
Total Before Non-Taxable Items 109,900.00 122,668.00 136,000.00 Tax At 7.75% 8,517.25 9,506.77 10,540.00
Non-Taxable Tire Fee 10.50 10.50 10.50
Total Bid Amount 119,882.75 132,185.27 146,550.50
Submitted Bid Total 119,882.75 132,185.27 146,550.50
Difference 0.00 0.00 0.00
NOTE: L.A. Truck Centers Is Unable To Meet The 6/30/2026 Delivery Deadline.
RFB 2025-26-018-One 2,000-Gallon Water Truck
Bid Comparison Type: Taxable
Bid Comparison Completed By: Robert Worby
4/21/2026
One Stop Truck & Equipment, TEC Equipment, Best Truck Body, Commerce Truck & Equipment Sales, West-Mark Service Center, High Desert Ford, Fairview Ford, Sunrise Ford, Ken Grody Ford, Victorville Chevrolet, Inland Kenworth, Switch-N-Go, Allied Solutions Enterprise, Big Sky Flat Tanks, Coast Counties Peterbilt, Stepp Manufacturing, Peterson Trucks, And PB Loader Did Not Respond.
Valew QTB Diamond Star Commercial Vehicles L.A. Truck Centers, LLC Dba Velocity Winning Bidder
Attachment 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 5, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Orlando Acevedo, Director of Development Services
Ryan Leonard, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal to the City Council (APP25-00003 – Appellant: Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”): Applicant: Bobby Kang, CEO- Cargo Solutions Express; APNs: 3064-591-12,13,17,18, and 3064-631-01
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-02, denying appeal APP25- 00003 and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) associated with the approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP22-00016 and Tentative Parcel Map TPM24-00003.
BACKGROUND
Proposal: On September 11, 2025, the Planning Commission approved CUP22-00016 to construct two warehouse buildings, each totaling approximately 75,894 square feet in size, on approximately 20.3 gross acres in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 20883 TPM24 - 00003 to consolidate five existing parcels into two new parcels . As a part of the approv al, the Planning Commission made an environmental determination pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopted the associated M itigated Negative Declaration (SCH No.2025060948). During the public hearing, the appellant spoke in opposition to the project.
On September 17, 2025 , Lozeau Drury submitted, on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), an application to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The appellant ge nerally asserts that the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not adequately analyze the project’s impacts and requests the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to analyze potential significant impacts on Biological Resources (Attachment 1).
Current General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses: The site is within the Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone of the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . The surrounding land is designated and zoned as noted on Attachment 2. The site is currently vacant.
Land uses to the north, south, and west of the site also consist of vacant land. The Interstate 15 -freeway is located immediately east of the site followed by vacant land (Attachment 3) .
Entitlement applications were recently approve d for a 414,700 square foot warehouse immediately north of the site (CUP21 -00010); a 742,000 square foot warehouse building immediately to the northwest of the site (CUP21-00004) as well as an additional 1,108,000 square foot warehouse building also to the north of the site (CUP21-00005).
Staff Report to the City Council
APP25-00003
May 5, 2026
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
Given the size and significance of the project, environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required. A qualified CEQA consultant prepared an Initial Study (IS), which concluded that all potentially significant environmental impacts could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of specific mitigation measures. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project (Attachment 4).
The mitigated negative declaration was circulated for public review from J une 18, 2025 to July 21, 2025 (SCH No. 2025060948). The environmental document was circulated to local, state and federal agencies, and local organizations as well as surrounding property owners. During the public review period five comment letters were received from the following agencies/individuals:
• Mojave Water Agency -Confirming that the Mojave Water Agency does not have any conflicts with the project.
• Lozeau Drury- Concerned that the IS/MND was prepared improperly 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. Requests that an environmental impact report be prepared for the project.
• Southern California Gas - SoCalGas Distribution does not have any conflicts with the project.
• Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District - Does not have any conflicts with the project and stated that the owner/operator is required to obtain a Dust Control Plan (DCP) for the project.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife - Requests that the proposed mitigation measures in the IS/MND be revised to ensure that potential project impacts remain at less than significant impact levels. These revised mitigation measures are incorporated in the conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The IS/MND, along with the comment letters received and the responses to those comments, are included as Attachments 4, 5 and 6.
Although the appellant’s comment letter raises concerns regarding potential impacts to biological resources, it does not provide site-specific evidence demonstrating that such impacts cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. All potential biological resource impacts were evaluated in the Initial Study, and additional mitigation measures were incorporated in response to agency comments, including those provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The Initial Study concluded that project-related impacts to biological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures r equiring, among other actions: issuance of an Incidental Take Permit for the authorized removal of Western Joshua trees; focused pre-construction burrowing owl surveys; pre-construction general wildlife surveys for sensitive species and potential nesting h abitat; pre -construction breeding bird surveys for active nests or suitable nesting sites; compensatory mitigation through payment of in-lieu fees to a qualified mitigation bank if Joshua trees or California juniper trees are removed; preparation of
Staff Report to the City Council
APP25-00003
May 5, 2026
a desert native vegetation survey and preservation plan; and focused surveys for Mohave ground squirrel conducted during the appropriate seasonal window.
These mitigation measures, including compliance with the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, focused biol ogical surveys, avoidance measures, and monitoring requirements, are incorporated as enforceable conditions of approval and are subject to implementation through the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 7).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is required only where there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant environmental effect. While the appellant’s comment letter requests preparation of an EIR, it does not present substantial, site -specific evidence demonstrating that the project would result in significant impacts to biological resources. As documented in the Initial Study, potential impacts related to habitat modific ation; impacts to species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status species under local or regional plans, policies, or regulations; impacts to species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and potential conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including tree preservation requirements, would be reduced to a less -than-significant level through implementation of the adopted mitigation measures. Accord ingly, the record does not support a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
Conclusion: The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared and completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines.
All potential impacts have been mitigated to less -than-significant levels, and the mitigation measures further protect the project’s impact on biological resources. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence to support the need for preparation of an EIR. It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-02 (Attachment 8), denying the appeal (APP25-00003), and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the IS/MND (SCH# SCH No. 2025060948) for the Project.
CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM
Future Development - Facilitate balanced growth to ensure cohesive community development and pursue economic development.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Resolution 2026-02
2. Appeal Application
Staff Report to the City Council
APP25-00003
May 5, 2026
3. General Plan Land Use Map
4. Aerial
5. IS/MND
6. Comment Letters Received
a. Mojave Water Agency
b. Lozeau Drury
c. Southern California Gas
d. Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
e. California Department of Fish and Wildlife
7. Response to Comments
8. Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
9. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESP ERIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL APP2 5-00003, UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’ S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP22-00016 AND TENTATIVE PARC EL MAP TPM24 -00003 IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF AN INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND) (SCH N O. 2025060948) LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF POPLAR STREET AND THREE FLAGS AVENUE (APNS: 3064-591-17, -18, -12, -13, AND 3064-631-01) (APP24-00003).
WHEREAS, the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) has filed an application requesting approval of Appeal No. APP25 -00003, seeking to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and approve Conditional Use Permit CUP22-00016 and Tentative Parcel Map TPM24- 00003 (SCH No. 2025060948), as described herein (hereinafter referred to as the “Application”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings, each totaling approximately 75,894 square feet in size on approximately 20.3 gross acres of vacant land in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 20883 (TPM24 -00003) to consolidate five parcels into two parcels located at the southeast corner of Three Flags Road and Poplar Street; and
WHEREAS, the 20.3-acre site is vacant. The properties to the north consist of vacant land. A commercial industrial business park exists to the west. A commercial truck wash and truck repair facility exits to the south. The Interstate 15 freeway is located immediately to the east followed by vacant land; and
WHEREAS, the subject property as well as the surrounding properties to the north, west and south of the site are zoned Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. The Interstate 15 freeway is located immediately to the east; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project consists of consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 3064-591- 12,13,17,18, and 3064-631-01; and
WHEREAS, an environmental Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project was circulated for a 30-day public review from June 18, 2025 to July 21, 2025 , and it determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts to either the man-made or physical environmental setting would occur with the inclusion of mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2025, the Planning Commission approved CUP22-00016 and TPM24-00003. As a part of the approval , the Planning Commission made an environmental determination pursuant to the CEQA and adopted the associated IS/MND (SCH No. 2025060948), having made an environmental determination pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2025, Lozeau Drury submitted on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) an application to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. The appellant generally asserts that the Mitigated Negative Declar ation does not adequately analyze the project’s impacts and requests the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to analyze potential significant impacts on Biological Resources; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, an Initial Study was prepared by a qualified environmental consultant to analyze the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The study identified potentially significant impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce all such impacts to a less- than-significant level. Based on this analysis, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was determined to be appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND was released for a 30-day public review period from June 18, 2025 to July 21, 2025 (SCH No. 2025060948). The environmental document was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies, as well as surrounding property owners; and
WHEREAS, during the public review period, five comment letters were received. Three agencies, the Mojave Water Agency , the Mojave Desert Air Quality Managem ent District, and Southern California Gas expressed satisfaction with the proposed mitigation measures. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) provided additional recommended mitigation measures, which were incorporated into the project’s Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The fifth letter was submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of SAFER, requesting that an EIR be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064, an EIR is required if there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect. The IS/MND was prepared and completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The analysis concluded that all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through mitigation; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2026, the City Council of the City of Hesperia conducted duly noticed public hearings pertaining to the proposed Application, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in this Resolution are true and correct.
Section 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above- referenced May 5, 202 6, hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, the City Council specifically finds as follows:
(a) The IS/MND was prepared in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines. As analyzed in the IS/MND, the project’s potential environmental impacts will be less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures and incorporation of the project’s Conditions of Approval.
(b) The appeal filed by th e Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) did not present substantial evidence that the IS/MND is inadequate or that the proposed project would result in significant environmental impacts that were not properly addressed in the IS/MND.
Section 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in this Resolution, the City Council of the City of Hesperia hereby denies Appeal No. APP25-00003 and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the IS/MND (SCH No. 2025060948) and approve Conditional Use Permit CUP22-00016 and Tentative Parcel Map TPM24-00003.
Section 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED on this 5th day of May 2026.
______________________________________
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk
042108-PL06
:
C i t y o f Hesp er i a
PLANNING DIVISION
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
FEES
$364.00 Appeal from Staff to Planning Commission
$324.00 Appeal from Planning Commission to City Council NOTICE: This form m ust be filed prior to the effective action date for the project action being appealed (normally 10 days). Appeal applications received after this time period will not be accepted.
As every project action is based upon a set of findings and conditions, you should focus your appeal toward changing those findings, and/or conditions. If you need assistance, contact the City of Hesperia, Planning Division at 947-1200.
For appeals to Planning Commission, completed application should be submitted with the specified fee, to the Community Development Department, 9700 Seventh Ave., Hesperia.
You may attach additional pages or other documentation to this application.
Project Action Date:
File No.: Date Appeal Filed:
Project Applicant(s):
Appellant's Name:
Appellant's Address:
City: Zip: Phone No.
Assessor's Parcel No. of Subject Property:
General Location of Property:
Attachment 2
042108-PL06
A P P E A L S T A T E M E N T
1. I/We hereby appeal to the City of Hesperia: (Check One) Planning Commission
City Council
2. I/We are appealing the project action taken to:
DENY the project DENY the project without prejudice
APPROVE the project APPROVE the project with conditions (attach a copy of the conditions, if they are the subject of the appeal).
ADOPT a Negative Declaration
OTHER (specify)
3. Detail what is being appealed and what action or change you seek. Specifically address the findings, mitigation measures, conditions and/or policies with which you disagree.
Also, state exactly what action/ changes you would favor.
4. State why you are appealing - be specific. Reference any errors or omissions - attach any supporting documentation.
I/We certify that I/We are the:
Legal Owner(s) _
Signature of Appellant(s)
Authorized Legal Agent(s)
Other Interested Person(s)
DATE: 9/16/2025
SAFER appeals the Planning Commission's September 11, 2025 decision to adopt Res
olution No. PC-2025-15, approving CUP22-00016 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 20883 (TPM24-00003) and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration(“MND”).The prepared MND does not adequately analyz
e or mitigate the Project's significant adverse
environmental impacts, including impacts on biological resources. SAFER requests that the City instead prepare an Environmental Impact Report to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s signific
ant adverse environmental impacts.
Via Em
ail
Sept
ember 10, 2025
Raymond “Roger” Abrea, Chair
Sophie Steeno, Vice Chair
Earl Hodson V, Commissioner
Timothy Auman, Commissioner
Dale Burke, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345
[email protected]
Melinda Sayre, Deputy City Manager/City
Clerk
City of Hesperia
Hesperia, CA 92345
[email protected]
Michael Hearn, Deputy Community
Development Director
Development Services Department
City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345
[email protected]
Lei
lani Henry, Assistant Planner
Development Services Department
Planning Division
City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, California 92345
[email protected]
Re: C
omment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouses Hesperia Project (SCH 2025060948), Agenda Item No. 4 Dea
r Chair Abrea, Vice Chair Steeno, Mr. Hodson, Mr. Auman, Mr. Burke, Mr. Hearn, Ms.
Sayre, and Ms. Henry,
This
comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouses Hesperia Project, which proposes the development of two truck warehouse buildings totaling 151,788 square-feet on an approximately 20.32-acre site at the southeast intersection of Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue on Accessor’s Parcel Numbers 3064-591-17, -18, -12, and -13 and 3064-631- 01 in the City of Hesperia (“Project”).
SAF
ER is concerned that the IS/MND is improper under the California Environmental Quality Act due to the IS/MND’s failure to adequately assess the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. SAFER requests that an environmental impact report (EIR) be prepared for the Project rather than an MND because there is a fair argument
September 10, 2025
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration, Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouses Hesperia Project (SCH 2025060948)
that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts on biological resources. An EIR will ensure that potentially significant impacts of this Project are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated.
SAFER’s comments are supported by expert wildlife ecologist, Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Dr. Smallwood’s comments and CV are attached as Exhibit A.
SAFER reserves the right to supplement this comment throughout the administrative process. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).
Sincerely,
Kylah Staley
Lozeau Drury LLP
EXHIBIT A
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Ryan Leonard, Senior Planner
City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345 8 September 2025
RE: Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project
Dear Mr. Leonard,
I write to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that was prepared for the proposed Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project (City of Hesperia 2025), specifically on potential impacts to biological resources (UltraSystems 2022). I understand the project would add two truck warehouses and parking lots for a total 502,724 square-feet of development, all on 20.32 acres at the southeast corner of Poplar St. and Three Flags Ave. in Hesperia, California.
My comments that follow address my concerns that the IS/MND mischaracterizes the existing environmental setting, and that its impacts analysis is flawed and its mitigation measures are inadequate.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.
THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts specifies that such evaluation includes potential impacts to special-status species. However, an important policy of CEQA is “to prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.” Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). This policy is not restricted to special-status species, but it also applies to wildlife populations and plant
2 and animal communities. In fact, the CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because these species are forage, provisioners of refugia and nest substrates, and ecological mutualists; no special-status species can exist in a vacuum of other wildlife. The CEQA Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which special- status species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.
All wildlife species should be of concern in a CEQA review, but the CEQA prioritizes special-status species. The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors).
What follows is a summary of a site visit to detect as many of the species of wildlife as possible within the short time available. The survey was also intended to detect as many of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most special- status species are less readily detectable due to rarity and crypticity. Nonetheless, the species detected can indicate the ecological integrity of the site and thus the likelihood of occurrence of special-status species not yet detected.
SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for
3.2 hours from 06:25 to 09:37 hours on 27 August 2025, and for 2 hours of diurnal survey from 17:39 to 19:39 hours and 2.78 hours of nocturnal survey from 19:11 to 21:58 hours on 28 August 2025. During daylight, Noriko walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. At night, Noriko strapped a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 30-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran Sonobat Live. Sonobat Live identifies bats to species based on the bats’ sonograms that are detected by the M500. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen just off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.
3 Conditions were sunny with 4 MPH south wind and temperatures of 65-79° F on 27 August 2025. On 28 August 2025, conditions were mostly cloudy with 10 MPH south wind and temperatures of 78-72° F during the diurnal survey, and clear with 9 MPH south wind and temperatures of 72-68° F during the nocturnal survey. The site shows evidence of disturbance in the past (e.g. mowing or discing) but contains one California juniper and multiple Joshua trees. A large warehouse was under construction at the site north of the project during the time of the surveys (Photos 1, 2, and 3).
Noriko saw red-tailed hawk and common raven (Photos 4 and 5), American kestrel (Photo 6), California horned lark (Photos 7, 8, and 9), greater roadrunner (Photo 10), house sparrow (Photo 11), house finch (Photo 12), California ground squirrel (Photos 13 and 14), among the other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 13 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including four species with special status (Table 1).
Photos 1, 2, and 3. Views of the project site, 27 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. The middle photo shows the construction of a warehouse north of the project.
4 Photo 4. Common raven harassing a red-tailed hawk just off of the project site, 27 August 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 5 and 6. Common raven on the project site (left), and American kestrel just off the project site (right), 27 and 28 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
5 Photos 7, 8, and 9. California horned larks on the project site (top), and just off the project site (bottom), 27 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 10. Greater
roadrunner just off
the project site, 27
August 2025.
Photo by Noriko
Smallwood.
6 Photo 11. House sparrows perched on a Joshua tree on the project site, 27 August 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
7 Photo 12. House finches perched on a Joshua tree on the project site, 28 August 2025.
Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 13 and 14. California ground squirrels on the project site, 27 and 28 August 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
8 Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.
Table 1a. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 3.2 hours of diurnal survey on 27 August 2025, and during 2 hours of diurnal survey and 2.78 hours of nocturnal survey on 28 August 2025
Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus Foraged just off site Red-tailed hawk
Buteo jamaicensis BOP Soared and harassed by
CORA just off site
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Flew over and called during nocturnal survey
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Perched on California juniper just off site
Common raven Corvus corax
Harassed RTHA, foraged
on site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL
Many flocks, foraged and
flew over
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
Many, foraged and perched
on Joshua trees
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus
Foraged and perched on
Joshua trees
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Scat
California ground
squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi
Observed 5 on site, likely
more present on site
1 Listed as WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).
9 Table 1b. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during multiple surveys for a total of 22.27 hours at the project site and at sites within 1.5 miles of the project site.
Common name
Species name
Status1
Steeno
2020,
2023
Pixior
2021
US Cold
Storage
2021
Cargo
Solutions
2025
Southern alligator lizard Gerrhonotus multicarinatus X Lizard sp. X
Snake sp. X
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X
California quail Callipepla californica X
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native X X X
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X X X
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus X X
Hummingbird sp. Trochilidae X
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC X
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC X
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X X X
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP X
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP X
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus X
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X X
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans X
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 X
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X
Common raven Corvus corax X X X X
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL X X X X Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X
Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus X X X
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native X X X
10 Common name
Species name
Status1
Steeno
2020,
2023
Pixior
2021
US Cold
Storage
2021
Cargo
Solutions
2025
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native X X X
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X X
Purple finch Haemorhous purpureus X
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL X
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta X
Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata X
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X
Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus X X
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii X X
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi X X X White-tailed antelope squirrel Ammospermophilus leucurus X X Coyote Canis latrans X X
Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis X
Kangaroo rat Dipodomys sp. X
Merriam’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami X
California vole Microtus californicus X
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID =109406) as FC = federal candidate for listing; BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).
11 ANALYSIS OF RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY DATA
Noriko detected 13 species of vertebrate willdife, which was a smaller number for the region and for her survey effort. The likely reason for the smaller number of species detections was the ongoing construction activity next to the project site. Nonetheless, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her surveys, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s cumulative numbers of vertebrate species detected with time into her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. The models fit to Noriko’s survey data from 27 and 28 August predict 18 and 20 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected in each respective survey, or 7 and 10 more species than she detected (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and the
elapsed survey
time based on
Noriko’s visual-
scan surveys on
27 and 28 August
2025.
Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on 27 and 28 August 2025 composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
YAM 0.97
0.99YPM
r2
95% CI 2019-2024 for morning
surveys in region
12 many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some require more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. A survey on only two days cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.
At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s two surveys.
However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.
As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ = 1 1 𝑎⁄ +𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)𝑐 , where 𝑅̂
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.
I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 17.7 species over my first 5.2 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (5.2 hours to match the 5.2 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 31% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 13 diurnally active species Noriko detected after her 5.2 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 31% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 13 0.31⁄ = 42 species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 42 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 13 special-status species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife.
13 Because my prediction of 42 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 13 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance surveys should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her two surveys to produce an inventory the project site’s wildlife community, and specialized surveys such as nocturnal acoustic detection and live-trapping would be needed. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.
Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the wildlife community and any key ecological relationships and known and ongoing threats to special-status species. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of the CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
14 species. In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading.
Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To the CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources. In the case of this project, however, no analysts obtained the information needed to accurately predict impacts to wildlife.
A biologist from UltraSystems (2022) conducted a reconnaissance survey in pursuit of the following objectives: Habitat assessment and land cover type mapping, Sensitive plant community assessment, General plant survey, General wildlife survey, Jurisdictional waters/wetlands assessment, Wildlife movement evaluation, Step-1 Burrowing owl and desert tortoise habitat assessment, evaluate the initial results of the literature review, and collect additional data on existing site conditions. I count 11 objectives in this list, and all these objectives were pursued simultaneously over a survey that lasted a mere 1.25 hours. It was highly unlikely that any of the 11 objectives were satisfactorily achieved in a 1.25-hour survey. A 1.25-hour survey qualifies as a de minimis survey effort, and it was therefore unlikely to detect more than only a few species of wildlife.
In fact, UltraSystems (2022) reports that its biologist detected only three species of vertebrate wildlife, none of which was a special-status species. In comparison, Noriko Smallwood detected 3.25 times the number of species, including four with special status.
The extremely brief survey by the UltraSystems biologist likely explains part of the difference in survey outcome, but two additional explanations would be the large number of objectives pursued by the UltraSystems biologist and the start time of 14:45 hours. The middle of the afternoon is when wildlife activity is least, and this pattern would have been magnified by the survey date in late August (24 August 2022) in the desert. UltraSystems could not have selected a worse time to begin a wildlife survey.
If I did not know better, the disparity in survey findings is large enough to question whether Noriko and the UltraSystems biologist surveyed the same wildlife community.
The UltraSystems biologist detected no species that Noriko did not, and Noriko detected 10 species that the UltraSystems biologists did not. Applying the Sørensen Index of 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
2𝑐
𝑎+𝑏 (Sørensen 1948), where a is the number of species found by UltraSystems (2022), b is the number of species found by Noriko, and c is the number of species found by both UltraSystems and Noriko, the Index of Similarity of the two wildlife communities is only 0.375 on a scale that ranges 0 to 1. For perspective, the mean Index of Similarity among 40 comparisons of surveys I completed over the same time periods and at the same place in Rancho Cordova, California, but on different days over three years 2020-2023, was 0.755 with a high value of 0.90. An Index value of
15 0.375 is low – one of the lowest I have calculated between the survey outcomes of consultants and either Noriko or myself.
The survey by UltraSystems (2022) did not meet the minimum standards of CDFW’s (2018) survey guidelines for rare plants. No evidence was reported that would suggest that the surveys were timed to overlap the blooming periods of potentially occurring rare plants. No reference sites were surveyed. And most of the standards of stating qualifications, of preparation, of survey conduct, and of reporting were not met in UltraSystems (2022).
UltraSystems (2022) reports on no live-trapping for small mammals and no surveys for bats, even though multiple special-status species of small mammals and bats are known to the project area. UltraSystems completed no surveys consistent with the CDFW (2022) survey protocol for special-status species of bumble bees. Nor did UltraSystems complete the needed detection surveys for burrowing owl, which is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. Due to its candidate status, the CDFW’s (2012) survey guidelines need to be implemented.
For the burrowing owl, there are three types of surveys recommended and described in the CDFW’s (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines: (1) Habitat assessment, (2) Detection surveys, and (3) Preconstruction survey. The habitat assessment is intended to evaluate the likelihood that the site supports burrowing owls, and to decide whether detection surveys should be performed. The detection survey, otherwise described as either or both breeding-season or non-breeding-season survey, is intended to detect whether the site truly supports burrowing owls, and if so, where and how many. The preconstruction survey, otherwise known as a take-avoidance survey, is intended to determine whether burrowing owls immigrated to the site since completion of the detection survey, or whether they returned to the site since passive or active relocations were performed as mitigation. The three types of survey carry distinct but inter-related purposes, and CDFW (2012) intends them to be completed in chronological order as numbered above.
The first two types of survey support impacts analysis, whereas the third type of survey is a mitigation measure. Burrowing owls can be determined absent based on evidence derived from the habitat assessment or detection survey, but only if the surveys achieved the minimum standards of CDFW (2012). Whereas an absence determination naturally follows from the negative findings of properly performed detection surveys, the following three questions must be answered negatively to determine absence based on the habitat assessment:
A) Are there occurrence records nearby the project site? B) Is the site’s vegetation cover and height typical of where burrowing owls are found? C) Are there fossorial mammals present which typically construct burrows useable by burrowing owls, or are there surrogate cavities that can serve as nest sites?
If the answers to these questions are compellingly negative, then detection surveys are not necessary, but they could be implemented to make certain that burrowing owls are
16 absent on the project site. If the answers to these questions are affirmative or not compellingly negative, then it should be assumed that burrowing owl habitat exists on the site until detection surveys prove otherwise.
To question A, the nearest burrowing owl occurrence record are within 1.5 miles of the project site, and Noriko and I have detected burrowing owls only 9 km from the site.
Moreover, UltraSystems (2022) determines that the occurrence likelihood of burrowing owls is high.
To question B, the vegetation on site is typical of the area, and it is typical of vegetation often used by burrowing owls. The answer to question B is affirmative, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.
To question C, ground squirrels are known to occur on the project site. Ground squirrels were detected on site by both Noriko Smallwood and by UltraSystems (2022). Ground squirrels construct burrows used by burrowing owls, and these two species mutually alarm-call for predators and survive better together (K. S. Smallwood, unpublished data). The answer to question C is affirmative, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.
The answers to all three questions are affirmative. Therefore, breeding-season detection surveys are needed, and these surveys are not to be confused with preconstruction take- avoidance surveys. Breeding-season detection surveys are needed to publicly disclose potential impacts on the burrowing owl. Moreover, the applicant needs to consult with the CDFW for the purpose of obtaining an incidental take permit.
On the whole, the field surveys are incomplete. Detection survey protocols have not been implemented for rare plants or for special-status species of wildlife. Without an adequate survey effort, the wildlife community remains incompletely and inaccurately characterized, and the basis for predicting impacts on wildlife remains unsound. At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting, and for the purpose of predicting project impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation strategies.
Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database reviews and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths. In the case of this project, the desktop review was incomplete, and the review that was completed was distorted to minimalize the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species.
UltraSystems (2022) queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for occurrence records of special-status species within 10 miles of the project site. By
17 querying the CNDDB to establish the pool of special-status species for analysis of occurrence likelihoods, UltraSystems (2022) screened out many special-status species from further consideration in the characterization of the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. The CNDDB is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map.
That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” UltraSystems (2022) and hence the IS/MND misused the CNDDB.
The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to the CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. Therefore, occurrence records in the CNDDB are most abundant for species assigned special status decades ago, but fewest for species only recently assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB is also inappropriate as a basis for weighting occurrence likelihoods such as absent, not expected, unlikely, low, moderate or high. Whereas the CNDDB can be confirmatory of species presence, it cannot support absence determinations or assignments of low likelihood of occurrence.
And again, the screening out of a species due to lack of occurrence records in the CNDDB is the same as an absence determination, and this step is being taken without adequate support of field surveys.
In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 113 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Of these 113 species, 4 were recorded on or just off the project site, and another 13 (12%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 13 (12%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 73 (65%) within 4 to 30 miles (In region). One quarter of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least seven special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of recorded occurrences.
18 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood during her site visit.
Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence potential
UltraSystems Data base records,
Site visits 2022 App.
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC None In region
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Low Low In region Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys pallida FC, SSC None In region Mojave desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii FT, CE Low Low In region Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Low Low In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 In region
Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica SSC In region
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC In region
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE None In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 In region
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby/Very close Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC In region Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC In region
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC In region/Very close American avocet Recurvirostra americana BCC In region Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In range Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In range Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL In region
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region
19 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence potential
UltraSystems Data base records,
Site visits 2022 App.
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC In region
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Nearby Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL In region
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP In region
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP,
WL
None Nearby
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP None In region Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Low Low Nearby Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP None In region Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP In region
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Low Low Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close/Adjacent Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP In region
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Nearby/On site
20 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence potential
UltraSystems Data base records,
Site visits 2022 App.
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP In region Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Nearby/Very close Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE, SSC2,
BOP
High High Very close
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP None In region Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close/Adjacent Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Nearby
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Low Low Very close Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 In region Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE None In region
Brown-crested flycatcher Myiarchus tyrannulus WL In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 In region Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE None In region Gray vireo Vireo vicinior SSC2 None In region
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Moderate Moderate Very close/Very close
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
Verdin Auriparus flaviceps BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close/On site Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT In region
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC In region
Black-tailed gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura WL In region Bendire’s thrasher Toxostoma bendirei SSC3, BCC In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Nearby
21 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence potential
UltraSystems Data base records,
Site visits 2022 App.
LeConte’s thrasher Toxostoma lecontei SSC1, BCC None Nearby Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region/Very close Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL In region
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 None In region Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 In region Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Nearby
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 In region Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 None In region
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 None In region
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWGM In region Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M In region
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In range Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M None In range
Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In region Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H Low In range Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L In region Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H In range Desert kit fox Vulpes macrotis macrotis CCR Title 14 Low In region
22 Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence potential
UltraSystems Data base records,
Site visits 2022 App.
Mohave ground squirrel Xerospermophilus mohavensis CT Low Low In region Pallid San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC None In range
Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In region
Southern grasshopper
mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC None In region
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors); CCR Title 14 = California Code of Regulations Title 14, §460, protection against any take (https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ I1350BAF65B4D11EC976B000D3A7C4BC3?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageIt em&contextData=(sc.Default)).
23 UltraSystems (2022) assesses the occurrence likelihoods of only 28 (24.7%) of the special-status species listed in Table 2. Of these, one (burrowing owl) is given high potential to occur, one (loggerhead shrike) is given moderate potential to occur, and the rest are given either low potential or no potential to occur. The two special-status species given moderate and high likelihoods of occurrence comport with site conditions and the occurrence records, but the 26 special-status species given low to no occurrence likelihoods do not comport so well with site conditions or the occurrence records. Two of these species have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site, three more have been recorded between 1.5 and 4 miles of the site, and 16 have been recorded between 4 and 30 miles from the site, which in desert environments is not far. Most of the 28 special- status species analyzed by UltraSystems have been detected close enough to the project site to consider them likely to occur. The UltraSystems analysis is unlikely to be accurate, and it errs on the side of incaution.
On the Presence of Special-status Species of Wildlife
There is no doubt that at least four special-status species of wildlife occur on the project site. Modeling the rate of species detections during Noriko’s surveys, and analytically bridging Noriko’s survey results to a larger research effort, predicts 13 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife should be detectable on the project site after a larger survey effort conducted over the period of a year or longer. Indeed, species occurrence records reveal that 17 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife have been detected within 1.5 miles of the site, and 30 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife have been detected within four miles of the site. The evidence is overwhelming that the project site provides habitat to multiple special-status species of wildlife.
Considering Noriko’s observations of at least four special-status species, and the occurrence records of multiple other special-status species very close to the project site the project site is habitat as defined in the scientific literature (Hall et al. 1997). These species are using the site for migration stopover, survival, and likely for reproduction.
These species are members of a larger wildlife community, the entire composition of which has yet to be characterized but which undoubtedly adds to the habitat value of the project site.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
The impacts analysis involves prediction. Predictions are necessary because measuring the impacts directly could not happen until after the impacts occur, and this type of measurement would prevent the formulations of avoidance and minimization mitigation strategies that are prioritized by the CEQA. Impact predictions are necessary as part of the environmental review. The accuracy of the predictions of impacts and their significance ultimately relies on the degree of accuracy in the characterization of the existing environmental setting (Figure 3).
24 Figure 3. General flow of information from the gathering stage through the characterization of the existing environment to predictions of impacts and their significance.
Impact predictions can derive from speculation or from some level of experience (Figure 4). Speculation is repeatedly discouraged in the CEQA Guidelines, and for good reason because prediction accuracy improves with experience. But the experience that can be brought to bear on impact predictions ranges from anecdotes to careful use of scientific inference. Any type of experience is usually better than relying on speculation, but careful scientific inference, especially inference drawn from experiments, has proven most effective. An analogy would be predicting the boiling temperature of water at a certain place with a known atmospheric pressure after having measured it hundreds of times at other places under various atmospheric pressures. The experience of measuring the boiling temperature at all these other places would certainly result in a more accurate prediction of the boiling point as compared to a speculative prediction. We know that use of inference in this example is certainly more predictive, and not potentially more predictive, because we have a long successful history with the application of this type of experimentation to draw predictive inference.
In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which are analyzed by the City of Hesperia.
Assess species occurrence likelihoods
1. Desktop review
a. Species geographic range overlap or database occurrence records b. Crosswalk habitat associations with mapped ground cover
2. Reconnaissance survey/Habitat assessment
3. Detection surveys for special-status species
Outcomes
5. Predict impacts
6. Formulate mitigation strategy
7. Determine significance of impacts
Characterize wildlife community
4. Lists of species detected and of those expected but
not yet detected, and any known trends
Note: Impact predictions and
significance determinations have
been of unknown accuracy in the
absence of experimental
measurement
25 Figure 4. A framework for arriving at predicted project impacts based on experience with other project sites. Ideally, there is a pool of similar projects in similar circumstances where predicted impacts were compared to realized impacts, and into which the proposed project can also contribute to experience.
REDUCED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY FROM HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species. The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 13 species of vertebrate wildlife which Noriko observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown. Because Noriko’s survey was only a reconnaissance survey and therefore unsuitable for detecting all bird nests on the site, estimating total nest density of birds was not possible. The alternative method would be to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere. Noriko has completed several studies to estimate total avian nest density in similar environments in the local area.
Noriko estimated 5.56 nests/acre on a 3.6-acre site of ruderal grassland bordering a woodland strip in Murrieta, and 1.86 nests/acre on another 4.83-acre grassland site bordering a strip of woodland in Murietta. The average of the above two estimates is
3.71 nests/acre. This density applied to the 20.32 acres of the project site would predict
75.4 nest sites. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate 105 nest attempts per year on the project site. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 305 fledglings/year at the project site.
Inference
Project site
Preconstruction
study
Predict
project impacts
Preconstruction
studies
Post-construction
studies
Pool of experience
Post-construction
study
Test predictions
26 The loss of 75.4 nest sites and 105 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed by the City of Hesperia. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The project would prevent the production of 305 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022):
{(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 343 birds per year denied to California.
The loss of 343 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of 343 birds per year would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.
INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The species Noriko detected on the project site had at some point moved to the site, and in fact members of some of these species were in flight when she detected them. At minimum, the project site provides wildlife with stopover opportunities during migration or dispersal of young. However, the City of Hesperia provides only a cursory, flawed analysis of whether and how the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region.
As part of its analysis of wildlife movement impacts, UltraSystems (2022:41) speculates that wildlife seen on the project site are only resident animals that do not move to or from the project site: “UltraSystems biologist Dr. Tuma observed California ground squirrels during the field survey. These sightings of fossorial mammals and their burrows indicate that there may be resident populations of these species onsite. Thus, it is likely that fossorial mammal species give birth and raise young within the burrow complexes located onsite.” This speculation, however, is at odds with more than a century of scientific study of metapopulation dynamics. Animal populations are not static, and they naturally shift locations every several generations or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979). Neither are individual animals static. In my own studies I have documented animals moving great distances in a single day. Animals patrol home ranges, disperse, reconnoiter, and migrate. The animals seen by Noriko Smallwood are also prone to large-distance movements. I can assure that the red-tailed hawk she saw on the site was not a resident to the project site, but rather only visiting the project site as part of the hawk’s daily home range patrol and foraging circuit. Neither would any common raven or greater roadrunner be static residents of the site. UltraSystems’ speculation on this matter lacks scientific foundation and credibility.
The analysis in the IS/MND is flawed by focusing entirely on whether the project site included a corridor or was situated within a corridor. According to UltraSystems
27 (2022:13), “To determine the potential for the BSA to contain wildlife corridors, UltraSystems biologists reviewed the USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Baldy Mesa Quadrangle and viewed aerial imagery to search for physical features that might serve as a wildlife corridor. Biologists also used the BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer to search for CDFW Essential Connectivity Areas …” However, the CEQA Checklist question that goes to potential project interference with wildlife movement in the region only mentions corridors as an example of how to address the question. The Checklist question is not just about corridors.
The IS/MND itself adds another speculative take on the potential impact, where it offers the following conclusory argument: “The areas adjacent to the project to the south and west are developed with structures intended for commercial use. Although the project area and its surroundings contain undeveloped areas that could function as a local wildlife movement corridor, the proposed project will be constructed in an area that would not result in significant new habitat fragmentation, and would not significantly impede the passage of wildlife because there will still be available local movement corridors in the vicinity after construction of the project, therefore resulting in less than significant impact.” However, the IS/MND provides no evidence that the project’s development would avoid significant new habitat fragmentation. In fact, evidence in the IS/MND suggests the opposite. The project site currently connects open space to the north and south, and it provides pathways to two substantial geographic features that can channel wildlife movement (Figure 5). I have observed wildlife using the large northeast-southwest feature to the west of the project site, so I have no doubt that that feature is important to wildlife movement in the region. However, the project, along with the planned or approved additional projects, would cumulatively – through the process of habitat fragmentation –eliminate the available movement pathways across the site (Figure 6). The IS/MND is inaccurate in its analysis.
UltraSystems does not consider wildlife movement other than as affected by a corridor, and in my experience most wildlife is not channelized by corridors. In fact, the most common scientific description of wildlife movement corridors is of narrow bands of open space that are left by the process of habitat fragmentation (Smallwood 2015).
UltraSystems reportedly searched for topographic features it assumes channelizes wildlife movement, but no evidence is provided in support of its assumption, and no effort is directed to understanding wildlife movement in the region that has nothing to do with corridors.
28 Figure 5. Example pathways (white arrows) across the available open space of the existing project site (red polygon) and its surrounds, linking to two nearby geographic features that naturally channel wildlife movement in the region.
29 Figure 6. Example pathways (white arrows) that would remain after the massive level of habitat fragmentation from cumulative buildout of the project (red polygon) and its surrounds, which would eliminate links between two nearby geographic features that naturally channel wildlife movement in the region.
30 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic to get to and from the project site (Photos 15―19), including along roads far from the project footprint. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.
Photo 15. A Gambel’s quail
dashes across a road on 3
April 2021. Such road
crossings are usually
successful, but too often prove
fatal to the animal. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 16. Desert cottontail
dashing across a Riverside
County road in 2021. Another
lay dead in the road nearby.
31 Photo 17. California kingsnake
killed on an El Dorado County
road in 2024.
Photo 18. Mourning dove killed
by vehicle on a California road.
Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21
June 2020.
Photo 19. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms
32 comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate.
An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.
For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife
The City’s IS/MND predicts 850,912 annual VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 362 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year.
Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The City does not analyze this potential impact, nor does it propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated, traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts of project-generated automobile traffic on wildlife.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative impacts analysis is fundamentally flawed. The IS/MND includes a map of cumulative projects, although no details are legibly provided of the mapped project areas (Some details appear in the map of Figure 4.21-1, but they are illegible). Without mentioning biological resources, the text that cites this map includes the following
33 premise and conclusion: “as 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.” The premise is that mitigation of individual direct impacts negates cumulative impacts, contrary to how the CEQA Guidelines define cumulative impacts. Essentially, the IS/MND’s premise is that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete or inadequate mitigation. But this is not the case.
I have often seen the IS/MND’s claim of no cumulative impacts to wildlife due to the project’s adequate mitigation of direct impacts and its compliance with existing laws, regulations, policies, pr programs, and so I decided to test the veracity of this frequent claim. In collaboration with Noriko Smallwood, I measured the impacts – inclusive of cumulative impacts – of wildlife habitat loss that was caused by mitigated development projects. We revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on the CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before- after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. We found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures per existing laws, policies and regulations. We also specifically tested for the cumulative effects of projects on wildlife in neighboring habitats, and we found significant decreases in species richness and overall abundance in those areas as well. The proposed project would cause the same declines in wildlife abundance and species richness, and based on what I see in the IS/MND, these would qualify as significant unmitigated cumulative impacts.
MITIGATION
The IS/MND requires four mitigation measures, but these measures are either inappropriate or inadequate.
MM BIO-1: §2081 FGC Incidental Take Permit Western Joshua trees … will require a§ 2081 FGC Incidental Take Permit (ITP) with compensatory mitigation for impacts, in addition to the surveys that are recommended in the discussion of MM BIO-6. The exceptions and permitting process under the California Desert Native Plants Act and the separate exceptions under the Native Plant Protection Act will not
34 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.
Obtaining an ITP is not a mitigation measure unless the issuance of the ITP requires mitigation. The IS/MND discusses the ITP as if it is certain to be issued, but the IS/MND provides no evidence in support of its certainty.
MM BIO-2: Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Although BUOW was not observed on site during the general wildlife survey, the BSA contains suitable habitat to potentially support BUOW in the future.
Here the IS/MND is misleading, because it implies burrowing owls were absent from the project site during UltraSystems’ reconnaissance survey. The reconnaissance survey could not have provided sufficient evidence of absence, because it was not a protocol- level detection survey as recommended by CDFW (2012). Moreover the single survey was conducted in late August in hot temperatures and in simultaneous pursuit of 11 objectives over a mere 1.25 hours; in other words, it was in no way consistent with the recommendations of CDFW (2012). While it might be true that the biologist who surveyed the site did not observe burrowing owls, it is not true that burrowing owls were necessarily absent from the project site.
MM BIO-2: Focused Burrowing Owl Survey A qualified biologist would conduct a focused BUOW survey in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012).
This part of the mitigation measure is also misleading because it would be impossible to conduct a focused survey consistent with CDFW (2012) after certification of the IS/MND. As I commented earlier, there are three types of survey that are intended by CDFW (2012) to be implemented in sequence, the first two types of survey to precede the public circulation of the environmental review document. The focused survey, otherwise known as a detection survey, needed to have been completed already. A preconstruction take-avoidance survey, which is the type of survey the IS/MND seems to require here, is not a detection survey, and requiring this type of survey as a substitute to a detection survey would be inconsistent with CDFW (2012) and inappropriate.
MM BIO-2: Focused Burrowing Owl Survey 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.
Because the burrowing owl is a candidate for listing under CESA, consultation with the CDFW needs to begin before any surveys are conducted. Considering the City’s lack of understanding of CDFW (2012), this timely consultation is all the more important.
35 MM BIO-2: Focused Burrowing Owl Survey If BUOW or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey, the site would be considered occupied. The biologist would implement mitigation measure BIO-2 and contact the City of Hesperia, EMD, and CDFW to assist in the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, prior to commencing project activities. The list of potential measures to avoid and minimize impacts to BUOWs described below would be implemented.
Again, because the burrowing owl is a candidate for listing under CESA, consultation with the CDFW needs to begin before any surveys are conducted. Even if no burrowing owls are detected, the loss of foraging habitat would need to be mitigated. Also, CDFW (2012) warns that passive or active translocation of burrowing owls can be interpreted as take. Take of a candidate species is not allowed.
MM BIO-3: Pre-Construction General Wildlife Survey 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, ... • If any sensitive wildlife species are observed within the project site during the preconstruction 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. …
I concur with MM BIO-3 should the project go forward, but it needs to be understood that the conservation benefits of salvaging a few animals would be trivial relative to the project impacts to all wildlife that occur on the project site. The benefits would be realized only at the time of implementation of the measure, whereas the loss of productive capacity of the site would be permanent.
MM BIO-4: Loggerhead Shrike Survey and Protection Measures 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.
The measure would avoid multiple deficiencies by requiring that project construction takes place outside the avian breeding season. With a restriction against construction during the breeding season, the uncertainties could be eliminated over (1) the biologists’ ability to identify and salvage active nests, and (2) the sufficiency of no-disturbance
36 buffers that a biologist would establish to avoid disturbance to the nest, and any adjustments that would be warranted in response to the biologist’s determination over whether construction activities are disturbing the nest.
Whereas the preconstruction survey might result in the salvage one or a few nests, the nests that are salvaged would be only those detected during the preconstruction survey of the year when the survey occurs. Birds would never again be capable of nesting on the project site.
MM BIO-5: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey …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, … • If project activities cannot be avoided during February 15 through September 15, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey for breeding birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits of project disturbance. … 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 type of bird that created the nest. Some bird species are more tolerant than others of noise and activities…
Regarding the start of construction outside the breeding season, unless doing so “cannot be avoided,” this avoidance measure is not a requirement, but rather a condition for implementing a preconstruction survey. Moreover, its implementation would not prevent the permanent loss of the avian productive capacity that I predict in my letter herein.
Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. To be successful these types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season even for a single species.
To identify and locate the birds of all species nesting on a site requires a much greater survey effort. Even assuming all the predicted 75 nest sites could be found (not likely), the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey. After the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, California would be denied the production of birds from the project site during every subsequent year. The impacts of the project on birds would be permanent and of large magnitude (see my prediction, above, of the lost productive capacity of breeding birds).
37 Finally, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.
MM BIO-6: Native Desert Vegetation Survey and Protected Plant Preservation Plan A Preservation Plan will be prepared and submitted to the City, which is required by City Municipal Code. A native desert vegetation survey must be conducted to produce findings that will guide the formation of this plan. …
While I concur that the findings of a native desert vegetation survey are needed to guide the formulation of the Preservation Plan (including for Joshua trees), these findings were needed for inclusion in the environmental review document. They survey should have been completed already. Without the survey, there is insufficient disclosure of which sensitive plants occur on the site, where they occur, their condition, and whether there are options to mitigate project impacts to them. The measure defers the survey needed to formulate appropriate mitigation.
The IS/MND needs to be removed from public circulation, and a rare plant survey completed to the standards recommended in CDFW (2018).
NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Habitat loss: Should the project go forward, compensatory mitigation is needed for the loss of habitat. Habitat of equal or greater area should be protected as close to the project site as feasible.
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with automobiles traveling to and from the project site.
Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as important sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threatened insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022).
Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native
38 plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.
Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211
City of Hesperia. 2025. Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouses Hesperia Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Prepared by UltraSystems.
39 Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.
Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.
Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.
Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.
Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.
Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.
Sørensen, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content. K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. 5:1–34.
40 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.
Taylor, R. A. J., and L. R. Taylor. 1979. A behavioral model for the evolution of spatial dynamics. Pp. 1-28 in R. M. Anderson, B. D. Turner, and L. R. Taylor (editors).
Population dynamics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
UltraSystems. 2022. Biological Resources Evaluation for the Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California. Report to City of Hesperia Planning Department.
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.
Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.
APPLICANT(S):
CARGO SOLUTIONS EXPRESS
FILE NO(S):
CUP22-00016 & TPM24-00003
LOCATION:
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THREE FLAGS ROAD AND
POPLAR STREET.
APNs:
3064-591-12,13,17,18, and 3064-631-01
PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CON DITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP22-00016 TO CONST RUCT TWO 75,894 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSES WITH ONSITE TRUCK STORAGE AND TRACTOR STALLS ON 20.3 GROSS ACRES IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20883 (TPM24 -00003) TO CONSOLODTE 5 PARCELS INTO TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE COMMERCI AL INDUSTRIAL
BUSINESS PARK ZONE OF THE MAIN STREET AND FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN N
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP
ATTACHMENT 3
SITE
APPLICANT(S):
CARGO SOLUTIONS EXPRESS
FILE NO(S):
CUP22-00016 & TPM24-00003
LOCATION:
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THREE FLAGS ROAD AND POPLAR
STREET.
APNs:
3064-591-12,13,17,18, and 3064-631-01
PROPOSAL:
CONSIDERATION OF CON DITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP22-00016 TO CONST RUCT TWO 75,894 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSES WITH ONSITE TRUCK STORAGE AND TRACTOR STALLS ON 20.3 GROSS ACRES IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20883 (TPM24 -00003) TO CONSOLODTE 5 PARCELS INTO TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE COMMERCI AL INDUSTRIAL
BUSINESS PARK ZONE OF THE MAIN STREET AND FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN N
AERIAL
ATTACHMENT 4
SITE
CEQA Analysis Prepared for:
City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345
Attn: Ryan Leonard, Senior Planner
Prepared by:
UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
Telephone: 949-788-4900
FAX: 949/788-4901
June 2025
Project No. 7187
Attachment 5
CARGO SOLUTIONS TRUCK WAREHOUSES HESPERIA PROJECT
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
This page left intentionally blank.
❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
1. Project Title Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouses Hesperia Project
2. CEQA Lead Agency City of Hesperia
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345
Ryan Leonard, Senior Planner
(760) 947-1651
E: [email protected]
3. Project Applicant
4. Project Location
Bobby Kang, Owner
Cargo Solutions Express
14587 Valley Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
T: 909/263-6902
E: [email protected]
5. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers APNs 3064-591-17, 3064-591-18, and 3064-591- 12 6. Project Site General Plan
Designation(s)
Current: Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP)
7. Project Site Zoning Designation(s) Current: Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is located in a semi -rural, lightly developed portion of the city with undeveloped
land to the north and east; industrial, commercial,
and undeveloped land uses to the south; and
commercial and undeveloped land uses to the
west.
9. Description of Project The project proposes development of two truck warehouse building s with associated surface
parking lots.
10. Selected Agencies whose Approval
is Required
City of Hesperia
11. Have California Native American
tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1?
If so, has consultation begun?
Letters were sent by the City of Hesperia (the Lead
Agency) per Public Resources Code § 21074 to
three local Native American tribes asking if they
wished to participate in AB 52 consultation
concerning the proposed project in the City of
Hesperia. Native A merican Tribes have up to 30
days in which to respond to notification relating to
❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page ii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
this proposed project. The San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians (Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel) was
the only tribe requesting consultation. This was
conducted October and November 2022, and
concluded November 3, 2022.
12. Other Public Agencies Agencies that will review the proposed project include the following:
• California Regional Water Quality Control
Board – Lahontan
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• San Bernardino County Fire Department
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page iii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table of Contents
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ........................................................................................................................ i Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................. iii Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1.1 Project Components ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1.2 Estimated Construction Schedule ................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation .................................................. 1-1
1.3 CEQA Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3.1 Purpose of CEQA ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA ................................................................................ 1-2
1.4 Purpose of Initial Study ..................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies .................................................................................. 1-3
1.6 Impact Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.7 Organization of Initial Study ........................................................................................................... 1-4
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study ....................................................................................................... 1-4
1.8.1 No Impact or Impacts Considered Less than Significant ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................. 1-4
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site ............................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.1 Climate and Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 2-6
2.3.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.3.4 Biology ...................................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.5 Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.6 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 2-7
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Proposed Project Features ............................................................................................................... 3-4
3.3.1 New Construction ................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.3.2 Parking ...................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.3.3 Site Access and Circulation .............................................................................................. 3-7
3.3.4 Exterior Lighting .................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.3.5 Perimeter Fencing and Exterior Walls ........................................................................ 3-7
3.3.6 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.3.7 Security Features .................................................................................................................. 3-8
3.4 Offsite Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 3-8
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page iv Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
3.5 Project Operations ............................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.6 Construction Activities ...................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.7 Discretionary Actions ....................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.7.1 Other Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................ 3-10
4.0 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................................. 4-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...................................................................................... 4-1 Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency) .............................................................. 4-1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-2
4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................... 4.2-9
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 4.3-1
4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern ...................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.2 Climate/Meteorology ...................................................................................................... 4.3-3
4.3.3 Local Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 4.3-4
4.3.4 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) ..................................................................... 4.3-5
4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors .......................................................................................................... 4.3-6
4.3.6 Applicable Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Rules .............. 4.3-6
4.3.7 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4.3-7
4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................ 4.4-1
4.4.1 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 4.4-1
4.4.2 Discussion of Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.4-2
4.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.1 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 4.5-1
4.5.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.3 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4.5-3
4.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................. 4.7-1
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.1 Background Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................. 4.8-1
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................ 4.8-2
4.8.3 GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................... 4.8-8
4.8.4 Impact Thresholds ............................................................................................................ 4.8-9
4.8.5 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4.8-11
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.1 Characteristics of Sound .............................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.13.2 Noise Measurement Scales ......................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.3 Existing Noise .................................................................................................................. 4.13-2
4.13.4 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................... 4.13-6
4.13.5 Significance Thresholds ............................................................................................ 4.13-12
4.13.6 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................ 4.13-12
4.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 4.14-1
4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 4.15-1
4.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 4.17-1
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page v Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1
4.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................. 4.20-1
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 4.21-1
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 CEQA Lead Agency ............................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. ................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3.1 Environmental Planning Team ....................................................................................... 6-1
6.3.2 Technical Team ..................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3.3 Other Firms ............................................................................................................................. 6-1
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ..................................................... 7-1
TABLES
Table 2.2-1 - Summary of Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations ...................................................... 2-1 Table 3.2-1 - Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3.6-1 - Construction Phasing and Equipment Details ............................................................................ 3-9 Table 3.7-1 - Permits and Approvals ....................................................................................................................... 3-10 Table 4.1-1 - Existing Visual Character and Land Uses in the Project Area ............................................ 4.1-6 Table 4.1-2 - Project Compliance with Scenic Regulations to the City of Hesperia Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 4.1-7 Tab le 4.3-1 - Federal and State Attainment Status .......................................................................................... 4.3-2 Table 4.3-1 - Federal and State Attainment Status ........................................................................................... 4.3-2 Table 4.3-2 - Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data ......................................................................................... 4.3-5 Table 4.3-3 - MDAQMD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants ............................................ 4.3-7 Table 4.3-4 - Construction Schedule ....................................................................................................................... 4.3-8 Table 4.3-5 - Maximum Annual Regional Construction Emissions ............................................................ 4.3-9 Table 4.3-6 - Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ................................................................ 4.3-9 Table 4.3-7 - Maximum Annual Project Operational Emissions ............................................................... 4.3-10 Table 4.3-8 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions ................................................................... 4.3-10 Table 4.6-1 - Estimated Project Operational Energy Use ............................................................................... 4.6-3 Table 4.7-1 - USDA Soils Mapped on the Project Site....................................................................................... 4.7-9 Table 4.7-2 - Paleontological Records Search Results .................................................................................. 4.7-11 Table 4.8-1 - City of Hesperia Community Business as Usual Emissions ................................................ 4.8-9 Table 4.8-2 - Project Construction-Related GHG Emissions ...................................................................... 4.8-12 Table 4.8-3 - Project Operational GHG Emissions .......................................................................................... 4.8-13 Table 4.11 -1 - Consistency Analysis: Proposed Project Compared to Applicable City of Hesperia General Plan Land Use Element Goals and Policies ......................................................................................... 4.11-3 Table 4.11-2 - Consistency Analysis: Proposed Project Compared to Applicable City of Hesperia Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Goals and Policies ................................................................... 4.11-4 Table 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers in Project Area ........................................................................................ 4.13-2 Table 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers in Project Area ........................................................................................ 4.13-2 Table 4.13-2 - Ambient Noise Measurement Results ................................................................................... 4.13-4 Table 4.13-4 - California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources ............................ 4.13-6
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page vi Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.13-5 - City of Hesperia Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ................................................ 4.13-9 Table 4.13-6 - City of Santa Ana General Plan Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ................ 4.13-10 Table 4.13-7 – Construction Equipment Characteristics ......................................................................... 4.13-14 Table 4.13-8 - Maximum Estimated Construction Noise Levels During Grading .......................... 4.13-15 Table 4.13-9 - Vibration Levels of Typical Construction Equipment .................................................. 4.13-18 Table 4.17-1 - Project Compliance with City of Placentia General Plan Policies Regarding Mobility and Transportation ....................................................................................................................................................... 4.17-2 Table 4.19-1 - City of Hesperia Supply and Demand Comparison (Acre-feet Per Year) ................ 4.19-4 Table 4.19-2 – Estimated Project Water Demand .......................................................................................... 4.19-5 Table 4.19-3 – Solid Waste Facilities Serving Hesperia ............................................................................... 4.19-6 Table 4.19-4 - Estimated Project-Generated Solid Waste ........................................................................... 4.19-7 Table 7.0-1 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................................................................... 7-2
FIGURES
Figure 2.2-1 - Regional Location .................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2.2-2 - Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2.2-3 - Topographic Map .................................................................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2.2-4 - Project Site Photographs .................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 3.2-1 - Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.3-1 – Truck Warehouse Building Floor Plan ........................................................................................ 3-5 Figure 3.3-2 – Truck Warehouse Building Elevations ........................................................................................ 3-6 Figure 4.1-1 - State Scenic Highways ...................................................................................................................... 4.1-3 Figure 4.1-2 - Views for Surrounding Land Uses in the Project Area ....................................................... 4.1-5 Figure 4.2-1 - Important Farmland Categories ............................................................................................... 4.2-10 Figure 4.4-1 – Project Location and Biological Study Area ........................................................................... 4.4-4 Figure 4.4-2 – Land Cover Map ................................................................................................................................. 4.4-5 Figure 4.4-3 – CNDDB Known Occurrences Plant Species and Habitats ................................................. 4.4-9 Figure 4.4-4 – CNDDB Known Occurrences Wildlife Species .................................................................... 4.4-10 Figure 4.5-1 - Topographic Map ............................................................................................................................... 4.5-2 Figure 4.7-1 – Alquist Priolo Fault Zones ............................................................................................................. 4.7-3 Figure 4.7-2 – Regionally Active Faults ................................................................................................................. 4.7-4 Figure 4.7-3 - Landslides and Liquefaction .......................................................................................................... 4.7-6 Figure 4.9-1 - Project Cortese List Map ................................................................................................................. 4.9-7 Figure 4.9-2 - Airports in the Project Region ...................................................................................................... 4.9-8 Figure 4.9-3 - Fire Hazard Severity Zones - Local Responsibility Area ................................................. 4.9-11 Figure 4.9-4 - Fire Hazard Severity Zones - Local Responsibility Area ................................................. 4.9-12 Figure 4.10-1 - USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds ................................................................................ 4.10-3 Figure 4.11-1 - General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation .............................................................. 4.11-2 Figure 4.12-1 - Designated Mineral Resource Zones .................................................................................... 4.12-2 Figure 4.12-2 – Oil and Gas Wells ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-3 Figure 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers Near the Project Site ........................................................................... 4.13-3 Figure 4.13-2 - Ambient Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................. 4.13-5
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A Project Plans and Drawings
Appendix B CalEEMod Input and Results for Air Quality Analysis and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page vii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Appendix C1 Biological Resources Evaluation
Appendix C2 Species Occurrence Potential Evaluation
Appendix D1 Cultural Resources Report
Appendix D2 Paleontological Resources Records Search
Appendix E Custom Soils Report
Appendix F Rec Check Report
Appendix G Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H Noise Data
Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix J Fuel Consumption
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page viii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) AB 52 Assembly Bill 52
ACM(s) Asbestos-Containing Material(s)
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AFY Acre-feet per year
AIA Airport Influence Area
AMI Area Median Income
amsl above mean sea level
APE Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQA Air Quality Analysis
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AR4 Fourth Assessment Report
ARB California Air Resources Board
BAU business as usual
BIOS Biogeographic Information and Observation System
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAL Green California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAO(s) Cleanup and Abatement Order(s)
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring CAT Climate Action Team
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDO(s) Cease and Desist Order(s)
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
cfs cubic feet per second
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historic Resources Inventory System
City City of Hesperia
CMP Congestion Management Program
CMP corrugated metal pipe
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page ix Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
CMPHS CMP Highway System
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRC California Residential Code
CWA Clean Water Act
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOSH California Division of Safety and Health
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
du/ac Dwellling units per acre
DWR Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ESRL Earth System Research Laboratory
EV electric vehicle
EVCS electric vehicle charging station
°F degrees Fahrenheit
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gases
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
GWP global warming potential
HABS Historic American Building Survey
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFCs hydroflourocarbons
HU Hydrologic Unit
HVAC heating, ventiliation and air conditioning
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISA International Society of Arboriculture
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
L90 noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page x Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
Leq equivalent noise level
LBP Lead-Based Paint
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax root mean square maximum noise level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM(s) mitigation measure(s)
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMTCO2e million metric tons of CO2e
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municiple Separate Storm Sewer permit
MT Metric tons
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
National Core National Community Renaissance
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
ND Negative Declaration
NO nitric oxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 Ozone
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
R-1 Single-family Residential zoning designation
R-3 High Density Residential zoning designation
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RECs Recognized Environmental Condition(s)
R-G Medium Density Residential zoning designation
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page xi Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RMS root mean square
ROG Reactive organic gases
ROW Right-of-way
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
§ section
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison Company
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SR-55 State Route 55
SR-91 State Route 91
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRAs source receptor areas
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAPs Transportation Assembly Points
T-C Town Center zoning designation
TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources
TMP Traffic Management Plan
UFPO Urban Forest Protection Ordinance
UEI Ultrasystems Environmental, Inc.
U.S. United States
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VdB vibration decibels
VCP vitrified clay pipe
VHFHSZ(s) very high fire hazard severity zone(s)
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WEG wind erodibility group
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRI World Resources Institute
ybp years before present
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Proposed Project
The City of Hesperia (City) is processing a request to implement a series of discretionary actions that would ultimately allow for the development of two truck warehouses with associated parking lots (project) at the southeast intersection of Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue in the City of Hesperia in San Bernardino County, California (APNs: 3064 -591-17, -18, -12, -13, and 3064-631-01). The project proposes development of two truck warehouse buildings with an associated surface parking lot on an approximately 20.32-acre site.
1.1.1 Project Components
The proposed project would develop two truck warehouse buildings with associated surface parking lots. Refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, of this document for additional details.
1.1.2 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction of the proposed project would be conducted in one phase. Construction is estimated to be from June 2025 to July 2026. Refer to Section 3.0 for details.
1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation The City of Hesperia is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations, 1 the Lead Agency has the principal responsibility for implementing and approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
1.3 CEQA Overview
1.3.1 Purpose of CEQA
All discretionary projects within California are required to undergo environmental review under CEQA. A Project is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 as the whole of the action having the potential to result in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment and is any of the following:
An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and t he adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements.
An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21177 and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 1-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
CEQA Guidelines § 15002 lists the basic purposes of CEQA as follows:
Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures (MMs) when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.
Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
1.3.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA
CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15041 a Lead Agency for a project has authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in or der to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus”2 and “rough proportionality”3 standards.
CEQA allows a Lead Agency to approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect. In such cases, the Lead Agency must specifically identify expected benefits and other overriding considerations from the project that outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.
1.4 Purpose of Initial Study
The CEQA process begins with a public agency making a determination as to whether the project is subject to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the process does not need to proceed any farther. If the project is not exempt, the Lead Agency takes the sec ond step and conducts an Initial Study to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The purposes of an Initial Study as listed in § 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines are to:
Provide the Lead Agency with information necessary to decide if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be prepared.
Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a ND or MND.
Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on adverse effects determined to be significant, identifying the adverse effects determined not to be significant, explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant adv erse effects would not be
2 A nexus (i.e., connection) must be established between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest.
3 The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the Project.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 1-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
significant, and identifying whether a program EIR, or other process, can be used to analyze adverse environmental effects of the project.
Facilitate an environmental assessment early during project design.
Provide documentation in the ND or MND that a project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
Determine if a previously prepared EIR could be used for the Project.
In cases where no potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may issue a ND, and no MMs would be needed. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may determine that MMs would adequately reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The Lead Agency would then prepare a MND for the proposed project. If the Lead Agency determines that individual or cumulative effects of the proposed project would cause a significant adverse environmental effect that can not be mitigated to less than significant levels, then the Lead Agency would require an EIR to further analyze these impacts.
1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies
Other public agencies are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the IS/MND. Each of these agencies is described briefly below.
A Responsible Agency (14 CCR § 15381) is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that has discretionary approval power over the Project, such as permit issuance or plan approval authority.
A Trustee Agency 4 (14 CCR § 15386) is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California.
Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law (14 CCR § 15366) are any public agencies who have authority (1) to grant a permit or other entitlement for use; (2) to provide funding for the project in question; or (3) to exercise authority over resources which may be a ffected by the project.
Furthermore, a city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project when the city or county having primary jurisdiction over the area involved is: (1) the site of the project; (2) the area in which the major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental effects.
1.6 Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of potential impacts:
A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular environmental threshold in any way.
An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation.
An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment
4 The four Trustee Agencies in California listed in CEQA Guidelines § 15386 are California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 1-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
with the inclusion of environmental commitments, or other enforceable measures, that would be adopted by the lead agency.
An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that the project could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.
An EIR is required if an impact is identified as potentially significant.
1.7 Organization of Initial Study
This document is organized to satisfy CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d), and includes the following sections:
Section 1.0 - Introduction, which identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND.
Section 2.0 - Environmental Setting , which describes location, existing site conditions, land uses, zoning designations, topography, and vegetation associated with the project site and surroundings.
Section 3.0 - Project Description, which provides an overview of the project, a description of the proposed development, project phasing during construction, and discretionary actions for project approval.
Section 4.0 - Environmental Checklist, which presents checklist responses for each resource topic to identify and assess impacts associated with the proposed project, and proposes MMs, as needed, to reduce potential environmental impacts to less than significant.
Section 5.0 - References, which includes a list of documents cited in the IS/MND.
Section 6.0 - List of Preparers, which identifies the primary authors and technical experts that prepared the IS/MND.
Technical studies and other documents, which include supporting information or analyses used to prepare the IS/MND, are included in the following appendices:
Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B CalEEMod Input and Results for Air Quality Analysis and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
Appendix C1 Biological Resources Evaluation
Appendix C2 Species Occurrence Potential Evaluation
Appendix D1 Cultural Resources Report
Appendix D2 Paleontological Records Search
Appendix E Custom Soils Report
Appendix F Rec Check Report
Appendix G Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H Noise Data
Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix J Fuel Consumption
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study
1.8.1 No Impact or Impacts Considered Less than Significant Based on IS findings, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental categories listed from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 1-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Based on IS findings, the project would have a less than significant impact on the following environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when proposed MMs are implemented.
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Transportation and Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of Significance
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Project Location
The proposed Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse s Hesperia Project is located at the southeast intersection of Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue in the City of Hesperia in San Bernardino County, California (APNs: 3064-591-17, -18, -12, -13, and 3064-631-01). Refer to Figure 2.1-1, which shows the project’s location in a regional context. Figure 2.1-2 depicts an aerial photo of the project site and the surrounding land.
2.2 Project Setting
The project site is currently undeveloped (Google Earth Pro, 2024). The project proposes two truck warehouse building s with associated surface parking lot s. See Figure 2.2-1, which depicts the topography of the site and surrounding area. Topography within the project site is relatively flat (Google Earth, 2024). Site photographs are provided in Figure 2.2-2.
2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning
The land use and zoning designations and existing development of the project site and its immediate vicinity are listed in Table 2.2-1. The City’s General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations for the project site are Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP) under the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (City of Hesperia, 2023; City of Hesperia, 2010).
Table 2.2-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USE, ZONING AND SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS Location General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Existing Development
Project Site
Com/Ind Business Park
(CIBP) under the Main
Street and Freeway
Corridor Specific Plan
(MSFCSP)
Com/Ind Business Park
(CIBP) under the Main Street
and Freeway Corridor Specific
Plan (MSFCSP)
Undeveloped land
North CIBP under the MSFCSP CIBP under the MSFCSP Undeveloped land South CIBP under the MSFCSP CIBP under the MSFCSP
Industrial and
commercial land uses,
and undeveloped land
East CIBP under the MSFCSP CIBP under the MSFCSP Interstate-15 freeway, undeveloped land
West CIBP under the MSFCSP CIBP under the MSFCSP Commercial and undeveloped land
Source: City of Hesperia, 2023; City of Hesperia, 2010; Google Earth Pro, 2024.
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 2.1-1
REGIONAL LOCATION
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 2.1-2
PROJECT LOCATION
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 2.2-1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 2.2-2
PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site
2.3.1 Climate and Air Quality
The project site is located within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB), which encompasses the desert portions of Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The MDAB is classified as a dry-hot desert (BWh), with portions classified as dry-very hot desert (BWhh), to indicate that at least three months have maximum average temperatures over 100.4°F (MDAQMD, 2020a, p. 6 -7). The MDAB is currently in federal nonattainment for ozone and PM 2.5 and state nonattainment for ozone and PM10.
2.3.2 Geology and Soils
Topography within the project site is relatively flat. The existing surface elevation at the proposed project site ranges from approximately 3,267 feet to 3,297 feet above mean sea level. Surface topography is generally flat to slightly sloping with the highest elevations in the southwest corner of the site and the lowest surface elevations across the northeast corner of the site (Google Earth Pro, 2024). The project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (A -P Fault Zone). The closest active fault system to the project site, the North Frontal fault system (within the Ord Mountain A-P fault zone), is approximately eight miles to the east.
2.3.3 Hydrology
The project is located within the Mojave River Watershed (USGS HU code 18090208), which encompasses approximately 4,500 square miles. The Mojave River Watershed drains the northern areas of the San Bernardino Mountains (USEPA, 2022; Google Earth Pro, 202 4). The project site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas (Map Number 06071C6495H, effective August 28, 2008); the site is located in Flood Hazard Zone X, defined on this FIRM as Areas of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2008).
2.3.4 Biology
The climate of Hesperia is arid and characteristic of the regional Mojave Desert. In the vicinity of Hesperia, the Mojave Desert receives on average 8.5 inches per year. Summers are typically dry with occasional and scattered monsoon rain events that originate in the Gulf of California, whereas winter precipitation events are more significant and originate from the jet stream off the Pacific Ocean. The Mojave Desert exhibits a dry season extending from April through October, with an average of 0.1 inch of rain per month, and a wetter season between November through March, with an average of
0.5 inch of rain per month. Summers (June through September) are very hot, with an average high of 94 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and low of 65°F. Winters (November through March) are cooler, with an average high of 57°F and low of 35°F (WRCC, 2022a).
The project site is currently undeveloped and contains disturbed California juniper woodlands.
However, there is evidence that the project site has seen frequent disturbances resulting from grading, vehicle use, and other events. Therefore, the project site does not offer optimal habitat to support a diverse array of special -status species. Due to development and disturbances in the area, just a small diversity of native and non -native plant species were observed within the BSA. Species observed included non-native, ornamental species in developed areas, non -native, weedy species in disturbed areas, and remnants of California juniper woodland community including one California
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
juniper and several western Joshua trees. During the field survey, five wildlife species were observed; no special-status plants or wildlife were observed during the field survey. There were also suitable burrows observed that were likely created by fossor ial mammals such as ground squirrels, which were also observed. Further details about biology on the project site are in Section 4.4.
2.3.5 Public Services
Police
The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department provides police protection and crime prevention services for the City of Hesperia and its sphere of influence on a contractual basis (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010, p. 3.13 -1). The Hesperia Police Departme nt is comprised of 58 sworn law enforcement personnel including one captain, one lieutenant, seven sergeants, five detectives, and 44 deputy sheriffs (City of Hesperia, 2022a).
Fire
The City of Hesperia and the sphere of influence are served by the San Bernardino County Fire Department (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010, p. 3.13 -1). The city has three fire stations within city boundaries – Fire Stations 302, 304, and 305 (City of Hesperia, 2022b).
Schools
The Hesperia Unified School District (HUSD) provides school services to the City of Hesperia (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010, p. 3.13 -2). The HUSD has 15 elementary schools, three middle schools, and six high schools (HUSD, 2022).
Libraries
The County of San Bernardino Library operates the Hesperia Branch Library located in Civic Center Plaza, at 9650 Seventh Avenue in the City of Hesperia. This state-of-the-art 20,000 square foot facility, constructed in 2006, provides library services for the City of Hesperia and its Sphere of Influence (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.13-5).
Parks
The Hesperia Recreation and Park District (HRPD) provides park and recreational amenities to the city (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.13 -5). HRPD has 15 different parks and recreational centers to serve the city (HRPD, 2022).
2.3.6 Utilities
Water
The City of Hesperia is served by the Hesperia Water District (HWD), which manages the City’s potable water system (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.16-2).
Water Reclamation
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 2-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
The Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA) provides the treatment and distribution of reclaimed water within the City of Hesperia. During peak demand, recycled water is used to irrigate landscaping, offsetting potable water demands. During low water demand, the recycled water is used to recharge the groundwater basin (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p.
3.16-4 to 3.16-5).
Sewer
Wastewater services are also provided by the VVWRA (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.16- 6).
Solid Waste
Advance Disposal Company currently provides residential and commercial waste collection and recycling programs under a franchise agreement with the City (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.16-8).
Electricity
Electrical power is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 3.16-9).
Natural Gas
Natural gas services to the City would be provided by SoCalGas (SoCalGas, 2022).
❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Background
The City of Hesperia (City) is processing a request to implement a series of discretionary actions that would ultimately allow for the development of two truck warehouses (project) on an approximately
20.32-acre site located at the southeast intersection of Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue in the City of Hesperia in San Bernardino County, California (APNs: 3064-591-17, -18, -12, -13, and 3064- 631-01). The project proposes to develop Truck Warehouse Building 1 with an associated parking lot on the weste rn portion of the project site on an approximately 10.52 -acre lot, and Truck Warehouse Building 2 with an associated parking lot on the eastern portion of the project site on an approximately 9.8-acre lot. The City is the Lead Agency for the purposes of the CEQA.
The entire approximately 20.32-acre project site is currently undeveloped land. The project site is located in a semi-rural, lightly developed portion of the city with undeveloped land to the north and east; industrial, commercial, and undeveloped land uses to the south ; and commercial and undeveloped land uses to the west (Google Earth Pro, 2024).
The City’s General Plan Land Use and zoning designation for the project site is Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP) within the Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (City of Hesperia, 202 3; City of Hesperia, 2010). The CIBP zoning designation is to create employment -generating uses in a business park setting. This zone is intended to provide for service commercial, light industrial, light manufacturing, and industrial support uses, mainly conducted in enclosed buildings, which will produce only a small environmental impact, such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare or waste disposal. Permitted uses include commercial storage facilities, manufacturing, offices, repair shops, warehousing and wholesale distribution centers, and other similar uses (The Arroyo Group, 2021, p. 196-197). Additional details on the land use and planning can be found in Section 4.11 of this document.
3.2 Project Overview
The project would consist of: (1) utility improvements; (2) construction of both truck warehouse buildings; (3) construction of a surface parking lot; and ( 4) landscaping. Figure 3.2-1 is a site plan depicting the layout of the proposed project. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the proposed project features.
❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 3.2-1
PROJECT SUMMARY
New Construction Proposed Uses/Features Square Feet No. of Stories
Approximate
Building Height
(feet)
Truck Warehouse
Building 1
Warehouse, office, and grade level
doors
75,894
3 42
Surface Parking Lot for
Truck Warehouse
Building 1
Passenger vehicle and truck/trailer
parking
121,975 N/A N/A
Landscaping Landscaping 26,864 N/A N/A
Total Developed Area for Truck Warehouse 1 224,733 N/A N/A Truck Warehouse
Building 2
Warehouse, office, and grade level
warehouse space 75,894 3 42
Surface Parking Lot for
Truck Warehouse
Building 2
Passenger vehicle and truck/trailer
parking 143,708 N/A N/A
Landscaping Landscaping 58,389 N/A N/A
Total Developed Area for Truck Warehouse 2 277,991 N/A N/A Source: Amor Architectural Corporation, 2024
❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 3.2-1
SITE PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
3.3 Proposed Project Features
3.3.1 New Construction
3.3.1.1 Truck Warehouse Buildings
The proposed truck warehouse buildings would be identical. Each truck warehouse building would be approximately 42 feet tall with three stories of office space overlooking an open warehouse floor and grade level warehouse space. Truck Warehouse Building 1 would be located on the west side of the project site and Truck Warehouse Building 2 would be located on the east side of the project site.
Figures 3.3-1 to 3.3-2 depict floor plans and elevations of the proposed truck warehouse buildings.
Complete plans of the project can be found in Appendix A.
❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 3.3-1
TRUCK WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS FLOOR PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 3.3-2
TRUCK WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS ELEVATIONS
❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
3.3.2 Parking
Based on the § 16.20.080, Parking Requirements of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed truck warehouses would be required to have 238 auto parking stalls (City of Hesperia Municipal Code, 2024). The project proposes to develop 264 auto parking stalls that would consist of 123 auto parking stalls for Truck Warehouse Building 1 and 141 auto parking stalls for Truck Warehouse Building 2. Additionally, the project would provide tractor/trailer, tractor only parking, and dock door parking for each proposed building. Parking for each proposed building is detailed in Table
3.3-1.
Table 3.3-1
PROJECT PARKING SUMMARY
Proposed Building Type of Parking Number of Parking Stalls Truck Warehouse Building 1 Auto parking 123
Tractor/trailer parking 101
Tractor only parking 59
Dock door parking 32
Total Parking 315
Truck Warehouse Building 2 Auto parking 141
Tractor/trailer parking 76
Tractor only parking 51
Dock door parking 32
Total Parking 300
3.3.3 Site Access and Circulation
The project site would have four driveways along Poplar Street for project ingress and egress. Each of the buildings would have two driveways. Circulation within the project site would be along the surface parking lot shown in the project site plan, Figure 3.2-1.
3.3.4 Exterior Lighting
The project proposes lighting throughout the site for safety and security purposes. Lighting for the project would comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, the project would be required to comply with § 16.16.410, Industrial Design Standards and Guidelines, which would ensure exterior lighting would not cause significant lighting and glare impacts (City of Hesperia Municipal Code, 2024).
3.3.5 Perimeter Fencing and Exterior Walls
The project site would be surrounded by an eight-foot-tall decorative screen wall with gates at entry ways. An approximately eight -foot-tall wrought iron fence would sep arate both truck warehouse buildings one and two.
3.3.6 Utilities
The project would require a sewer, domestic water, fire water, irrigation, gas and dry utilities connections to existing utility infrastructure in Poplar Street and Three Flags Avenue.
❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Sanitary Sewer - The project proposes two eight-inch sewer lateral connecting to an existing sewer in Poplar Street.
Domestic Water - The City of Hesperia is served by the Hesperia Water District (HWD), which manages the City’s potable water system. New domestic water meters would be installed as required to meet project demands in compliance with the requirements of the city’s Public Works Department. Construction would need to occur in the public right -of-way during installation of domestic water lines from the an existing main in Poplar Street to the project site.
Fire Water - The project proposes construction of a new six-inch fire water line from Poplar Street to the project site.
Dry Utilities - Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the project site.
Electrical utilities would be underground. Construction would need to occur in the public right -of- way during installation of a new utility connections to the project site.
Stormwater - The proposed site development and its drainage system would be comprised of storm drain pipe, concrete channel, onsite grate inlets with filtration device, and the infiltration/retention basin-1. The infiltration/retention basin-1 is sized to qualify for both WQMP volume as well as the detention volume for the proposed developed site. Detention volume has been calculated based upon the City of Hesperia "13.5-cf of retention per 100-sf of impervious area" rule (Allard Engineering, 2024).
Trash Service - Advance Disposal Company currently provides residential and commercial waste collection and recycling programs under a franchise agreement with the City (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010, p. 3.16-8).
Gas – Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) would provide gas service to the project site. Gas utilities would be installed underground to a gas service riser and meter at each building to be used for the AC units.
3.3.7 Security Features
The project site would be surrounded by a combination of eight-foot-tall decorative wall and gates at entry ways. Additionally, there would be 24-hour security cameras on the project site.
3.4 Offsite Improvements
The proposed project would widen the streets of Three Flags Avenue and Poplar Street to include AC pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and connection to existing utility lines.
3.5 Project Operations
The truck warehouses would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Each truck warehouse is estimated to have approximately 224 total employees, resulting in a total of approximately 448 employees.
3.6 Construction Activities
Construction of the proposed project would be conducted in one phase. Construction is estimated to take place from October 2025 to November 2026. Further construction details for each construction phase are shown in Table 3.6-1.
❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
For safety reasons, temporary barricades would be used to limit access to the site during project construction and maintain safe access for construction workers. Construction would occur during daylight and during regular business hours. Lighting for the construction site would be limited to the minimum amount of light needed for safety and security.
After site preparation is completed, infrastructure such as sewer laterals and storm drains would be installed and/or connected to existing facilities. The building foundations would be poured and framing of the buildings would begin. The final steps of co nstruction would involve interior furnishings, detail work, and completion of common areas and outside landscaping.
The only offsite improvements would be installation of utility laterals and connections of laterals to mains. The construction contractor would use heavy equipment during grading; estimated numbers and types of equipment per construction phase are identifi ed below in Table 3.6 -1.
Construction staging would be limited to the project site; no offsite areas would be used.
Construction Employees
Project construction workers would park their vehicles on the project site. Below is the anticipated number of construction employees by construction phase:
• Grading:
➢ 30-40 employees
• Offsite Phase:
➢ 20-30 employees
• Vertical / Sitework Phase:
➢ 20-30 employees
Table 3.6-1
CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND EQUIPMENT DETAILS
Phase Name Equipment Type Number
per Day
Hours
Per
Day
Horsepower Load
Factor
Grading Phase (2 months)
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37
Scrapers 4 8 423 0.48
Off-Site Phase (2 months)
Excavators 2 8 36 0.38
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37
Vertical/Site Work Phase- Building
Construction (7 months)
Rough Terrain Forklifts 4 8 96 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 84 0.37
Skid Steer Loaders 4 8 46 0.45
Vertical/Site Work Phase- Paving
(1month)
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38
Vertical/Site Work Phase-
Architectural Coating (1 month) Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 Source: Amor Architectural Corporation, 2024
❖ SECTION 3.0- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 3-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
3.7 Discretionary Actions
The proposed project includes applications for the following discretionary approvals by the City of Hesperia:
• Building permits
• Engineering permits
• Site Design
3.7.1 Other Permits and Approvals
Following the City’s approval of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following permits/approvals, as shown in Table 3.7-1, would be required prior to construction.
Table 3.7-1
PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
City of Hesperia Building & Safety
Division
Site Plan review and approval and Grading and Building
Permits
City of Hesperia Planning Division Conditional Use Permit Design Review
San Bernardino County Fire Protection
District
Building plan check and approval. Review for compliance with the current California Fire Code, current California Building Code, California Health & Safety Code and City of Hesperia Municipal Code.
Plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and automatic sprinklers.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Region 6)
Water quality permits
❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenc ed information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors, as well as g eneral standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significan t Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
“Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to less than significant level.
Earlier analyses may be use where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an affect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. (See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where the earlier analysis available for review.
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a ref erence to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
4.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment (such as hills, vegetation, rock outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils) features. Visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity, duration, and visual resources characterize views. Visual qualit y refers to the general aesthetic quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity. Viewer groups identify who is most likely to experience the view. High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas. Duration of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer group. Visual resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or of specific unique structures or landscape features.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact
Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance, and focal views that focus on a particular object, s cene or feature of interest. The city’s General Plan Open Space Element contains scenic vistas including Mojave River to the east, the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountain ranges to the south and the surrounding Victor Valley, along with neighboring hillsides and the natural desert environment. These scenic resources provide a visual
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
relief from the man -made structures in the city and also connect its residents to the natural environment (City of Hesperia, 2019a, p. OS-13). The project site is located in a semi-rural portion of the city and would not impact hillsides and natural desert environment. The Mojave River runs along the city’s eastern border (Michael Brandman Associates, 2010a, p. 2-1). However, the project site is located on the western portion of the city, and has intervening developments that block views of the Mojave River. There are partial views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains at the existing project site from the surrounding developments adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would develop buildings up to a height of approximately 4 2 feet tall, which would adhere to the project site’s allowable maximum building height of 60 feet (The Arroyo Group, 2021, p. 198), and would be similar to the approximately 20 - to 30 -foot-tall industrial and commercial buildings surrounding the project site. Additionally, the project area does not have sensitive receivers such as residences adjacent to the site where views of the mountains would be permanently blocked. Viewers of the area would likely be people driving through the project area. The project area is largely vacant and viewers would have undisrupted views of the mountains continuing along Poplar Street or Three Flags Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact views of scenic vis tas compared to the existing setting, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides information regarding officially designated or eligible state scenic highways, designated as part of the California Scenic Highway Program. As shown in Figure 4.1 -1, t he closest officially designated state scenic highway to the project site is a portion of the State Route 2 (SR-2), which is approximately 15.1 miles southwest; portions of SR-138, which is eligible for designation but not officially designated, are approximately
6.7 miles south o f the site (Caltrans, 202 4). Due to the large distance between the project site and these highways , construction and implementation of the project would have no impacts on state scenic highways. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/ Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.1-1
STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located within an emerging semi -rural portion of the city characterized by commercial, industrial and undeveloped land uses as shown in Figure 4.1-2. Table 4.1-1 details the existing visual character and land uses of the project site and surrounding area . Table 4.1-2 details applicable scenic quality goals and regulations, and how the proposed project would adhere to them.
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.1-2
VIEWS FOR SURROUNDING LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.1-1
EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER AND LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA Location General Characteristics Existing Lighting Building Height & Design Landscaping Project
Site Undeveloped None None Undeveloped
Surrounding Areas
North Undeveloped None None Undeveloped
South
Industrial (Truck repair
shop)/commercial (truck
car wash)
Exterior lighting
for security
purposes
Approximately 20-to 30-
feet tall buildings with
plastered concrete tilt-up
exterior walls in varying
colors.
Ornamental
East Undeveloped None None Undeveloped
West Industrial Park and
Business
Exterior lighting
for security
purposes
Approximately 20 feet tall
buildings with plastered
concrete tilt-up exterior
walls in varying colors.
Ornamental
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2024 and UltraSystems Environmental, 2022.
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would include views associated with construction activities, construction staging areas, grading, excavation, construction equipment, material storage areas, construction debris, exposed trenches, etc. Construction elem ents would be inconsistent with the visual character of the project vicinity. Project construction could temporarily degrade the existing visual character of the project area and its immediate surroundings. However, this impact would be short term and thes e elements would be removed following construction. Therefore, impacts in regard to construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed project would develop two truck warehouses with associated surface parking lot and ornamental landscaping. The proposed project would be designed to adhere to the City’s design guidelines to complement the existing buildings and architecture surrounding the project site.
Additionally, the project area is part of the Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, which plans to develop the project area with similar industrial developments such as the proposed project due to its prime regional location to transportation corridors (The Arroyo Group, 2021, p. 196). Therefore, the project would not significantly impact the characteristics of the project area or public views.
Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.1-2
PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SCENIC REGULATIONS IN REGARDS TO THE CITY OF HESPERIA
MAIN STREET FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN
Policy Compliance
Goal UD-1: Strengthen the identity of the City of Hesperia and the Specific Plan area by building upon the surrounding natural resources and amenities, and create a new image for Main Street and the Freeway Corridor that expresses an attractive, inviting, high quality character and commercial vitality.
Policy UD -1.4: Preserve views of the mountains –
San Gabriel Mountains to the southwest and San
Bernardino National Forest to the southeast
As detailed in Section 4.1a), the project’s buildings
would adhere to the Com/Ind Business Park (CIBP)
height requirements. Additionally, the proposed
buildings would conform to the height requirements
of the general plan and zoning, and be similar to
surrounding developments. Therefore, views of the
mountains would not be significantly impacted by
the project, and the project would be consistent with
this policy.
Goal UD-2: Create distinctive and attractive communities with a strong sense of place (Smart Growth principle).
Policy UD -2.1: Establish development and design
standards that encourage high quality of
construction and lead to the creation of attractive
developments.
The project site is currently an undeveloped lot with
no significant aesthetic resources. The proposed
project would adhere to the Com/Ind Business Park
(CIBP) development requirements, which would
create a high -quality development to the Specific
Plan area. Therefore, the project would be consistent
with this policy.
Goal UD-5: Encourage good design, and high-quality development within the Specific Plan area.
Policy UD-5.3: Through design review, ensure that
new development enhances the character of the
Specific Plan area by requiring design qualities and
elements that contribute to an active pedestrian
environment, where appropriate, and ensuring that
architectural elements support high -quality
development.
The proposed project would adhere to the Com/Ind
Business Park (CIBP) development requirements,
which would create a high-quality development that
would enhance character of the Specific Plan area.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with this
policy.
Source: City of Hesperia, 2021, p. 25 to 27
As shown above, the project would adhere to all applicable scenic regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.1-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Project construction and operation would adhere to the Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (MSFCSP) site design standards and guidelines, which would ensure that exterior light and glare would not significantly impact surrounding land uses or nighttime skies (The Arroyo Group, 2021, p. 268). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.2-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
§ 12220(g)), timberland (as defined
by Public Resources Codes § 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code § 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact
The project site is designated by the Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP) as Grazing Land, which is not farmland (DOC, 2018) (see Figure 4.2 -1 below). Grazing Land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock (DOC, 2019). Therefore, no farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.2-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.2-1
IMPORTANT FARMLAND CATEGORIES
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.2-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
The project site is zoned Commercial/Industrial Business Park (CIBP (City of Hesperia, 2020), and is not zoned for agricultural use. Williamson Act contracts are made only on land within agricultural reserves, and the project site is not within an agricultural reserve. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
The project site is zoned Commercial/Industrial Business Park (CIB P) (City of Hesperia, 2020) . The site is not zoned for forest, timberland, or timberland production use. Therefore, project development would not conflict with zoning for forest land or timberland, and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
The project site is currently undeveloped and does not have forest land . Therefore, project development would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
The project site is undeveloped and has a zoning designation of Commercial/Industrial Business Park (CIBP) (City of Hesperia, 2020). No important farmland is near the project site; the nearest such farmland is Unique Farmland approximately seven miles southeast. No forest land is present on or near the project site. Therefore, project development would not cause conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impacts would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
4.3 Air Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern
Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and an ambient air quality standard has been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and/or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). T he criteria air pollutants of concern are nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and ozone, and their precursors, such as reactive organic gases (ROG) (which are ozone precursors). Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects.
The project is in the southwestern San Bernardino County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB), for which the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) is substantially responsible for air pollution control. The MDAB is classified as a dry-hot desert (BWh), with portions classified as dry -very hot desert (BWhh), to indicate that at least three months have maximum average temperatures over 100.4°F (MDAQMD, 2020a, p. 6 -7). Table 4.3-1 shows the attainment status of the MDAB for each crite ria pollutant for both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects.
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production and are precursors for certain particulate compounds that are formed in the atmosphere, and for ozone. A precursor is a directly emitted air contaminant that, when released into the atmosphere, forms, causes to be formed, or contributes to the formation of a secondary air contaminant for which an ambient air quality standard (AAQS) has been adopted, or whose presence in the atmosphere will contribute to the violation of one or more AAQSs. When NO X and ROG are released into the atmosphere, they can chemically react with one another in the presence of sunlight
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
to form ozone. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO 2 is a reddish-brown pungent gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NO 2 acts as an acute respiratory irritant and eye irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens (USEPA, 2011).
Table 4.3-1
FEDERAL AND STATE ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification
Ozone (O3) – 1-hour standard No Federal Standard
Nonattainment
Ozone (O3) – 8-hour standard Nonattainment
Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Sulfates No Federal Standards Attainment
Lead (Pb) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles
Sources: ARB, 2020a; USEPA, 2022a.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless non -reactive pollutant produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains . In urban areas, automobile exhaust accounts for most CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions – primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface -based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood’ s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. High concentrations are lethal (USEPA, 2010).
Particulate matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids, such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes and mists. Primary PM is emitted directly into the atmosphere from activities such as agricultural operations, industrial processes, construction and demolition activities, and
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
entrainment of road dust into the air. Secondary PM is formed in the atmosphere from predominantly gaseous combustion by-product precursors, such as sulfur oxides, NOX, and ROGs.
Particle size is a critical characteristic of PM that primarily determines the location of PM deposition along the respiratory system (and associated health effects) as well as the degradation of visibility through light scattering. In the United States, federal and state agencies have focused on two types of PM. PM10 corresponds to the fraction of PM no greater than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter and is commonly called respirable particulate matter, while PM 2.5 refers to the subset of PM 10 of aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometers, which is commonly called fine particulate matter.
PM10 and PM 2.5 deposition in the lungs results in irritation that triggers a range of inflammation responses, such as mucus secretion and bronchoconstriction, and exacerbates pulmonary dysfunctions, such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis. Sufficiently small p articles may penetrate the bloodstream and impact functions such as blood coagulation, cardiac autonomic control, and mobilization of inflammatory cells from the bone marrow. Individuals susceptible to higher health risks from exposure to PM 10 airborne pollution include children, the elderly, smokers, and people of all ages with low pulmonary/cardiovascular function. For these individuals, adverse health effects of PM10 pollution include coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, phlegm, bronchitis, and aggravation of lung or heart disease, leading, for example, to increased risks of hospitalization and mortality from asthma attacks and heart attacks (USEPA, 2022a).
Reactive organic gases (ROG) are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding CO, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. It should be noted that there are no state or national ambient air quality standards for ROG because ROGs are not classified as criteria pollutants. They are regulated, however, because a reduction in ROG emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formation of ozone. ROGs are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility. The term “ROG” is used by the ARB for this air quality analysis and is defined the same as the federal term “volatile organic compound” (VOC).
Ozone is a secondary pollutant produced through a series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NO X. Ozone creation requires ROG and NO X to be available for approximately three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Because of the long reaction time, peak ozone concentrations frequently occur downwind of the sites where the precursor pollutants are emitted. Thus, ozone is considered a regional, rather than a local, pollutant. The health effects of ozone include eye and respiratory irritati on, reduction of resistance to lung infection and possible aggravation of pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. Ozone is also damaging to vegetation and untreated rubber (USEPA, 2020c).
4.3.2 Climate/Meteorology
Air quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions, and by meteorological conditions that influence movement and dispersal of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local topography, provide the link between air pollutant emissions and air quality.
The Project site is located within the Mojave Desert portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB), which is bordered in the southwest by the San Bernardino Mountains, which are separated from the
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
San Gabriel Mountains by the Cajon Pass (4,200 feet elevation). The MDAB is an assemblage of mountain ranges interspersed with long broad valleys that often contain dry lakes. Many of the lower mountains which dot the vast terrain rise from 1,000 to 4,000 feet above the valley floor. Prevailing winds in the MDAB are out of the west and southwest. These prevailing winds are due to the proximity of the MDAB to coastal and central regions and the blocking nature of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the north; air masses pushed onshore in Southern California by differential heating are channeled through the MDAB (MDAQMD, 2020).
The nearest meteorological station is the Hesperia station (#043935, latitude 34.41667°, longitude:
- 117.3°) (WRCC, 2022a), which is approximately 5.1 miles west of the project site , with a period of record from January 1, 1910 to June 30, 1977. However, data from another station near the project site, Victorville Pump Pt meteorological station (#049325; latitude 34.5350°, longitude: - 117.3058°) (WRCC, 2022b), approximately 9.5 miles north of the project site, were used because the period of record (November 1931 – November 2008) is more recent. The average high and low temperatures recorded there are 77.5°F and 43.9°F, respectively. Average winter (December, January, and February) high and low temperatures are approximately 60.1°F and 30.7°F, respectively, and average summer (June, July, and August) high and low temperatures are approximately 95.6°F and 58.4°F , respectively. The annual average of total precipitation is approximately 5.52 inches, which occurs mostly during the winter and relatively infrequ ently during the summer. Monthly precipitation averages approximately 0.93 inch during the winter (December, January, and February), approximately 0.43 inch during the spring (March, April, and May), approximately 0.35 inch during the fall (September, October, and November), and approximately 0.13 inch during the summer (June, July, and August).
4.3.3 Local Air Quality
The project site is served by the MDAQMD’s Hesperia -Olive Street air monitoring site (ARB Number 36201), 6.0 miles east at 17288 Olive Street in Hesperia. This station monitors ozone and PM 10. The nearest station that monitors PM2.5 and NO2 is Victorville-14306 Park Avenue at 14306 Park Avenue in Victorville (ARB Number: 36306), about 4.4 miles north of the project. The ambient air quality data in the project vicinity as recorded from 20 21 through 202 3, along with applicable standards, are shown in Table 4.3-2.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.3-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Air
Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2021 2022 2023
Ozone – Hesperia-
Olive Street
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm)
# Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.09 ppm
# Days > California 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
0.114
0.101
55 9
60 0.108
0.090
49 11
52 0.110
0.098
53 11
54 PM10 – Hesperia-Olive
Street
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
Est. # Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 150 µg/m3
Federal Annual Arithmetic Mean (12 µg/m3)
426.5
1 28.7
135.0
0 27.2
176.2
1 27.9
PM2.5 - Victorville-
14306 Park Avenue
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
# Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/m3
State Annual Average (12 µg/m3)
87.1 1
10.2 24.6
0 9.0
25.6 0
7.8 NO2 – Victorville-
14306 Park Avenue
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
State Annual Average (0.030 ppm)
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.18 ppm
0.060
0.012
0 0.060
0.012
0 0.060
0.010
0 Source: ARB, 2022a.
4.3.4 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
The MDAQMD’s jurisdiction comprises the Mojave Desert Air Basin, which encompasses the desert portions of Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The MDAQMD is required to produce plans to show how air quality would be improved in the region. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that these plans be updated triennially to incorporate the most recent available technical information.5
The Project is located in the jurisdiction of the MDAQMD. Under the Federal Clean Air Act the MDAQMD has adopted a variety of attainment plans for a variety of nonattainment pollutants. T he District has primary responsibility for regulating stationary sources of air pollution located within its jurisdictional boundaries. It implements air quality programs required by state and federal mandates, enforces rules and regulations based on air pollution laws and educates businesses and residents about their role in protecting air quality and the risks of air pollution (MDAQMD, 2022).
The 1995 Final Mojave Desert Planning Area, Federal Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment Plan (MDAQMD, 1995) was adopted by the MDAQMD board on July 31, 1995. A Certification of District Measures to Reduce PM Pursuant to Former Health & Safety Code §39614(d) was received and filed by the ARB on January 27, 2020 (MDAQMD, 2020a). The 2008 MDAQMD Fede ral 8 -Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Non-attainment Area) was adopted by the MDAQMD board.
The USEPA designated the Western Mojave Desert area as non -attainment for the 8 -hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). A portion of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) is included in the Western Mojave D esert non -attainment area. The most recent attainment plan that was approved by USEPA is the MDAQMD 2008 Ozone Attainment Plan adopted in 2008. The most recently
5 CCAA of 1988.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
adopted State plan is the 1996 Triennial Revision to the 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan (MDAQMD, 2008).
4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of other illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to certain pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the MDAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds and medical facilities. The following project types proposed for sites within the specified distance to an existing or planned (zoned) sensitive receptor land use must be evaluated with a health risk assessment (MDAQMD, 2020a):
• Any industrial project within 1,000 feet.
• A distribution center (40 or more trucks per day) within 1,000 feet. • A major transportation project (50,000 or more vehicles per day) within 1,000 feet. • A dry cleaner using perchloroethylene within 500 feet. • A gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet.
The proposed project’s distance from the nearest sensitive receptor exceeds all these threshold distances. Therefore, a health risk assessment is not needed.
4.3.6 Applicable Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Rules Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Control Rule)
During construction, the project would be subject to MDAQMD Rule 403 (fugitive dust control) (MDAQMD, 2020c). The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source , except during high winds. MDAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits construction activity from causing incremental PM 10 concentrations to exceed 100 micrograms per cubic meter when determined as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on federal reference method samplers at the property line for a minimum of five hours, except during high winds.
Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings)
Construction of this project will include the application of architectural coatings and be subject to MDAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Among other applicable entities, Rule 1113 requires anyone who supplies, sells, offers for sale, manufactures, blends or repackages any architectural coating for use within the MDAQMD, as well as any person who applies or solicits the application of any architectural coating within the District, o use coatings that contain VOC less than or equal to the VOC limits specified in Table 1 of the rule.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
4.3.7 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project site is located in the western portion of the City of Hesperia, within the jurisdiction of the MDAQMD. The project is compatible with the general plan land use and zoning discussed in detail in Section 4.11. The air quality plans are based upon existing and projected land uses in the planning area. The most recent air quality plan is the MDAQMD Federal 8 -Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Non-attainment Area), which was adopted on June 9, 2008.
The project is compatible with the air quality plan.
The MDAQMD has developed criteria in the form of emissions thresholds for determining whether emissions from a project are regionally significant. They are useful for estimating whether a project is likely to result in a violation of the NAAQS and/or whether the project is in conformity with plans to achieve attainment . Table 4.3 -3 shows MDAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for both construction and operation. A project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its construction and/or operational activities exceed the corresponding MDAQMD significance thresholds.
Table 4.3-3
MDAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutant
Emission
Threshold
(lbs/day)
Emission Threshold
(short tons/year)
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) 137 25
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 137 25
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 548 100
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 137 25
Particulate Matter (PM10) 82 15
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 65 12
Source: MDAQMD, 2020a, Table 6.
Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the project’s onsite and offsite project activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1.1.29 .
CalEEMod (CAPCOA, 2023) is a planning tool for estimating emissions related to land use projects.
The construction emissions accounted for the wall construction, while operational emissions did not consider the wall as an emission source. To ensure accuracy, two separate CalEEMod analyses were conducted—one for construction emissions and another for operational emissions. Model-predicted project emissions are compared with applicable thresholds to assess regional air quality impacts. The project traffic study (RK Engineering, 2024) provided the vehicle miles traveled and number of trips for the operational emissions . It was also assumed that the construction contractor would comply
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
with all pertinent MDAQMD rules. CalEEMod inputs and detailed results are provided in Appendix B.
Table 4.3-4 shows the project schedule used for the air quality analysis. The proposed project would be built in one phase. Construction is estimated to take place in five subphases from October 2025 to November 2026:
• Grading
• Off-Site Trenching
• Vertical/Site Work- Building Construction
• Vertical/Site Work- Paving
• Vertical/Site Work- Architectural Coating
Details for each construction subphase are shown in Table 4.3-4.
Table 4.3-4
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Subphase Start Date End Date
Grading October 1, 2025 November 28, 2025
Off-site Trenching November 29, 2025 February 13, 2026
Vertical/Site Work-
Building Construction February 14, 2026 September 17, 2026 Vertical/Site Work-
Paving September 18, 2026 October 20, 2026
Vertical/Site Work-
Architectural Coating October 21, 2026 November 16, 2026 Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023).
These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. Mobile sources (such as diesel -fueled equipment onsite and traveling to and from the project site) would primarily generate NO X emissions. The quantity of emissions generated daily would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities occurring at the same time.
As shown in Table 4.3-5, the project’s annual emissions would not exceed Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant during construction.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.3-5
MAXIMUM ANNUAL REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year
Maximum Emissions (Tons/year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Annual Emissions, 2025 0.08 0.73 0.70 0.08 0.03 Maximum Annual Emissions, 2026 0.51 1.09 1.87 0.11 0.05 MDAQMD Significance Thresholds
(short tons per year) 25 25 100 15 12
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023).
As shown in Table 4.3-6 maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed MDAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, the project’s short -term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.3-6
MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activity
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions, 2025 3.47 31.79 29.02 3.38 1.43 Maximum Daily Emissions, 2026 41.10 12.14 22.34 1.28 0.50 MDAQMD Significance Thresholds 137 137 548 82 65
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023).
Regional Operational Emissions
The project proposes to develop Truck Warehouse Building 1 with an associated parking lot on the western portion of the project site, and Truck Warehouse Building 2 with an associated parking lot on the eastern portion of the project site. Operational emis sions generated by area sources, motor vehicles, and energy demand would result from normal day -to-day activities of the project. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 4.3-7 and Table 4.3-8. As seen in the tables, for each criteria pollutant, operational emissions would be below the pollutant’s MDAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, regional operational emissions would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Table 4.3-7
MAXIMUM ANNUAL PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational Emission Source
Pollutant (short tons/year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 0.73 0.01 0.59 <0.005 <0.005
Energy Source Emissions 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.01 0.01
Mobile Source Emissions 0.08 0.61 0.78 0.33 0.09
Maximum Annual Operational
Emissions 0.82 0.77 1.5 0.34 0.1
MDAQMD Significance Thresholds
(short tons per year) 25 25 100 15 12
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023).
Table 4.3-8
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 4.57 0.06 6.6 0.01 0.01
Energy Source Emissions 0.05 0.85 0.71 0.06 0.06
Mobile Source Emissions 0.47 3.34 5.0 1.8 0.5
Total Operational Emissions 5.09 4.25 12.31 1.87 0.57
MDAQMD Significance Thresholds 137 137 548 82 65
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.29) (CAPCOA, 2023). b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact
Since the MDAB is currently in federal nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5 and state nonattainment for ozone and PM 10, related projects may exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. However, as discussed above, the mass daily and annual
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.3-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
construction and operational emissions generated by the project would not exceed any of the MDAQMD’s significance thresholds . Therefore, the project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of the pollutants for which the MDAB is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction of the project would generate short -term and intermittent emissions. Following the MDAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (MDAQMD, 2020a), residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities are considered sensitive land uses. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single- family residence 1,114 feet southeast of the project boundary.
The following project types proposed for sites within the specified distance to an existing or planned (zoned) sensitive receptor land use must be evaluated:
• Any industrial project within 1,000 feet.
• A distribution center (40 or more trucks per day) within 1,000 feet. • A major transportation project (50,000 or more vehicles per day) within 1,000 feet. • A dry cleaner using perchloroethylene within 500 feet. • A gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet.
The project proposes to develop to develop Truck Warehouse Building 1 with the associated parking lot on the western portion of the project site, and Truck Warehouse Building 2 with the associated parking lot on the eastern portion of the project site. It does not meet the criteria listed above. Thus, the impacts on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact
A project -related significant adverse effect could occur if the construction or operation of the proposed project would result in the generation of odors that would be perceptible in adjacent sensitive areas. Potential odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction associated with the proposed project’s long-term operational uses. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the construction and are thus considered less than significant. Therefore, the project would not create substantial objectionable odors and this impact would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
4.4.1 Methodology
This section is based on the biological surveys, research, and analyses conducted for the Biological Resources Evaluation (BRE; UltraSystems, 2022), provided in Appendix C1 of this document.
UltraSystems biologists researched readily available information, including relevant literature, databases, agency web sites, various previously completed reports and management plans, GIS data, maps, aerial imagery from public domain sources, and in -house records to identify the following: 1) habitats, special-status plant and wildlife species, jurisdictional waters, critical habitats, and wildlife
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
corridors that may occur in and near the project site; and 2) local or regional plans, policies, and regulations that may apply to the project. Plant and wildlife species protected by federal agencies, state agencies, and nonprofit resource organizations, such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as special-status species. Some of these plant and wildlife species are afforded special legal or management protection because they are limited in population size, and typically have a limited geographic range and/or habitat. The following data sources were accessed by UltraSystems for synthesis of data within this report. • Information on California plants for education, research and conservation , provided by Calflora (Calflora, 2022)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Life History Accounts and Range Maps (CDFW, 2022a)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer (CDFW, 2022b). • U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -Minute Topographic Map Baldy Mesa Quadrangle (USGS, 2015) and current aerial imagery (Google Earth, 2022).
• The Web Soil Survey, provided by the U . S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Survey Staff, 2022). • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CNDDB, 2022a).
• Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC), provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; USFWS, 2022a).
• Critical Habitat Portal, provided by the USFWS (USFWS, 2022b). • Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 8th Edition, provided by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS, 2022a).
• National Hydrography Dataset, provided by the USGS (USGS, 2022c). • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), provided by the USFWS (USFWS, 2022c). • Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, J.M. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition, provided by California Native Plant Society Press. • EPA Waters GeoViewer, provided by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA; USEPA, 2022h).
4.4.2 Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Plant and wildlife species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) are referred to collectively as listed species in this section.
Plant and wildlife species not listed under ESA or CESA but still protected by federal agencies, state agencies, local or regional plans, and/or nonprofit resource organizations, such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as sensitive species in this section. The term special-status species is used when collectively referring to both listed and sensitive species.
Environmental Setting
The City of Hesperia is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, California. The biological study area ( BSA) is surrounded by primarily vacant land with some commercial developments, as shown in Figure 4.4-1. The BSA may potentially provide some suitable habitat for special status plant and wildlife species , although not optimal . The project site itself has a relatively flat topography.
Elevations in the BSA range from 3,606 to 3,620 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The project site is currently undeveloped. Stormwater runoff generated on the project site is discharged as sheet flow in a northeast direction to Poplar Street.
Habitat Assessment Survey
UltraSystems Enviro nmental, Inc (UltraSystems) biologist Dr. Michael Tuma conducted a habitat assessment survey on March 4, 2022 and staff biologist Matthew Sutton completed the survey on August 24, 2022 to assess the habitats, plants and wildlife that occur within the BSA. Three land cover types were mapped within the BSA , and are described later in this section (see Figure 4.4 -2).
Disturbed California juniper covers nearly 100 percent of the project site (see Appendix C2 Figure 6, Land Cover Types ). The B SA is comprised of developed/ornamental and disturbed California juniper woodlands. Six living Joshua trees (State Candidate Threatened, or SCT) and one California juniper were observed on the project site; however, the project site is dominated by ruderal species such as red brome and prickly Russian thistle. There is evidence that the project site was formerly vegetated with Joshua tree/juniper woodlands, but past significant disturbances have occurred that have resulted in compacted soils and dominance by rud eral species. Plant and wildlife species that were recorded during the habitat assessment survey can be accessed in Appendix C2, Plant and Wildlife Species Recorded During the Field Surveys.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Figure 4.4–1
PROJECT LOCATION AND BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025 Figure 4.4–2
LAND COVER MAP
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
Impacts to Special Status Plants
One western Joshua tree ( SCT) was observed on the project site. The literature review and field surveys concluded that the remaining plant species in the plant inventory have no more than a low potential to occur within the BSA due to a lack of suitable habitat, soils, and/or other factor s to support them; these species are not anticipated to be significantly impacted as a result of the project.
Direct and indirect impacts to western Joshua tree are anticipated as a result of project construction.
Therefore, acquisition of a California Fish and Game Code (FGC) § 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP), which is discussed below, will be required. The ITP may require on- or offsite mitigation, as well as a monitoring plan. Additionally, mitigation will be required to maintain compliance with the native desert vegetation protection as provided in the City of Hesperia Municipal Code.
Based on a literature review of publicly available databases (hereafter, plant inventory; USFWS 2022a, CNDDB 2022a, CNPS, 2022a) for reported observations within a ten-mile radius of the project site, one listed and seven sensitive plant species identified by one of the following means: of those eight total plant species, six sensitive plant species were determined to have a low potential to occur in the BSA, including within the project site , due to one or more of the following reasons: species were reported by the CNDDB or IPaC in the plant inventory, were recognized as occurring based on previous surveys or knowledge of the area, or were observed during the habitat assessment survey or other surveys (see Figure 4.4-3). In addition, Joshua tree was observed on the project site during the field surveys. Joshua tree is a state candidate for listing as a threatened species (CNDDB, 2022b).
These species a nd the remaining species determined to be unlikely to occur within the BSA are identified in Appendix C2, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination .
The project site contains low-quality suitable habitat for six of the seven sensitive plant species documented in the plant inventory , and therefore these six species were determined to have a low potential to occur in the BSA. No other special-status plant species were observed during the surveys, including the remaining seven sensitive plant species determined to have a low potential to occur.
Joshua tree was observed during the field survey and, it is anticipated that construction of the project will result in significant impact s to listed plant species within the BSA . Therefore, mitigation is required.
Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife
Literature Review Results and Discussion
Based on a literature review of publicly available databases (hereafter, wildlife inventory; USFWS 2022a, CNDDB 2022a) for reported observations within a ten-mile radius of the project site, 16 listed and 20 sensitive wildlife species were reported within a 10-mile radius of the BSA because they were either reported in the wildlife inventory, recognized as occurring based on previous surveys or knowledge of the area, or observed during the habitat assessment survey or other surveys (see Figure 4.4-4, which displays species identified in the CNDDB wildlife inventory within a two -mile radius of the BSA ). Of those 36 total species , four listed and 1 3 sensitive wildlife species were determined to have a low potential to occur , and 19 special-status wildlife species were determined to be unlikely to occur or are not expected to occur because the BSA lacks suitable habitat or is outside of the geographic range of these species. All species that were evaluated and their occurrence potential determinations are provided in Appendix C2, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination . Nine special-status wildlife species were determined to have a low potential to occur in the BSA and it is anticipated that construction of the project will have less than a significant impact to these nine wildlife species.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
High Potential to Occur in the BSA
Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl (BUOW) is a small, crepuscular (active at dusk and dawn), ground-inhabiting owl that is found largely throughout the southern United States. Typical BUOW habitat is open, dry, flat ground or low rolling hills with sparse vegetation and available burrows (Gallagh er, 1997). BUOWs spend most of their time on the ground or on low perch sites such as fence posts and dirt mounds.
They are generally found in open country, where tree or shrub canopies cover less than 30 percent of the habitat (Center for Biological Diver sity et al., 2003). Typical habitat includes annual and perennial grasslands, shortgrass prairies, open agricultural areas (particularly rangelands), desert floors, and vacant lots in residential areas and university campuses. Other habitat includes oak savannah; grass, forb, and open shrub stages of pinyon -juniper and ponderosa pine habitat; sandy beaches and coastal dunes; and river bottom lands (Center for Biological Diversity et al., 2003).
BUOWs inhabiting urban landscaped areas may live in vacant fiel ds/lots, pastures, airports, athletic fields, golf courses, cemeteries, city parks, road shoulders, drainage sumps, railroad beds, irrigation ditches, and road cuts (Center for Biological Diversity et al., 2003). The BUOW is primarily a dry grassland species, but it persists and can even thrive in some landscapes that are highly altered by human activity, such as agricultural areas in the Central and Imperial Valleys (Shuford et al., 2008).
They require large open expanses of sparsely vegetated areas on gen tly rolling or level terrain with an abundance of active small mammal burrows (Shuford et al., 2008). Vegetation cover and height that prevents the owl from observing approaching predators places the BUOW at a severe disadvantage (Center for Biological Div ersity et al., 2003). They are the only small owl likely to be seen perched in the open daylight (Sibley, 2000).
Suitable BUOW habitat must also support the primary prey items for BUOWs, such as insects and small mammals. BUOWs are opportunistic predators preying primarily on a broad array of arthropods (centipedes, spiders, beetles, crickets, and grasshoppers), and small rodents, but they also eat birds, amphibians, reptiles, and carrion. They may hunt from a perch, hover, hawk, run, walk, dive or hop after prey.
There is suitable nesting, sheltering, and foraging habitat within the BSA for BUOW. The project site contains sparse shrub cover and friable soils which are preferred conditions for BUOW. Furthermore, burrowing owl are generally adaptive to disturbances a nd the frequent grading of the project site would not necessarily deter this species from establishing there. It is anticipated that construction of the project could have a significant impact to BUOW and therefore mitigation is proposed.
Moderate Potential to Occur in the BSA
Loggerhead shrike
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CD FW) Species of Special Concern, which is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal (fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal) native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) cri teria: is extirpated from the state or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; is listed as federally -, but not state -, threatened or endangered; meets the state definition of threatened or endangered, but has not formally been listed; is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, co uld qualify it for state threatened or endangered status; has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7187/Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project Page 4.4-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2025
factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for state threatened or endangered status. Loggerhead shrike is also a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC), which is a bird species listed in the USFWS 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report. The report identifies species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory and non -migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or e ndangered) that, without additional conservation actions, are likely t o become candidates for listing under the ESA. While all of the bird species included in the report are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing.
Loggerhead shrike is a common resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California. This species inhabits areas with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other hardwood – conifer, valley foothill riparian, pinyon-juniper, juniper, desert riparian, and Joshua tree habitats. The BSA is in the known distributional range of the species and contains potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat (open habitat, Joshua trees). Due to these factors, there is moderate potential for the species to occur in the BSA. Construction of the project would involve grading of the entire project site and the Joshua trees and juniper would be significantly impacted as a result.
Although there is suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike on the project site, the area of suitable habitat that would be destroyed by grading activities is relatively small and does not represent an expansive area of suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, the loss of this area would not have a substanti al effect on the availability of loggerhead shrike habitat or population levels statewide. These impacts do not meet the threshold of significance set forth in § 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Therefore, construction of the project would have a less than significant impact to loggerhead shrike.