Attachment 7 - Responses to Comments — Hesperia City Council, May 5, 2026

Attachment 7
Responses to Comments
Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia, CA Prepared for:

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

UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
T: (949) 788-4900
F: (949) 788-4901
April 2026
Project No. 7187

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Background of Environmental Review Process for the Project 1

1.2 Tribal Consultation 2

1.3 Responses to Comments 2

1.4 Intended Uses of this IS/MND 3

2.0 Public Comment letters 5

3.0 Errata 21

4.0 Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 24

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) Attachment B
NOI Posting at the State of California, Office of Planning and Research Clearinghouse Attachment C
County Clerk-Recorder NOI Posting
Attachment D
AB 52 Tribal Consultation Letters from the City to the Native American Tribes Attachment E
Public Comment Letters
Introduction
This Responses to Comments (RTC) document, in conjunction with the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) responds to comments on the proposed Cargo Solutions Warehouse and Truck Stop (project). While the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines do not require a final initial study or the preparation of formal responses to comments received during the public review period for an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, to provide further disclosure about the proposed project the City of Hesperia (City) is making available responses to the comments it received during the public review process.

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

The NOI was also posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk-Recorder on or around June 2, 2025 (see Attachment C), and copies of the IS/MND were made available for review at the following locations:

City of Hesperia Website: https://www.cityofhesperia.us/1466/Environmental-Documents City of Hesperia Planning Division, 9700 Seventh Avenue, Hesperia, CA 92345 A hard copy of the NOI was mailed to:

Residents and property owners, located within 500 feet of the project site.

A hard copy of the NOI was sent via US Mail on July 18, 2025 to the following entities:

Oak Hills Prop. Assoc.

CEQA Reviewer; Mojave Water Agency
Mitchell M. Tasi Law
CEQA Reviewer; Mojave Desert AQMD
Department of Water Resources
CEQA Reviewer; City of Victorville
CEQA Reviewer; City of Apple Valley
Native American Heritage Commission
CEQA Reviewer; San Bernardino County Fire
CEQA Reviewer; Sheriff
306459104 KAUR RAJINDER
Angel Esparza; (SW Carpenters)
Oscar Ocastaneda
Richard Drury, Komalpreet Toor, Stacey Oborne; Lozeau Drury LLP CEQA Reviewer; Southern California Edison
France Tinney; Center for Biological Diversity
Kevin Johnston; Requestor
Alexandra McCleary; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
CEQA Reviewer; City of San Bernardino
James Brownyard; Requestor
306463103 TIGER PAW LAND LLC
CEQA Reviewer; Snowline Joint Unified School District
Jeff Modrzejewski; Creed LA
Sean Silva; CARE CA
306459114 LITTLE SISTER'S CALIFORNIA REALTY LL
Rick Engineering Company
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
306464124 GARTIZ PROPERTIES LLC
CEQA Reviewer; County of San Bernardino
Jacquelyn Barnum; Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Planning Division; City of Hesperia
Adam Salcido; Requestor
Golden State Envriomental Justice Alliance
State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water Alicia Reed; Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
Hesperia Rec/Park Dist
Blum Collins LLc; Golden State Envriomental Justice Alliance Aria Soeprono; Advocates for the Environment
Tribal Consultation
The City of Hesperia (the lead agency) initiated AB 52 outreach to three local tribes for the Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project on or around September 2022, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21074. (see Attachment D) The City prepared letters to these tribes on their list for AB 52 contact, informing them of the project. The letters were sent by Ryan Leonard, AICP, Senior Planner, on September 22, 2022 via email to the following tribes:

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
The City received one response from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. The City contacted the Tribe’s representative directly. After consultation occurred, Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) mitigation measures were included to address the tribe’s concerns and to include the tribal monitoring measures. With these actions, AB 52 consultation was concluded in January 2023. Section 4.18 of the Initial Study documents all consultation held between the City and Native American Tribes.

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

Intended Uses of this IS/MND
The IS/MND will be used by the City in considering approval of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15074, the IS/MND will be used as the primary environmental document in consideration of all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the proposed project, to the extent such actions require CEQA compliance and as otherwise permitted under applicable law. 15074. CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision-making body shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation.

Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.

When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.

A lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if a comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted, for a project within two nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, without first considering whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area.

When a non-elected official or decision-making body of a local lead agency adopts a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, that adoption may be appealed to the agency’s elected decision-making body, if one exists. For example, adoption of a negative declaration for a project by a city’s planning commission may be appealed to the city council. A local lead agency may establish procedures governing such appeals.

Upon review and consideration of the IS/MND, the City may take action to adopt, revise, or reject the proposed project. A decision to approve the proposed project would be made in a resolution recommending certification of the IS/MND as part of the consideration of the proposed project. The City has prepared this IS/MND and has determined that the environmental impacts of the proposed project have been reduced to a less than significant level through mitigation measures.

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

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

Response A-1
Comment noted. No further action.

B
Lozeau Drury
June 23, 2025
Comment B-1
We hereby request that the City of Hesperia (“City”) send by electronic mail, if possible, or U.S. Mail to our firm at the address below notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivisions, and/or supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of assistance from the City, including, but not limited to the following:
• Notice of any public hearing in connection with the Project as required by California Planning and Zoning Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65091. • Any and all notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), including, but not limited to:

Notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA.

Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is required for the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4.

Notices of any scoping meeting held pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9.

Notices of preparation of an EIR or a negative declaration for the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.

Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

Notices of approval and/or determination to carry out the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law.

Notices of any addenda prepared to a previously certified or approved EIR.

Notices of approval or certification of any EIR or negative declaration, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law.

Notices of determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law.

Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA.

Notice of determination, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21108 or Section 21152.

Please note that we are requesting notices of CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings to be held under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code Section 65092, which requires agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other District requirements include:

Signage compliant with Rule 403 Attachment B shall be erected at each project site entrance not later than the commencement of construction.

Use a water truck to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and actively spread water during visible dusting episodes to minimize visible fugitive dust emissions. For projects with exposed sand or fines deposits (and for projects that expose such soils through earthmoving), chemical stabilization or covering with a stabilizing layer of gravel will be required to eliminate visible dust/sand from sand/fines deposits.

All perimeter fencing shall be wind fencing or the equivalent, to a minimum of four feet of height or the top of all perimeter fencing. The owner/operator shall maintain the wind fencing as needed to keep it intact and remove windblown dropout. This wind fencing requirement may be superseded by local ordinance, rule or project-specific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.

All maintenance and access vehicular roads and parking areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel or asphaltic pavement sufficient to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. Take actions to prevent project-related trackout onto paved surfaces, and clean any project-related trackout within 24 hours. All other earthen surfaces within the project area shall be stabilized by natural or irrigated vegetation, compaction, chemical or other means sufficient to prohibit visible fugitive dust from wind erosion.

Obtain District permits for any miscellaneous process equipment that may be required under District Rule 219 including, but not limited to: Internal Combustion Engines with a manufacturer's maximum continuous rating greater than or equal to 50 brake horsepower.

Comply with all applicable provisions listed in Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust Control.

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

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

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

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

Evidence impact would be significant: The MND mentions that Mohave ground squirrel has a low potential to occur onsite and that the BSA offers minimal habitat value for fossorial species, such as Mohave ground squirrel. Thus, considering that the Project site offers some habitat value and there is vegetation suitable for Mohave ground squirrel (i.e., creosote bush), CDFW is concerned that mitigation measures were not included in the MND to ensure impacts to Mohave ground squirrel are mitigated to a level of less than significant. Furthermore, California Natural Diversity Database (CNNDB) indicates the Project is within the Mohave ground squirrel distribution range and Mohave ground squirrel occurs within 2.5 miles of the Project site. In fact, burrows were detected onsite, which the MND attributes to belonging to an unknown ground squirrel species.

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

Mitigation Measure Biological Resources 6 (MM-BIO-6) (New): Mohave ground squirrel Visual surveys for Mohave ground squirrel shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to ground disturbing activities. Visual surveys shall be conducted between March 15 and April 15 according to the California Department of Fish and Game Mohave Ground Squirrel Survey Guidelines (CDFW 2023). Visual surveys shall be conducted on the Project site during daylight hours by a qualified biologist who can readily identify Mohave ground squirrel and white-tailed antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus). If the survey or monitoring throughout the duration of the Project confirms presence of Mohave ground squirrel, the Project proponent shall fully avoid impacts to Mohave ground squirrel or should obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for Mohave ground squirrel if impacts are unavoidable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MM-BIO-1 (Revised): Section 2081 FGC Incidental Take Permit Western Joshua trees are a state candidate for listing under CESA and will require a § 2081 FGC Incidental Take Permit (ITP) with compensatory mitigation for impacts, in addition to the surveys that are recommended in the discussion of MM BIO-6. The exceptions and permitting process under the California Desert Native Plants Act and the separate exceptions under the Native Plant Protection Act will not apply to western Joshua tree in any manner. For projects where take is incidental to carrying out an otherwise lawful activity, an ITP may be obtained from CDFW. The Project may also obtain take authorization through § 1927 of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (WJTCA).

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

Response E-2
The Project applicant will incorporate and comply with this recommended mitigation measure revision. Revisions were made in the biology section of the MND. After review of the Section 2.3.4 of the Environmental Setting, there was no indication of the take of Joshua tree; the subsection simply stated there were Joshua Trees on the project site and therefore, no revisions to this section.

Comment E-3
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)
Section #4.4 Biological Resources, Page #68, 73, 76-77
Issue: The Project has the potential to significantly impact burrowing owl; a candidate species protected under CESA.

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

Why impact would occur: The MND states that suitable habitat is present onsite for burrowing owl; for example, sparse vegetation, burrows, and suitable soils. As a result, the MND included BIO-2 (see below). CDFW appreciates that BIO-2 considers focused surveys for burrowing owls and is in line with previous guidance provided by CDFW. However, CDFW would like to note that since burrowing owl became a CESA candidate species in March 2024, CDFW cannot accept relocation plans outside of a CESA ITP. Instead, BIO-2 should consider obtaining an ITP if burrowing owls are detected and impacts cannot be avoided. Thus, the change in regulatory status for burrowing owl requires changes to measure BIO-2 as recommended by CDFW below.

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

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

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

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

If BUOW or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey, the site shall be considered occupied and the Project proponent shall fully avoid impacts to burrowing owl or should obtain a CESA ITP if impacts are unavoidable.

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

Comment E-4
Nesting Birds
Section #4.4 Biological Resources, Page #68, 69, 72, 73, 75-77 Issue: The Project has the potential to impact nesting birds, including CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC), and common birds that are subject to Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

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

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

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

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

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measures to reduce impacts to less than significant: CDFW offers the following revisions to BIO-5 for inclusion in the final MND (edits are in strikethrough and bold):

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

Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites, such as open ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, or burrows, during the breeding season would be a potential significant impact if migratory non-game breeding birds are present. Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites will be scheduled outside the breeding bird season to avoid potential direct impacts to migratory non-game breeding birds protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. The breeding bird nesting season is typically from February 15 through September 15, but can vary slightly from year to year, usually depending on weather conditions. Removing all physical features that could potentially serve as nest sites will also help to prevent birds from nesting within the project site during the breeding season and during construction activities. • A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey for breeding birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits of project disturbance. The survey will be conducted within 72 hours prior to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. • If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the pre-construction survey or they are observed and the qualified biologist determines they will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation will be required. • If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during the pre-construction survey and will potentially be impacted, the site will be mapped on engineering drawings and a no activity buffer zone will be marked (fencing, stakes, 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 occurring near their nest. This no-activity buffer zone will not be disturbed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities. Periodic monitoring by a biologist will be performed to determine when nesting is complete. Once the nesting cycle has finished, project activities may begin within the buffer zone. • If listed bird species are observed within the project site during the pre-construction survey, the biologist will immediately map the area and notify the appropriate resource agency, including CDFW, to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the area only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency, including CDFW. • Birds or their active nests will not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed project will generate additional trips on the State Highway System on US-395 and I-15. Please provide a Safety Analysis Report for I-15 and US-395 facilities affected by the proposed project. The Safety Analysis Report shall follow the attached guidance. See the attached guidance: Local Development Review (LDR) Safety Review Practitioner’s Guidance. Please follow the steps below:
a. To request crash data on the State Highway System, please submit your request via our California Public Records Act (CPRA) portal at mycusthelp.com. b. Please analyze the existing crash data and discuss project’s impact on safety as needed. c. Provide appropriate countermeasures to mitigate/reduce project’s impact as needed.

Response G-1
As shown in Table 4-1 of the May 23, 2025 traffic study, the project is forecast to generate a small amount of trips (i.e., 34 AM and 36 PM PCE peak hour trips). Once assigned to the network, these trips are even less at all nearby Caltrans facilities. As such, based on engineering judgement, the project’s impact on adjacent Caltrans facilities is considered nominal and as such, a safety review is unnecessary.

Comment G-2
Per previous review, the project is in the vicinity of I-15 facility on Main Street. Please include study area intersections for I-15 ramp/Main Street intersections, and street intersections leading to the project site in the TIA (for example, Mesa Linda St/Main St Intersection).

Response G-2
As shown in Exhibit 4-7 (total project traffic volumes) of the most recent version of the traffic study (dated May 23, 2025), only approximately 12 AM peak hour trips and 14 PM peak hour trips are forecast to travel north/south along Mesa Linda Street to/from Main Street/I-15 Freeway. Of these vehicles, none of these trips are truck trips. Per the City of Hesperia’s truck route map, Main Street (between the I-15 and Highway 395) is not an identified truck route, and as such, no trucks have been assigned along Main Street.

Additionally, per the City of Hesperia’s TIA Guidelines, the study area shall include any intersection of “Collector” to higher classification street, with “Collector” or higher classification, shown on Hesperia Circulation Element, at which the proposed project will add 50 or more A.M. or P.M. peak hour trips. In addition, all freeway links with 100 or more peak-hour project trips (two-way); and CMP roadways with 50 or more peak-hour project trips. Based on these considerations, the addition of these intersections along Main Street are not required and the project’s impact can be considered nominal.

Comment G-3
Please include Northbound and Southbound I-15 off-ramp to Main St in the queuing analysis of the report.

Response G-3
Please see Response #1 above. The project is forecast to add a nominal amount of traffic at the Northbound and Southbound I-15 off-ramp intersections along Main Street. As such, the addition of these intersections along Main Street are not required and the project’s impact can be considered nominal. As such, RK does not recommend updating the TIA based on this comment.

Comment G-4
Please consider using the Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) evaluation for recommending improvements at the proposed traffic signal intersection of US-395 and Poplar Street (refer to the attached ISOAP memo dated September 10, 2024).

Response G-4
As directed by the City of Hesperia during the TIA scoping process, this traffic study utilizes the data/approach/methodology from the recently completed traffic study for the I-15 Industrial Project (located adjacent to the project site on the north side of Poplar Street). As such, this traffic study recommends the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of US-395 and Poplar Street which is consistent with the recommendations from the I-15 Industrial Project TIA. Installing a traffic signal at this location does not propose any safety concerns (e.g., spacing with other nearby traffic signals, layout/geometry, etc.). Additionally, given the amount of trucks that will utilize this intersection, a roundabout would not be feasible. Recommendations to signalize this intersection have already been made in past TIA’s without utilizing the ISOAP evaluation.

RK concurs with these past traffic studies that the installation of a traffic signal at this location will provide the safest and most efficient solution. As such, RK does not recommend updating the TIA based on this comment.

Comment G-5
Truck Services specialist should review and concur with truck-related items in the report.

Response G-5
Comment noted. No changes to the TIA are required.

Comment G-6
A 2% per year growth rate is applied to background traffic, but there’s no reference to SCAG, SBCTA, or Caltrans sources. Using a generic rate without justification can lead to inaccurate forecasts. Recommend supporting the growth assumption with data from a regional travel demand model or Caltrans resources.

Response G-6
Per the City of Hesperia’s TIA Guidelines, for project opening day analysis, “Use accepted growth rates provided by the jurisdictions in which the analysis is to take place. Each jurisdiction's growth rates should be used for intersections and segments within that jurisdiction.” A two percent (2%) annual ambient growth rate is typical for the City of Hesperia and was confirmed during the scoping process. Additionally, this growth rate is consistent with the rate utilized in the I-15 Industrial Project TIA. Furthermore, the addition of cumulative projects within the area were manually assigned to the study area in addition to the ambient growth rate. As such, RK does not recommend updating the TIA based on this comment.

Comment G-7
Although the project description includes a truck stop with 8 fueling stations, the TIA only analyzes two warehouses. This may underestimate traffic impacts. Recommend updating the TIA to include truck stop traffic or confirming its removal from the project.

Response G-7
The project is no longer proposing a truck stop. The description used in the TIA is what the project is currently proposing. As such, no changes to the TIA are necessary.

Comment G-8
Although the TIA models area-wide traffic impacts, it does not confirm whether or how project-generated trips utilize Caltrans facilities such as US-395 or the I-15 ramps. The trip description states that approximately 60 percent of vehicle trips will come from or go to the Main Street ramps. However, the TIA does not include the Main Street ramps or the Main Street and Mesa Linda Street intersection in the list of analyzed intersections. This omission is concerning, as these are key access points to the regional transportation network. Additionally, based on the provided trip distribution figures, it is difficult to accept the assumption that no trucks associated with the project will use the Main Street ramps. It is recommended that the TIA clearly identify which Caltrans facilities will carry project traffic, quantify the number of trips expected to use each route, and include the relevant intersections in the traffic analysis. This information is critical for a transparent and complete assessment of potential impacts on state facilities.

Response G-8
Please see Response #2 above. The project is forecast to add a nominal amount of traffic at the Northbound and Southbound I-15 off-ramp intersections along Main Street. As such, the addition of these intersections along Main Street are not required and the project’s impact can be considered nominal.

Comment G-9
The background traffic volumes on US-395 and I-15 appear to be escalated from nearby local studies, but the TIA does not provide a complete reference to the source studies or include the full reports or trip count sheets. Additionally, these background volumes are not cross validated against Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data or Caltrans traffic count station data. For consistency and transparency, recommend including the complete local study report or at minimum the relevant traffic count sheets used for background traffic estimation. Also recommend validating existing and future traffic volumes on Caltrans facilities using Caltrans PeMS or count station data to ensure alignment with actual observed trends and to support defensible forecasting.

Response G-9
The referenced study is the I-15 Industrial Park Project Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Dudek, dated October 2022. At the time of initial scoping, this study had just been completed and City of Hesperia staff directed that the traffic analysis for this project be based on the information contained within this Dudek study (for consistency between both sites). The I-15 Industrial Park TIA, completed by Dudek, will be provided to Caltrans for reference.

Comment G-10
The TIA should address the horizon year assumption. The selected 2040 horizon is only 14 years beyond the project opening year (2026), not the typical 20- year planning horizon recommended for long-range traffic analysis.

Response G-10
In May 2023, a scoping agreement was submitted to and ultimately approved by the City of Hesperia. Per the direction of the City, traffic volumes (including existing, opening year, and horizon year) were to be utilized from the recently completed traffic study for the I-15 Industrial Project (located adjacent to the project site on the north side of Poplar Street). Based on these considerations, no changes to the traffic study are recommended.

Comment G-11
The project affects Caltrans intersections (e.g., US-395), but the IS/MND and TIA do not state whether work will occur in Caltrans right-of-way or if an encroachment permit is needed. Recommend clarifying this and identifying any required Caltrans permits.

Response G-11
As concluded in the traffic impact analysis, improvements have been identified for all operationally deficient intersections consistent with the I-15 Industrial Park Project Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Dudek, dated October 2022. The project's responsibility for all identified off-site intersections are in the form of fair share contributions. The traffic impact analysis does not indicate that the project will perform any direct work on any Caltrans right-of-way. However, an encroachment permit will be obtained if ultimately the project is required to work within any Caltrans right-of-way.

Comment G-12
The TIA explains that a traffic signal at US-395 and Poplar Street must be installed by either this project or another (I-15 Industrial Park), depending on timing. The IS/MND does not clearly state who is responsible if Cargo Solutions is built first. Recommend adding a clear condition of approval that defines signal installation responsibility and reimbursement terms.

Response G-12
The IS/MND will clearly state that if the proposed Cargo Solutions project is built prior to the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of US-395 & Poplar Street, the proposed Cargo Solutions project shall construct this signal and be reimbursed for the total costs less their fair share contribution. The traffic signal shall be constructed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.

Comment G-13
While the VMT screening memo is referenced in the appendix, the IS/MND briefly says the site is in a “low VMT area” without explaining why or how that was determined. Recommend including a brief explanation or summary of the VMT screening criteria and findings in the IS/MND’s transportation section.

Response G-13
The VMT section in the IS/MND will be expanded to include the following additional language from Chapter 10 of the traffic impact analysis explaining why/how the project is located within a low VMT area:

Per the City of Hesperia Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) Assessment, dated July 2020: “Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area." To identify if the project is in a low VMT-generating area, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT screening tool was utilized to compare the project’s baseline TAZ VMT to the County's baseline VMT metric. Since the project is exclusively an industrial use (i.e., warehousing), the “PA VMT Per Worker” metric was utilized for evaluation Based on the results of the SBCTA VMT screening tool, the proposed project’s TAZ VMT was calculated to be 16.0 PA VMT Per Worker which does not exceed the County VMT threshold of significance of 16.9 VMT Per Worker. Therefore, the proposed project does satisfy the Low VMT Generating Area Screening and may be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT under CEQA.

Comment G-14
Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, they must comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards upon project completion. Additionally, the project must ensure the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the construction phase. These access considerations align with Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Response G-14
Comment acknowledged. As previously mentioned, the project does not intend to directly perform work on any Caltrans facilities, but will comply with ADA Standards if any work on Caltrans facilities is ultimately required. The project will also ensure the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the construction phase.

Comment G-15
Caltrans Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (R/W) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit.

Response G-15
Comment acknowledged. Any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans' Right-of-Way (R/W) will require a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit.

Errata
The City has requested from the Project Applicant to remove the tandem tractor/trailer parking in these areas shown below from the site plan to adhere to City regulations. Additionally, the City requested double or hairpin striping for the parking spots.

Previous Site Plan - Parking Summary
Buildings
Type of Parking
Stalls
Total
Building 1
Employee/Guest
123
551
Tractor/Trailer
101
Tractor Only
59 Building 2
Employee/Guest
141
Tractor/Trailer
76 Tractor Only
51 Current Site Plan - Parking Summary
Building 1
Employee/Guest
123
482
Tractor/Trailer
70 Tractor Only
59 Building 2
Employee/Guest
141
Tractor/Trailer
38 Tractor Only
51 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following matrix provides a list of topical issues that were analyzed in the Initial Study. Based on the minor changes to the tandem tractor/trailer parking requested by the City, the results of those changes are noted below.

Environmental Issue
IS/MND Conclusions
Minor Modified Project Conclusions
Minor Modified Project in Comparison to the IS/MND
Aesthetics
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
No Impact
No Impact
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Air Quality
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Biological Resources
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Cultural Resources
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Energy
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Geology and Soils
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Hazardous Materials
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact/No Change
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Hydrology/Water Quality
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Land Use & Planning
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Mineral Resources
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Noise
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Population and Housing
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Public Services
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Recreation
No Impact
No Impact
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Traffic/Transportation
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Tribal Cultural Resources
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Utilities
Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Wildfire
No Impact
No Impact
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Net Benefit/Less Impact
Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with § 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and § 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a MND or an EIR. The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the use of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person.

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

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

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

Table 4.0-1

FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING ACTION

1. ENFORCEMENT AGENCY

2. MONITORING AGENCY

3. MONITORING PHASE

4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold 4.4a)
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? MM BIO-1: Section 2081 CFGC Incidental Take Permit
Western Joshua trees are a state candidate for listing under CESA and will require a 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) with compensatory mitigation for impacts, in addition to the surveys that are recommended in the discussion of MM BIO-7. The exceptions and permitting process under the California Desert Native Plants Act and the separate exceptions under the Native Plant Protection Act will not apply to western Joshua tree in any manner. For projects where “take” is incidental to carrying out an otherwise lawful activity, an ITP may be obtained from CDFW. The Project may also obtain take authorization through § 1927 of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (WJTCA).

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

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

A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction general wildlife survey for sensitive wildlife and potential nesting sites such as open ground, shrubs, and burrows within the limits of project disturbance. The survey will be conducted at least seven days prior to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. It will end no more than three days prior to vegetation, substrate, and structure removal and/or disturbance.

If sensitive species and/or active nesting sites are observed during the pre-construction survey or they are observed and will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation will be required.

If any sensitive wildlife species are identified within the project site during the pre-construction survey, the biologist will immediately map the area and notify the appropriate resource agency to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the area only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency. zone.

Sensitive wildlife species and/or potential nesting sites will not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved.

MM BIO-4: Loggerhead Shrike Survey and Protection Measures The following measures are proposed in order to minimize impacts to loggerhead shrike, for which there is suitable habitat in the BSA.

If activities occur during the breeding/nesting period, a wildlife survey will be completed by a qualified biologist to identify potential loggerhead shrike activity in the area of the project activities.

Additional species surveys to determine presence/absence of birds prior to disturbances, from May 1 until the work start date, if the work start date is prior to August 31. Surveys are to occur weekly in May, every other week in June, and once per month in July and August (assuming no loggerhead shrike are observed).

Incidental occurrences of other sensitive avian species such as Swainson’s hawk, prairie falcon, and Cooper’s hawk should also be recorded during the survey.

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

A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey for breeding birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits of project disturbance. The survey will be conducted within 72 hours prior to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging.

If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the pre-construction survey or they are observed and the qualified biologist determines they will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation will be required.

If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during the pre-construction survey and will potentially be impacted, the site will be mapped on engineering drawings and a no activity buffer zone will be marked (fencing, stakes, 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 occurring near their nest. This no-activity buffer zone will not be disturbed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities. Periodic monitoring by a biologist will be performed to determine when nesting is complete. Once the nesting cycle has finished, project activities may begin within the buffer zone.

If listed bird species are observed within the project site during the pre-construction survey, the biologist will immediately map the area and notify the appropriate resource agency, including CDFW, to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the area only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency, including CDFW.

Birds or their active nests will not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved.

Applicant
Applicant
Applicant
Applicant
Field Verification
Field Verification
Field Verification
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

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

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

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

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

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

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

3. During project design, during project construction activities, and during operation Threshold 4.4b)
Have Substantial Adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? MM BIO-6: Mitigation for Impacts to Western Joshua Tree and California Juniper Woodlands Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The entirety of the project area is currently planned for development. Approximately 19 acres is California juniper woodland. The California juniper woodland is a sensitive natural community, as such, impacts as a result of the project, shall be mitigated so that all impacts to these habitats are mitigated on acreage and tree basis.

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

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

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

Habitat Preservation and Protection Plan
For applicant-responsible compensatory mitigation, then the project proponent shall enter into a binding legal agreement regarding the preservation of offsite lands describing the terms of the acquisition, enhancement, and management of those lands. Fee title to acquired habitat lands, or a conservation easement over these lands, shall be transferred to CDFW or to an entity approved by CDFW, along with financial assurances (funds) for preservation, rehabilitation, and enhancement of the land, and an endowment for permanent management of the lands.

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

Applicant
Field Verification
1 City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

3. During project design, during project construction activities, and during operation Threshold 4.4e)
Have Substantial Adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? MM BIO-7: Native Desert Vegetation Survey and Protected Plant Preservation Plan A Preservation Plan will be prepared and submitted to the City, which is required by City Municipal Code. A native desert vegetation survey must be conducted to produce findings that will guide the formation of this plan. The survey objective is to evaluate the health and general condition of the western Joshua trees and creosote bush present on the project site. A project-specific plan will provide further guidance regarding the transplant and/or preservation of the western Joshua trees and protection for creosote rings “10 feet or greater in diameter” as per § 16.24.150 of City Municipal Code. Transplant suitability of the western Joshua trees will be determined by the results of the survey. This survey shall be conducted by a qualified City-approved biologist or arborist. The plan will incorporate survey data, identify and outline preconstruction survey methods for the native desert vegetation on the project site, describe preconstruction and construction-phase biological monitoring and transplant methods that are applicable, or outline any identified CDFW permit and Memorandum of Understanding requirements for active relocation, if either is necessary. The Plan should be referred to for a detailing of protective actions regarding the western Joshua trees on the project site.

Applicant
Field Verification
1 City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

3. During project design, during project construction activities, and during operation Mitigation Measure Biological Resources 8 (MM-BIO-8) (New): Mohave ground squirrel Visual surveys for Mohave ground squirrels shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to ground disturbing activities. Visual surveys shall be conducted between March 15 and April 15 according to the California Department of Fish and Game Mohave Ground Squirrel Survey Guidelines (CDFW 2023). Visual surveys shall be conducted on the Project site during daylight hours by a qualified biologist who can readily identify Mohave ground squirrel and white-tailed antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus). If the survey or monitoring throughout the duration of the Project confirms presence of Mohave ground squirrel, the Project proponent shall fully avoid impacts to Mohave ground squirrel or should obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for Mohave ground squirrel if impacts are unavoidable.

Applicant
Field Verification
1 City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

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

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

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

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

Qualified Archaeologist and Project Contractor
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

3. During construction activities
MM CUL 3
If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

Qualified Archaeologist and Project Contractor
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

3. During construction activities
Threshold 4.5c): Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

MM CUL 2
If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work will stop within a 30foot radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino County Coroner will be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they will contact the NAHC. The NAHC will be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).

Project Construction Contractor
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

3. During project construction activities

4.7 Geology and Soils
Threshold 4.7f):

Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? MM GEO 1
Before the beginning of project construction, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to remain on-call for the duration of project ground disturbance activities. If paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction, the contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City. The on-call paleontologist shall be notified and afforded the necessary time and funds to recover and analyze the finds and curate the find(s) with an accredited repository for paleontological resources. Subsequently, the monitor shall remain onsite for the duration of the ground disturbance to ensure the protection of any other resources that are found during construction on the project site Project Applicant, Qualified Paleontologist
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

3. During construction activities

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold 4.9a)
Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? MM HAZ-1
In the event that the future tenant will handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity threshold, the lease agreement with the future tenant shall require the tenant to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan which would include an inventory of all hazardous materials used, stored, or otherwise managed onsite to the County of San Bernardino County Fire Department – Hazardous Materials Division and the Fontana Fire Protection District. The recommendations of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan would be included in the lease agreement (signed by the tenant) as mandatory measures required to be implemented by the tenant MM HAZ-2
In the event that the future occupant will handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity threshold, the occupancy agreement shall require the occupant, in coordination with the San Bernardino County Fire Department, to identify routes along which hazardous materials may routinely be transported. If essential facilities such as schools, hospitals, child care centers, or other facilities with special evacuation needs are located along these routes, the future occupant shall develop an emergency response plan that can be implemented in the event of an unauthorized release of hazardous materials. The recommendations of the Emergency Response Plan would be included in the occupancy agreement (signed by the future occupant) as mandatory measures required to be implemented by the future occupant.

Project Applicant
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

3. During project design, during project construction activities, and during operation Threshold 4.9b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Refer to MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 under Threshold 4.9a).

Threshold 4.9f)
Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Refer to MM TRANS-3 under Threshold 4.17c).

4.17 Transportation
Threshold 4.17a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? MM TRANS-1
The Project Applicant would be required to implement operational improvements detailed in section 11.7 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report to ensure that all affected intersections by project buildout would have an adequate level of service (LOS).

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

Project Applicant
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia

2. City of Hesperia

3.Before construction
Threshold 4.17c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? MM TRANS-3
Prior to construction, the General Contractor shall submit a detailed Construction Management Plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Hesperia. The Construction Management Plan shall specify that the Construction Manager will schedule truck traffic and employee shifts to avoid creating trips during the peak traffic periods, as is feasible for construction operations. All measures, including identified truck routes and designated employee parking areas, shall be included in the Construction Management Plan. The Plan shall include but is not limited to the following provisions:

The Construction Management Plan shall specify how traffic will be routed and controlled during the construction phase, including which lane(s) of traffic will be temporarily blocked off for construction work.

Specification of permitted hours for construction-related deliveries and removal of heavy equipment and material.

Specification of where construction workers would park their personal vehicles during project construction with a requirement that at no time shall construction worker vehicles block any driveways. If complaints are received by the project applicant regarding issues with construction worker vehicle parking, the project applicant shall identify alternative parking options for construction workers so as not to interfere with any surrounding parking availability.

Identification of how emergency access to and around the project site will be maintained during project construction.

Specification of haul routes for delivery or removal of heavy and/or oversized equipment or material loads. Where feasible, delivery or removal of oversized equipment or material loads shall be conducted during off-peak traffic periods.

Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections around the project site and designate safe crossing locations for all pedestrian detours.

Maintain the security of the project site by erecting temporary fencing during the construction phase of the project. Any onsite night lighting used during the construction phase of the project shall be in compliance with the lighting requirements of the City of Hesperia.

If temporary lane closures are necessary for the installation of utilities, emergency access should be maintained at all times.

Flag persons and/or detours shall be provided as needed to ensure safe traffic operations.

Construction signs shall be posted to advise of reduced construction zone speed limits.

The project design shall include entry/exit gates for first responders’ vehicles to gain access to the project site.

City of Hesperia and Construction Manager
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia

2. City of Hesperia

3. During
Construction
Threshold 4.17d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? MM TRANS-3.

Refer to Threshold 4.17c).

City of Hesperia and Construction Manager
Construction Management Plan

1. City of Hesperia

2. City of Hesperia

3. During
Construction

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.18b): cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined to be a significant resource to a California Native American tribe pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1(c)? MM TCR-1
The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

Qualified Archaeologist and Project Contractor
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

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

Qualified Archaeologist and Project Contractor
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

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

Qualified Archaeologist and Project Contractor
Field Verification

1. City of Hesperia Planning Department

2. City of Hesperia Planning Department

3. During construction activities

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A: NOTICE OF INTENT
ATTACHMENT B: NOI POSTING AT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE ATTACHMENT C: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER NOI POSTING

ATTACHMENT D: AB 52 TRIBAL CONSULTATION LETTER TO THE

TORRES MARTINEZ DESERT CAHUILLA INDIANS
ATTACHMENT D: AB 52 TRIBAL CONSULTATION LETTER TO THE

CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
ATTACHMENT D: AB 52 TRIBAL CONSULTATION LETTER TO THE

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS: COMMENT LETTER A - MOJAVE WATER AGENCY ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS: COMMENT LETTER B - LOSEAU DRURY ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS: COMMENT LETTER C - SOCALGAS ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS: COMMENT LETTER D - MOJAVE DESERT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS: COMMENT LETTER E - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS: COMMENT LETTER F – LOZEAU DRURY ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS: COMMENT LETTER G - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7187/Cargo Solutions Warehouse and Truck Stop Page i
Responses to Comments April 2026
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 56 Responses to Comments April 2026
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 57 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2026 7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 65 Responses to Comments April 2026
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 56 Responses to Comments April 2026
7187_Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse Project, Hesperia, CA Page 57 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2026 CEQA only requires the lead agency to respond to comments that are received in response to an environmental impact report (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, § 15088, Evaluation of and Response to Comments).

Table of Contents
Responses to Comments
Responses to Comments
Responses to Comments
Responses to Comments
Responses to Comments

Hesperia City CouncilMay 5, 2026

Hesperia City Council
May 5, 2026