Highland City Council
October 13, 2026

which the MND states is 987,255 kilowatt-hours per year during operation. See MND at

54. The Project would consume approximately 3,347,134 thousand British thermal units of natural gas per year of operations. See Id. This equates to approximately 980,948 kWh/year.21 A rooftop solar PV installation that generates over 1,600,000 kWh/year, as described above, could eliminate the need to use natural gas entirely, and all equipment and appliances could be substituted with electric ones. Burning natural gas is both inefficient and wasteful in that it is using a finite chemical energy that requires extraction, drilling, and transportation – particularly when a cleaner, more efficient source such as on-site solar is possible. Similarly, the Project’s continued reliance solely on fossil fuels for transportation suggests further inefficiency and waste in the Project’s energy consumption. The Project could demonstrate energy efficiency and a decreased reliance on fossil fuels by requiring some portion of on-site vehicles to be electric or utilize alternative fuels. It is simply not supportable for the MND to conclude that the Project would not “[r]esult in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation,” as the data above illustrates that is not the case. In this case, the Project unnecessarily consumes energy resources by burning fossil fuels when cleaner and more efficient energy sources are available, and by not incorporating on-site energy generation in the Project, instead unnecessarily pulling energy from the grid when it could be generated on-site for project consumption.

Next, the MND concludes that the Project would not “[c]onflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency” because the Project will comply with Title 24 standards. However, once again, the MND does not explain its conclusion that meeting minimum building requirements demonstrates that the Project would not conflict with state or local energy plans. Indeed, courts have rejected EIRs that rely merely on compliance with building codes to address project impacts without a more detailed analysis of the considerations outlined in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. See Clean Energy, 225 Cal.App.4th at 211 (“Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of new commercial construction, it does not address many of the ft.). Assuming that 100 square feet of rooftop can accommodate 1 kW of rooftop solar and assuming an annual solar energy yield of 1,550 hours per kW, 104,000 square feet of rooftop solar can produce approximately 1,612,000 kWh/year (104,000 square feet of rooftop = 1,040 kW of rooftop solar. 1,040 kW × 1,550 hour annual solar energy yield = 1,812,000 kWh/year). See Ex. N. (Los Angeles County Public Works Renewable Energy Master Plan (Jan. 2020)) at 30.
23 One kWh = 3,412.142 Btu.
182
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

considerations required under [A]ppendix F”); Ukiah Citizens, 248 Cal.App.4th at 265 (EIR “improperly relie[d] on compliance with the building code to mitigate operational and construction energy impacts, without further discussion of the . . . [A]ppendix F criteria”); see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(b) (discussing other relevant considerations in addition to compliance with the building code). Simply because a project complies with Title 24 conservation standards (which is the bare minimum required for the issuance of a building permit), this does not automatically result in a less than significant impact to energy resources.

The MND must provide evidence to support its conclusion that energy impacts will be less than significant. See CEQA Guidelines, Appx. F, § II.D. If impacts are significant, the MND must then also identify and describe energy-conserving measures, like those outlined in Appendix F, that would be implemented during operation of the Project to reduce the energy use. Here, the MND should have recognized the Project’s significant energy impacts and explored the applicable mitigation measures identified in Appendix F—for example, how incorporating renewable energy systems could mitigate the Project’s energy use impacts. See id. §§ II.D.2, II.D.4. Without a proper analysis and acknowledgement of foreseeable impacts and incorporation of adequate mitigation, the MND’s conclusions that the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant are not supported by substantial evidence. The facts suggest that the Project’s energy use in transportation and ongoing operation are indeed significant and that mitigation is required.

C. The MND Fails to Properly Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Air Quality and Hazardous Materials Impacts, which Substantial Evidence in the Record Shows Will Be Significant.

An expert report prepared by SWAPE in support of the GSEJA Comments identified numerous omissions, evidentiary deficiencies, and analytical flaws in the MND’s air quality and hazardous materials analyses. See MND at PDF 2026-93. The MND materials do not contain any substantive response to SWAPE’s report or the multiple flaws identified therein.

The SWAPE report also provided independent, expert evidence amply sufficient to support a fair argument that the Project’s air quality impacts will be significant. For example, SWAPE found that construction VOC emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds under the construction schedule actually proposed in the MND (as opposed to the different, and unsupported, construction schedule inputs apparently used in the air quality modeling). Id. at 2030-31, 2034. SWAPE also found that the Project as a whole would cause a significant health risk impact in excess of SCAQMD’s cancer risk 183
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

threshold. Id. at 2042-43. As SWAPE points out, this Project is one of many warehouse projects proposed to be located in a disadvantaged community already suffering from very high cancer risks. Id. at 2036 (showing Project site has an existing cancer risk of 439 in one million); see also generally id. at 2034-42.

Finally, noting that the MND’s Health Risk Assessment showed cancer risks very close to the threshold, SCAQMD requested that the City and Applicant incorporate a suite of standard mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts on air quality and the health of nearby residents. MND at PDF 1978-80. The Applicant refused on the ground that the Project’s impacts are less than significant and require no mitigation. Id. at 1983-84. The Applicant’s refusal to incorporate SCAQMD’s proposed mitigation is unlawful and unjustified, particularly in the context of substantial evidence in the SWAPE report that the Project’s impacts will be significant.

D. The Project Conflicts With Applicable Plans Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Which is a Significant Impact.

California’s Inland Empire—which generally comprises most of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties—is already host to more than 4,000 warehouses and roughly 600,000 daily truck trips that produce 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide.22 Together, these facilities result in thousands of truck trips, massive quantities of toxic air emissions, substantial truck traffic, and noise. Neighborhoods throughout the two counties area are already overburdened with impacts from these facilities, and the City of Highland is no exception. Warehouse development in the region is already having devastating human health and climate change impacts on the region, and the City of Highland should not permit additional warehouse development that will only exacerbate the issue. 22 See Ex. O “California warehouse boom comes with health, environmental costs for Inland Empire residents,” J. Newton, Cal Matters, Jan. 26, 2023, available at https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/01/inland-empire-california-warehousedevelopment/; Ex. P “Warehouse boom transformed Inland Empire. Are jobs worth the environmental degradation?” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 5, 2023, available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-02-05/warehouses-big-rigs-fill-inlandempire-streets; Ex. Q “Inland Empire residents are fighting warehouse sprawl,” R.

Fonseca, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 7, 2023, available at
https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2023-02-07/essential-californiawarehouses-inland-empire-essential-california. 184
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

The MND identifies the substantial GHG emissions that will be generated by the Project at 2,928 MT CO2e per year. The MND concludes that the Project’s GHG emissions impacts are less than significant, but the MND does not justify the threshold used to determine significance for GHG emissions and why it is suitable for this Project.

Further, the MND does not accurately recognize that the Project will conflict with several plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and does not explain how the project’s emissions align with California’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets.

1. The Project’s GHG Emissions Conflict With Targets Set in CARB’s 2022 and 2017 Scoping Plans.

A project can be found to be consistent with the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) 2022 Scoping Plan if it would meet the Scoping Plan policies and would not impede attainment of the goals therein. The MND states that “[t]he proposed project would support the state’s carbon neutrality goals, as implementation includes addition of urban-tree and native plantings throughout the project site, which represent opportunities for potential carbon removal and sequestration over the project life-time.” MND at PDF

77. However, the 2022 Scoping Plan emphasizes that reliance on carbon sequestration in the state’s natural and working lands will not be sufficient to address residual GHG emissions, and achieving carbon neutrality will require research, development, and deployment of additional methods. Nor does the MND provide any evidence that a handful of ornamental trees and shrubs planted in parking lots and alongside the warehouse building (see Landscape Sheet 1 of the Project Development Plans, Attachment B to the Planning Commission staff report) will meaningfully sequester enough carbon to offset the emissions from more than 400 passenger-car-equivalent trips every day.

The MND further states that “[g]iven that the specific path to neutrality will require development of technologies and programs that are not currently known or available, the project’s role in supporting the statewide goal would be speculative and cannot be wholly identified at this time.” MND at PDF 77. This statement is false and disingenuous. The Project indeed can include measures (including measures far more meaningful and effective than basic landscaping) that will bring the City – and, by extension, the State – closer to carbon neutrality.

Instead, the Project proposes to burn fossil fuels for energy, which contributes to GHG emissions of 2,928 MT CO2e per year. Paradoxically, the MND somehow concludes that the Project supports the State in meeting its GHG emissions reduction goals. In order to bolster this conclusion, the MND must include an explanation how this 185
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

is possible, including the assumptions underlying the conclusion that this Project helps contribute to achieving net neutral carbon emissions by 2045 in compliance with CARB and SCAQMD guidance. Since the MND does not provide any such explanation or supporting evidence, the MND should properly conclude that the Project cannot meet GHG threshold b: “the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases” even if the Project’s annual emissions do not exceed the annual threshold recommended by SCAQMD.

The MND contains numerous references to consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan. However, the project directly conflicts with the 2017 Scoping Plan’s recommended per capita GHG thresholds, which are to reduce emissions to 6.0 MTCO₂e per capita by 2030 and to 2.0 MTCO₂e per capita by 2050. See Ex. R at 99 (2017 CARB Scoping Plan). With the Project’s per-service population of 147 employees (see MND at 104) and GHG emissions of 2,928 MT CO2e per year, this equates to approximately 19.9 MT CO2e per capita per year, which is over three times the 2030 goal and nearly 10 times the 2050 target. The MND provides no explanation or discussion of how the project could possibly meet these targets during the Project’s operational lifespan. Without such evidence, the MND must conclude that the Project will remain inconsistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan's long-term goals.

Since the Project conflicts with CARB’s ambitious GHG reduction goals, its impacts are significant – both directly and cumulatively – and mitigation measures to reduce emission must be identified. Implementation of mitigation measures such as electrification of all on-site equipment, prohibition on natural gas burning equipment and appliances, and on-site energy generation as described in the Energy section of this letter would reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. On-site generation of the amount of energy needed to power the project would also contribute to consistency with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan to achieve carbon neutrality.

2. The Project’s GHG Emissions Exceed the SCAQMD 2035
Efficiency Target.

Beyond inconsistency with the CARB Scoping Plan, the Project’s service population efficiency value exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e per service population per year, indicating a potentially significant impact not identified or addressed by the MND. This is yet another example of where the MND’s conclusion that the Project’s impacts are less than significant is inaccurate and unsupported. Page 19 of the expert report prepared by SWAPE provides substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project’s GHG emissions impacts will be 186
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

significant. See MND at PDF 2044. The MND improperly omits any analysis of this threshold.

3. The Project is Inconsistent with the Statewide Net-Zero GHG Emissions Goals of Executive Order (EO) B-55-18.

The MND does not analyze consistency with EO B-55-18, which sets a statewide goal of net-zero GHG emissions no later than 2045 and maintain net negative emissions after reaching that point. The MND fails to quantify whether the project’s operational emissions materially impede achievement of statewide GHG reduction goals.

E. The MND’s reliance on the 3,000 MT CO2e/year South Coast Air Quality Management District threshold is improper and unsupported.

The MND uses SCAQMD’s “recommended” threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year to conclude that the Project’s annual operational greenhouse gas emissions are not significant. MND at 66. However, the MND has not supported the use of this threshold with substantial evidence as required by CEQA. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7(b).

Therefore, the MND’s reliance on this threshold to determine that greenhouse gas emissions are not significant is invalid.

As the Advocates for the Environment comments (“AE Comments”) note, SCAQMD has not formally adopted the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold, nor did it substantiate it with evidence. AE Comments, MND at 2002-2003. The cited document is merely a “Stakeholder Working Group Meeting” presentation, with no sources or evidence supporting the presented thresholds.23
Further, this unofficial threshold is from 2010 and does not incorporate recent state goals related to greenhouse gas emissions, such as EO B-55-18. See AE Comments, MND at 2003-2005. CEQA requires the MND’s analysis to “reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b); Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 518. The MND fails to do so and is deficient under CEQA. 23 SCAQMD, Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15, September 28, 2010. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008- 2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 187
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

F. The MND Improperly Defers Analysis and Mitigation.

The MND improperly defers analysis and mitigation on a number of topics, stating future assessment and review will preclude significant impacts. CEQA prohibits this type of deferred analysis and mitigation. “CEQA’s demand for meaningful information ‘is not satisfied by simply stating information will be provided in the future.’” Clean Energy, 225 Cal.App.4th at 200; see also Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92 (“reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decision making”).

For example, under Public Utilities Code section 21676(b), review by the San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission is required before the City may amend its General Plan, but the MND does not consider this review. See GSEJA Comments, MND at 2015-2016. The MND also improperly defers analysis on traffic flow and street design requirements, and emergency vehicle access requirements. It simply states that the Project “would be reviewed, designed, and constructed” according to applicable standards at later phases of review. MND at 106; see GSEJA Comments, MND at 2022- 2023. This deferred analysis is prohibited under CEQA.

VI. The Project Conflicts with the City of Highland General Plan and Cannot Be Approved.

The City cannot approve this Project because it conflicts with the City’s General Plan. The Project’s floor area ratio (“FAR”) is 0.56, and the MND states that the applicable maximum FAR within the Business Park designation is 0.6, citing the City’s General Plan. MND at 79. In fact, the General Plan sets the Business Park Maximum Intensity at 0.45 FAR.
24 Further, the buildout forecast for the Business Park designation estimates an even lower probable intensity of 0.30.25 Thus, the Project’s FAR of 0.56 exceeds the maximum density permitted by the City and is inconsistent with the General Plan.

To approve a conditional use permit, the City requires affirmative findings, including that the proposed use “is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Highland general plan” and all other development standards. City of Highland Mun.

Code, § 16.08.050(E)(1). Similarly, to approve a zoning change, the City Council must 24 City of Highland, General Plan, Land Use Element at 2-15, available at https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3216/Land-Use-Element-PDF. 25 Id., Table 2.2 - Nonresidential Buildout Estimates at 2-21. 188
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

find the zoning change “consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan, and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the general plan.” Id., § 16.08.040(D)(1). The City Council also must find that the General Plan amendment proposed as part of this Project “is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan, or the general plan as revised by the proposed amendment, and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the plan.” Id., §

16.08.030(G)(1). The findings proposed in the draft resolution (Attachment C to the Staff Report) do not address the Project’s facial inconsistency with the maximum FAR standards in the General Plan. Because the City cannot make the required findings, it cannot approve this Project.

To approve the CUP, the City must also find that “the site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development which is proposed.” Id., § 16.08.030(E)(3). Because the intensity of the Project at 0.56 FAR is in excess of the maximum allowed at 0.45 FAR, the Project is, by definition, too intense for a property with a Business Park General Plan land use designation. At 0.56 FAR, the Project is, in fact, developed too intensely for any of the City of Highland’s non-residential land use designations, where the highest allowable maximum intensity is 0.50 FAR.

The MND also fails to evaluate whether this inconsistency with the General Plan is a significant impact, which would require further analysis and/or mitigation.

VII. The Project As Designed Is Inconsistent with AB 98/SB 414 and Cannot Be Approved.

The Staff Report for the Project states that the Project is subject to certain provisions of AB 98/SB 414 currently codified at Government Code section 65098.1(d).

Staff Report at 10. As designed, this Project is inconsistent with AB 98/SB 414 and cannot be approved.

The Project does not meet the standards of Government Code section 65098.1(d).

Subdivision (d)(1) requires projects to “[o]rient truck loading bays on the side of the logistics use development that is away from the nearest sensitive receptor, to the extent feasible.” Here, the nearest sensitive receptor (at 26604 5th Street) is located just eastnortheast of the truck entry to the east side of the warehouse where the truck bays will be located. Compare Staff Report Attachment B at 2 (Site Plan) with Exs. A, B, and S (Google Maps images showing distances from truck entrance and loading bays to nearest sensitive receptor). The east side of the warehouse is the side located closest to the nearest sensitive receptor, not “away from” it as subdivision (d)(1) requires. Neither the Staff Report nor the draft resolution establishes that it would be infeasible to orient the 189
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

loading docks differently (for example, on the south side of the warehouse, toward 3rd Street and across from existing logistics uses).

The Project is also inconsistent with subdivision (d)(2), which requires projects to “[l]ocate truck entry, exit, and internal circulation away from sensitive receptors. Heavyduty diesel truck drive aisles shall be prohibited from being used on sides of the logistics use development that are directly adjacent to a sensitive receptor property line.” Here, the Project’s northern driveway is located virtually right across the street from the nearest sensitive receptor. Exs. A, B. As discussed above, 80% of the truck traffic from the Project will be turning in and out of this driveway directly in front of the multifamily residence at 26604 5th Street, and passing in front of this and other sensitive receptors in both directions. See Ex. B (Google Maps image showing uses along 5th Street immediately to the east of the Project, including additional multifamily residences and Highland Head Start). The north and east sides of the Project are also across the street from—and therefore effectively “directly adjacent to”—sensitive residential receptors, which subdivision (d)(2) expressly “prohibit[s].” The Project further fails to comply with subdivision (d)(3), which requires buffering and screening “as described in section 65098.2.” Section 65908.2(a)(1) requires buffers that “fully screen the logistics use development” from sensitive receptors within 900 feet of the development. Here, the Project’s loading docks will likely be visible (and audible) from the nearest sensitive receptor, which will have a direct line of sight through the northern driveway gate (and, from the second floor, over any adjacent wall).

Finally, the Staff Report fails to address the other requirements of section 65098.1(d), much less provide any evidence that the Project is consistent with them. The Project is facially inconsistent with AB 98/SB 414 and cannot be approved as designed.

VIII. The Staff Report and Draft Resolution Fail to Justify a Variance or Exception from Otherwise Applicable Parking Requirements.

The MND admits that the Project is inconsistent with applicable parking requirements under applicable ordinances. Appendix J2 to the MND states that the Project would require 209 parking spaces “per the Code.” MND at PDF 1871; Mun. Code § 16.52.030, Table 16.52.030A at E.3 (requiring one off-street parking space “per 1,000 gross ft. of floor area devoted to warehousing plus the required amount of parking for gross square footage devoted to other uses”). Yet the Project provides only 79 spaces—a 130-space shortfall. MND at PDF 1871.

The Project therefore cannot be approved without a variances and/or exception. A decrease in the required number of spaces “may be granted under the circumstances 190
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

identified in [Municipal Code section] 16.52.050, or by the approval of a variance.” Mun.

Code § 16.52.020(F)(2). Yet neither the MND, the Staff Report, nor the draft resolution provides an adequate justification for an exception or variance from parking requirements here.

First, none of the “circumstances identified” in Municipal Code section 16.52.050 apply here. The Staff Report mentions section 16.52.050(D) (Staff Report at 6), but that provision applies to buildings “contain[ing] extensive areas of employee facilities such as, but not limited to, cafeterias, racquetball courts, health facilities, or covered patios; multiple stairways and elevator shafts in multiple-story buildings, or atriums” that result in “gross leasable space . . . significantly below the 85 percent average assumed in the parking schedules.” Mun. Code § 16.52.050(D). There is no indication in the record that the Project contains any such features or that its “gross leasable space” is “significantly below the 85 percent average.” The Staff Report does not describe the Municipal Code requirement accurately, referring instead to a “low percentage of usable space.” Staff Report at 6. Moreover, the Staff Report never even attempts to establish that there is any limitation on “usable space” on the Project site, which the MND describes as entirely undeveloped. The parking study attached as Appendix J2 to the MND similarly fails to address the requirements of the Municipal Code; instead, it compares the Project to warehouses in other jurisdictions and asserts that the 79 spaces provided will be sufficient.
26 But the City must evaluate projects based on its own ordinances, not requirements in other jurisdictions. By its terms, Municipal Code section 16.52.050 does not permit an exception for this Project, and a finding to the contrary cannot be sustained on this record.

Nor can a variance from parking requirements be justified here. Municipal Code section 16.08.070 establishes firm criteria and specific findings for the granting of variances. The variance sought here does not meet the criteria for a minor variance from parking requirements (section 16.08.070(C)(2), allowing variances of no more than 30 percent, “not to exceed two spaces”) and therefore would be a major variance (section

16.08.070(D)). Neither the MND, the Staff Report, nor the draft resolution address the findings required for a variance in section 16.08.070(E). A variance cannot be granted on this record.
26 Moreover, by focusing solely on parking at warehouses in other jurisdictions, Appendix J2 fails to explain how 79 parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate the 147 employees and 218 daily passenger car trips anticipated elsewhere in Appendix J.

See MND at PDF 1861, 1867.
191
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

IX. Request for Notice
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.2 and any other applicable law, please provide copies of any and all future notices related to this project by email to Yeji Jung ([email protected]) and Kevin Bundy ([email protected]).

X. Conclusion
The MND cannot lawfully support approval of the Project. Its conclusions regarding the significance of the Project’s impacts are not supported by substantial evidence. Nor do the MND’s analyses—many of which are incomplete, inadequately described, and unsupported—justify a finding that the Project’s impacts will be less than significant. On the contrary, substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. The City must prepare an EIR in compliance with CEQA before the Planning Commission can further consider or approve this Project.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Kevin P. Bundy
Yeji Jung
Kristi Bascom, AICP
Copy to (via email):

Camille Duarte, Administrative Assistant, [email protected] Exhibits
A. Google Maps Street View screenshot of approximate truck entrance location roughly 150 feet from 26604 5th Street multifamily residence (image accessed January 2026)
B. Google Maps Street View screenshot of 5th Street between Victoria and Central (image accessed January 2026)
C. SBCTA VMT Screening Tool result, 2026 PA VMT per Service Population, from website https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (accessed January 2026) D. SBCTA VMT Screening Tool result, 2026 OD VMT per Service Population, from website https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (accessed January 2026) 192
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

E. SBCTA VMT Screening Tool result, 2026 PA VMT Per Worker, from website https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (accessed January 2026) F. Fehr & Peers, VMT Modeling Lexicon (undated)
G. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Dec. 2018) H. Patriot Warehouses: Localized Significance Thresholds data, summary prepared by Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP (January 2026)
I. San Bernardino Associated Governments, San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program 2016 Update (June 2016)
J. Dudek, 6th Street and Victoria Avenue Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 21-007, City of Highland (November 2021)
K. Dudek, Victoria Avenue and Cypress Street Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 22-004, City of Highland (August 2022)
L. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Frequently Asked Questions from EIA website (www.eia.gov, accessed January 14, 2026)
M. Lado Kurdgelashvili et al., Estimating Technical Potential for Rooftop Photovoltaics in California, Arizona and New Jersey, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP), 2016
N. Los Angeles County Public Works, Public Works Renewable Energy Master Plan (January 2020)
O. Jim Newton, California warehouse boom comes with health, environmental costs for Inland Empire residents, Cal Matters (Jan. 26, 2023, updated August 1, 2024) P. Rachel Uranga, Warehouse boom transformed Inland Empire. Are jobs worth the environmental degradation? Los Angeles Times (Feb. 5, 2023) Q. Ryan Fonseca, Inland Empire residents are fighting warehouse sprawl, Los Angeles Times (Feb. 7, 2023)
R. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (November 2017)
S. Google Maps Street View screenshot of distance from property line of nearest sensitive receptor. (image accessed January 2026)
2013073.12
193
Exhibit B
194
195
196
ATTACHMENT 7
T&B Planning Inc. – Applicant Environmental Consultant response letter 197
JN 1425

MEMORANDUM
TO: Lawrence A. Mainez
Community Development Director
City of Highland
FROM: Nicole Morse, Esq., Principal
T&B Planning, Inc.

DATE: September 14, 2026
RE: Response to PCEJ’s Appeal of the July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Approvals of Extensions of Time EXT 26-002 and EXT 26-003 (Patriot Partners Warehouse Developments) Patriot Partners (“Patriot”) is seeking an extension of the entitlements for two projects that were approved by the City of Highland (“City”) in 2023. On July 21, 2026 the Planning Commission voted to approve EXT 26-002 (Conditional Use Permit 23-003 and Design Review Application 23-004, at 5th Street and Central Avenue) and EXT 26-003 (Conditional Use Permit 22-011 and Design Review Application 21- 005, at 6th Street and Del Rosa) (collectively, the “Extensions”) extending the entitlements for these projects by three years. On August 3, 2026, by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ”) filed an appeal challenging the Planning Commission’s approve of the Extensions.

In its appeal, PCEJ contends that that the Planning Commission should not have approved the Extensions because the Planning Commission could not made the required findings under Highland Municipal Code section 16.08.200(B)(5). The purpose of this memorandum is to demonstrate that the City’s decision to grant the Extensions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, PCEJ’s contention that the original Mitigated Negative Declarations (“MND”) for these projects were insufficient is bared by the California Environmental Quality Act’s (“CEQA”) statute of limitations and presumption against reopening environmental review for approved projects.

I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Extensions sough by Patriot concern two projects that were approved by the City following environmental review under CEQA in 2023. The 6th Street project (Conditional Use Permit 22-011 and Design Review Application 21-005) was approved on May 16, 2023, and the 5th Street project (Conditional Use Permit 23-003 and Design Review Application 23-004) on September 19, 2023. For each of these projects, the City prepared an Initial Study and adopted an MND that analyzed each project’s potential impacts and found that the projects would not result in any significant impacts with mitigation. 198
RESPONSE TO PCEJ’S APPEAL
September 14, 2026

With respect to the projects potential drainage any hydrology impacts, the Initial Studies evaluated on-site and off-site runoff and the projects’ engineered storm-drainage systems, including an infiltration/detention system designed to capture 100% of a 100-year storm event in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, and concluded that hydrology impacts would be less than significant.

On May 16, 2023, the City approved the 6th Street Project and filed a Notice of Determination (“NOD”) on May 22, 2023. On September 19, 2023, the City approved the 5th Street Project and filed an NOD on September 25, 2023. Not timely CEQA challenge was brought against either approval.

On July 21, 2026, the Planning Commission considered Patriot’s request to extend the entitlements for both projects by three years and found that approval of the Extensions would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity under HMC § 16.08.200(B)(5). In connection with its approval of the Extensions, the Planning Commission explained that it was revising one of the Engineering Conditions of Approval for each project to clarify the components of the comprehensive hydrology study the projects must prepare in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Notably, this clarification did not reflect a change in the project’s conditions or potential impacts as compliance with the County Hydrology Manual was expressly studied in the Initial Studies for both projects. (5th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration (2023)1
, at p. 78; 6th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2023)2 at p. 76.) II. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THE PROPER FINDINGS TO GRANT THE EXTENSIONS The City is empowered to grant an extension of a project’s entitlements for up to three years if “granting of an extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.” (HMC § 16.08.200(B)(5).) Here, the Planning Commission properly found that the granting of the Extensions themselves would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In its appeal, PCEJ conflates the HMC’s requirement that the City evaluate whether the extension itself would result in detrimental impacts with the projects’ original impact that were studied and mitigated through the Initial Studies and MNDs. Nothing in the Extensions changes the character or design of the projects as the projects remain exactly the same as those that were approved in 2023.

Instead of identifying potential negative impacts associated with the Extensions, each of the purported impacts identified in PCEJ’s appeal are impacts associated with the underlying projects themselves, not the Extensions. Any impacts associated with the development of the projects were considered at the time 1 5th Street Project IS/MND is available at:
www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4088/FINAL-Initial-Study-Mitigated-NegativeDeclaration-PDF 2 6th Street Project IS/MND is available at:
www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3618/Sixth-and-Del-Rosa-Warehouse-Initial-StudyMitigated-Negative-Declaration-PDF 199
RESPONSE TO PCEJ’S APPEAL
September 14, 2026

the projects were approved, and CEQA prohibits the City from reevaluating or reopening environmental review on previously approved projects unless certain conditions that are not present here are met. (Pub.

Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162.)
Additionally, PCEJ’s belief that the passage of Assembly Bill (“AB”) 98 somehow changes the projects’ impacts is also incorrect. AB 98 imposes new design and setback requirements on new large-scale warehouse developments. However, in enacting AB 98, the Legislature expressly exempted projects that were approved prior to September 30, 2024. Here, both projects were approved more than one year before AB 98’s exception cutoff and are not subject to AB 98’s requirements.

III. PCEJ’S CHALLENGE IS BARRED BY CEQA’S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CEQA imposes short limitations periods for actions attacking a project’s environmental review and failure to bring a CEQA challenge within those limitations periods is an absolute bar to those claims. (Pub. Res.

Code § 21167; Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 481, 491.) Where an MND is prepared, as is the case here, any challenge must be brought within 30 days of when the NOD is filed. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b).)
Here, PCEJ seeks to challenge the sufficiency of the MNDs prepared for the projects nearly three years after the projects were approved. Under CEQA, PCEJ was required to bring any challenge to the sufficiency of the MNDs within 30 days of the filing of the NOD. PCEJ did not file any such challenge.

Therefore, PCEJ’s failure to bring a timely challenge to the MNDs is an absolute bar to their claims and the appeal is properly dismissed on these grounds alone.

IV. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NOT WARRANTED
Where a lead agency has adopted a negative declaration and approved a project, subsequent environmental review may only be required where certain conditions are met. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162(a).) Courts have routinely held that subsequent environmental review is disfavored and there is a presumption against further environmental review once a project has been approved. (Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 239.) Under this standard, the City may only require subsequent environmental review of an approved project where (1) the City is considering another discretionary approval and (2) one of the following is present: (a) there are substantial changes to the project; (b) there are substantial changes in the project’s circumstances; or (c) new information that could not have been known at the time the project was approved becomes available, and such changes or new information require major revisions to the previous environmental documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162(a).) Here, the Extensions do not seek to make any substantive changes to the underlying projects. Patriot simply seeks an extension of the entitlements and is not requesting the City approve any modifications or expansions to the projects that were approved in 2023. Because the projects remain unchanged, it is not 200
RESPONSE TO PCEJ’S APPEAL
September 14, 2026

possible for the Extensions to meet any of the criteria laid out in CEQA Guidelines section 15162. As explained above, PCEJ has not identified any new or increased impacts associated with the City’s approval of the Extensions. Instead, PCEJ takes issue with the City’s previous environmental analysis and is using this appeal to attempt to raise time-bared claims. CEQA clearly does not permit this kind of after-the-fact environmental review and PCEJ’s appeal should be denied for these additional reasons.

V. THE EXTENSIONS DO NOT RAISE NEW HYDROLOGY IMPACTS
In connection with its approval of the Extensions, the Planning Commission revised Engineering Condition of Approval Nos. 27 and 28 to clarify the applicable components of the comprehensive hydrology study the projects must prepare in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. PCEJ contends this clarifying language imposes new mitigation measures for hydrology impacts that were not previously disclosed; however, PCEJ’s assumption is misplaced.

In the Initial Studies for both projects, potential drainage impacts from the projects, including compliance with the County’s Hydrology Manuel, were studied and disclosed. The City specifically studied the anticipated on-site and off-site runoff in addition to describing the engineered storm-drainage systems, including an infiltration/detention system designed to capture 100% of a 100-year storm event, with the existing storm drain systems serving as an emergency overflow. (5th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration, at pp. 77-78; 6th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, at pp. 75-76.) The Initial Studies went on to examine the projects’ compliance with the County’s Hydrology manual and found that the drainage and storm-drain facilities are adequately sized for a 100-year design storm, consistent with the County Hydrology Manual, and therefore that hydrology impacts would be less than significant. (5th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration, at p. 78; 6th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, at p. 76.)
Thus, the Initial Studies demonstrate that compliance with the County’s Hydrology Manual was both studied and disclosed during the environmental review process. The revised conditions simply clarify these previously studied impacts and the associated mitigation measures. And contrary to PCEJ’s contention, nothing in these revised conditions constitutes a new or increased impact associated with the projects.

VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding analysis, the City Council should affirm the Planning Commissions approval of the Extensions and deny the PCEJ’s appeal. At set forth above, the Extensions themselves would not result in any new or increased public health impacts and PCEJ’s challenge to the sufficiency of the MNDs is barred as a matter of law.
201
ATTACHMENT 8
Rutan & Tucker, LLP – Applicants Legal Counsel response letter 202
John A. Ramirez
Direct Dial: (714) 662-4610
E-mail: [email protected]
September 14, 2026
R u ta n & T uck e r, L L P | 1 8 5 7 5 J a mb ore e R o a d , 9 th F l o o r
Irv i n e , C A 92 6 1 2 | 7 1 4 -641 -5 1 0 0 | F a x 7 1 4 -5 46-9035 Ora n g e C o un ty | P a l o Alto | S a n F ra n c i s c o | Sc otts d a l e | www .ru ta n .c o m 3084/035448-0033
24254121.1 a09/14/26
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City
Council
City of Highland
27215 Base Line St.

Highland, CA 92346
Re: Response to PCEJ’s Appeal of the July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Approvals of Extensions of Time EXT 26-002 and EXT 26-003 (Patriot Partners Warehouse Developments)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

This firm represents Patriot Partners (“Patriot”) in connection with the appeal filed by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ”) on August 3, 2026. We write in response to that appeal and respectfully urge the City Council to deny it and to uphold the Planning Commission’s July 21, 2026 decisions approving three-year Extensions of Time EXT 26-002 (Conditional Use Permit 23-003 and Design Review Application 23-004, at 5th Street and Central Avenue) and EXT 26-003 (Conditional Use Permit 22-011 and Design Review Application 21- 005, at 6th Street and Del Rosa) (together, the “Extensions”).

PCEJ’s appeal does not identify any legal defect in the Planning Commission’s decisions.

Instead, it seeks to re-litigate the merits of projects the City approved in 2023 and asks the City to reopen environmental review in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

1. Background
The City originally approved both projects in 2023 following full environmental review under CEQA. The 6th Street project (Conditional Use Permit 22-011 and Design Review Application 21-005) was approved on May 16, 2023, and the 5th Street project (Conditional Use Permit 23-003 and Design Review Application 23-004) on September 19, 2023. For each project, the City prepared an Initial Study and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzing the projects’ potential environmental effects—including air quality, transportation, noise, and hydrology—and found, with mitigation, that the projects would not result in any significant impact. As to drainage and hydrology in particular, the Initial Studies evaluated on-site and offsite runoff and the projects’ engineered storm-drainage systems, including an infiltration/detention system designed to capture 100% of a 100-year storm event, and concluded that hydrology impacts would be less than significant. No timely legal challenge was brought to those environmental 203
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members of the
City Council
September 14, 2026

3084/035448-0033
24254121.1 a09/14/26
determinations, and the time to do so under CEQA has long since passed. The Extensions now on appeal do not modify the approved projects; they extend only the period within which the existing, previously reviewed entitlements may be exercised. Therefore, the Planning Commission approved the Extensions on July 21, 2026, finding that the Extensions would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. The City Can Make the Findings Required to Grant the Extensions Under the Highland Municipal Code, the City may extend a project’s entitlements for up to three years if “granting of an extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.” (HMC § 16.08.200(B)(5).) By its plain terms, this finding is directed at any impacts associated with granting the extension itself, not the approved project’s underlying impacts. As is the case here, those impacts would have been considered at the time the project was approved, and CEQA prohibits the City from reopening review on approved projects unless certain conditions are met. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162.) Here, the asserted impacts in PCEJ’s appeal—proximity to the Head Start facility, Indian Springs High School, nearby residences, and truck traffic—are all characteristics of the underlying projects themselves, not the extension of the projects’ entitlements. These impacts were evaluated and mitigated by the City when the projects were approved in 2023. Extending the time to build those approved projects does not create these conditions or alter them.

Similarly, PCEJ’s contention that Assembly Bill 98 (“AB 98”) somehow warrants denial of the Extensions is also legally incorrect. AB 98 explicitly exempts projects that were either approved or subject to an ongoing entitlement process prior to September 30, 2024 from the bill’s requirements. (Gov. Code § 65098.1.6.) Here, the 6th Street Project was approved on May 16, 2023 and the 5th Street Project was approved on September 19, 2023. As a result, both projects fall squarely within AB 98’s exception for previously approved projects. Because the Extensions themselves are not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, and are not materially injurious to nearby property, the Planning Commission made the proper findings and the City Council may do the same here.

3. PCEJ Raises an Untimely Attack on the 2023 MND
Because PCEJ cannot identify any negative public health impacts associated with the Extensions themselves, PCEJ attempts to attack the projects’ original approvals and environmental review. PCEJ’s contention that the City “has not adequately analyzed” the cumulative impacts of area warehouse development is, in substance, a challenge to the adequacy of the Mitigated 204
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members of the
City Council
September 14, 2026

3084/035448-0033
24254121.1 a09/14/26
Negative Declarations (“MNDs”) adopted for these projects in 2023. That challenge is foreclosed for two independent reasons.

First, PCEJ’s challenge to the 2023 MNDs is clearly time-barred. CEQA imposes short limitations periods for actions attacking a project’s environmental review. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.) Any challenge attacking the sufficiency of an MND must be filed within 30 days of when the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) is filed. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b).) Here, the City filed an NOD for the 6th Street Project on May 22, 2023, and an NOD for the 5th Street Project on September 25, 2023. Therefore, the statute of limitations to challenge the sufficiency of either MND has long since expired. Despite this fact, PCEJ plainly admits that it is challenging the adequacy of the previously approved MNDs’ analysis of cumulative impacts three years after the Projects were approved. PCEJ cannot revive that expired challenge by relabeling it as an objection to the Extensions. PCEJ’s failure to challenge these MNDs within the 30 days of the NODs is an absolute bar to its claims and the appeal should be denied. (Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 481, 491 [failure to bring a claim within the statute of limitations is an absolute bar to a CEQA claim].)
Second, CEQA does not permit the City to reopen environmental review to grant the Extensions. Once a lead agency has adopted a negative declaration and approved a project, there is a presumption against further environmental review. (Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 239.) Subsequent environmental review may be required only (1) if another discretionary approval is being considered and (2) one of the following conditions is present: (a) there are substantial changes to the project; (b) there are substantial changes in the project’s circumstances; or (c) new information that could not have been known at the time the project was approved becomes available, and such changes or new information require major revisions to the previous environmental documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162(a).)
Here, PCEJ does not identify any substantial changes to the projects or their circumstances that would justify subsequent environmental review under CEQA. Indeed, there has not been any modification or change in the projects that would come close to qualifying as a substantial change requiring major revisions to the previous environmental documents. Both projects remain the same projects that the City approved in 2023; all Patriot seeks is an extension of those same entitlements.

The mere passage of time and any delay in commencing construction cannot constitute a substantial change in a project. The Court of Appeal has squarely held that no authority treats delay in completing construction as a substantial change to a project under section 21166. (Comm. for Re-Evaluation of T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Mun. Transportation Agency (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, 1254.) Therefore, there is no basis to reopen environmental review for either project. It is clear that PCEJ disagrees that the City’s original cumulative-impact analysis was sufficient; 205
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members of the
City Council
September 14, 2026

3084/035448-0033
24254121.1 a09/14/26
however, this is precisely the kind of after-the-fact review that CEQA prohibits. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162(a).)

4. The Revised Hydrology Condition Clarifies an Existing Requirement Finally, PCEJ contends that revised Engineering Condition of Approval Nos. 27 and 28 impose new mitigation for hydrology impacts that were never disclosed, and that this must trigger new CEQA review. The premise is incorrect.

The revised conditions do not respond to any newly identified impact or change in the projects. Instead, as explained by the Planning Commission Staff Report, these revised conditions clarify the required components of the comprehensive hydrology study the projects must prepare in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual—including pre- and postdevelopment analysis for 10-year and 100-year storms, hydrology maps, proposed flowconveyance improvements, and hydraulic calculations—to confirm compliance with the County’s existing drainage-study requirements. A clarifying refinement of this kind is not a substantial change requiring subsequent environmental review under the CEQA Guidelines. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162.)
Indeed, the Initial Studies for both projects evaluated potential drainage impacts from the projects, including compliance with the County’s Hydrology Manual, and found that impacts would be less than significant. The Initial Studies specifically analyzed on-site and off-site runoff and described the engineered storm-drainage systems, including an infiltration/detention system designed to capture 100% of a 100-year storm event, with the existing storm drain systems serving as an emergency overflow. (5th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2023) at pp. 77-78 (finding less than significant impacts to drainage patterns); 6th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2023) at pp. 75-76 (finding the same).) The Initial Studies specifically found that the drainage and storm-drain facilities are adequately sized for a 100-year design storm, consistent with the County Hydrology Manual, and therefore that hydrology impacts would be less than significant. (5th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, at p. 78; 6th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration at p. 76.) Contrary to PCEJ’s claims, these impacts are neither new nor unstudied. The Initial Studies specifically analyzed compliance with the County Hydrology Manual. The revised conditions of approval merely clarify the requirements associated with these previously studied impacts. Thus, there are no undisclosed impacts that would warrant further environmental review. 206
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members of the
City Council
September 14, 2026

3084/035448-0033
24254121.1 a09/14/26

5. Conclusion
PCEJ’s appeal asks the City to reopen settled approvals and to undertake environmental review that CEQA prohibits. The Planning Commission correctly found that granting the Extensions would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to nearby property. We respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s July 21, 2026 approvals of EXT 26-002 and EXT 26-003.

We appreciate the Council’s consideration and are available to answer any questions.

Sincerely,

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
John A. Ramirez
207
ATTACHMENT 5
Appeal Application and Supporting Letter
208
209
Rev.09/25
3 ___ DENY the project without prejudice
___ APPROVE the project with Conditions (Attach a
copy of the Conditions, if they are the subject of the
appeal)
___ DENY the project
___ APPROVE the project
___ ADOPT a Negative Declaration
___ DECLARE the existence of a Public Nuisance and/or Inoperable Vehicle(s) ___ OTHER (Specify)______________________________________________________

2. I/We are appealing the project/Code compliance action taken to:

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. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

5. Public Nuisance/Inoperable Vehicle Appeals - state why you appealing and if you are the owner of the property or the owner of the vehicle(s). __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ I/We certify that I/We are the:
___ Legal Property Owner(s)
___ Authorized Legal Agent(s)
___ Registered Vehicle Owner(s)
___ Other Interested Person(s)
_________________________________
[Signature of Appelleant(s)]
Date:____________________________
_________________________________
[Signature of Appelleant(s)]
Date:____________________________
See attached letter.

We appeal the Planning Commission's decision to approve the three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015). See attached letter. 210
211

550 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1200
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]
August 3, 2026
Via Hand Delivery
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
City of Highland City Council
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Lawrence A. Mainez
Community Development Director
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolutions on July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Items 1 and 2
Dear Mayor Lilburn and Members of the City Council:

This firm represents the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ”) in connection with warehouse development proposals in the area surrounding the San Bernardino International Airport. PCEJ is a member of the San Bernardino Airport Communities coalition and works closely with residents of the Cities of Highland and San Bernardino who are directly affected by warehouse and industrial development in neighborhoods near the airport.

Pursuant to City of Highland Municipal Code section 16.08.210, PCEJ appeals the Planning Commission’s decisions1 on July 21, 2026 to approve a three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-002) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) to permit the development of a warehouse at 5th Street and Central Avenue (the “5th Street Warehouse”); and to approve a three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-005) to permit the development of a warehouse at 6th Street and 1 The draft resolutions for these decisions are attached as Attachment 4 to the Staff Report for Agenda Item 1 and Attachment 4 to the Staff Report for Agenda Item 2 on the Planning Commission’s July 21, 2026 Agenda. As of the date this appeal was due, the final resolutions were not available.
212
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026

Del Rosa (the “6th Street Warehouse”) (together, the “Projects”; both the extensions together, the “Extensions”).2

I. The City cannot make the findings required to grant the Extensions.

The City may grant an extension of project approval “only if it is found that granting of an extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.” Municipal Code §

16.08.200.B(5). It cannot make these findings here.

A. The Projects are designed and located in a manner that threatens health, safety, welfare, and nearby properties.

The potential for detriment and injury here is obvious. The eastern boundary of the 5th Street Warehouse lies roughly 25 feet from the entrance to a Head Start location serving preschoolers and their families. The warehouse’s loading docks will face the Head Start, and trucks will turn into and out of the driveway on 5th Street very close to the preschool. The driveway is also located across 5th Street from multi-family housing.

The 6th Street Warehouse is across the street from Indian Springs High School and immediately adjacent to a multi-family residential development. Heavy trucks using 6th Street to access the warehouse will pose safety hazards to students, families, pedestrians and bicyclists. The neighborhoods surrounding both Projects are full of homes, libraries, and other sensitive receptors. The Projects have not been designed to meet warehouse standards recently adopted by the California Legislature in AB 98 and successor legislation. The City Council can and should find that these projects will be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare and injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity based on their design and location alone.

B. The City has not analyzed the Projects’ obvious potential for significant cumulative impacts.

Nor are these the only warehouse projects that could have detrimental or injurious effects on this neighborhood. As PCEJ has previously brought to the Planning Commission’s attention, the City has not adequately analyzed the cumulative impact of developing over 1.5 million square feet of warehouse space in the small area north of San Bernardino International Airport. PCEJ Comment Letter re January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 (“January 20, 2026 Comments,” attached as Exhibit A) at

13. PCEJ has identified at least 10 warehouses, including the 5th Street Warehouse and 2 PCEJ has no direct financial interest in either of the Projects. 213
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026

6th Street Warehouse, approved within blocks of each other and near sensitive receptors like residences and schools.3 Id. The City approved the majority of these warehouses before it approved these Projects in May and September 2023, yet failed to consider cumulative impacts in its original analysis of these Projects.

Given this context, the potential for detriment and injury from significant cumulative impacts is obvious. When PCEJ analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declarations (“MNDs”) for just a few of the nearby warehouses, PCEJ found that construction air quality data and health risk assessments in the MNDs—as riddled with errors as they were—showed that the collective impact of these facilities will readily exceed applicable thresholds, threatening the health and safety of community members.

January 20, 2026 Comments at 10-16. Heavy trucks and passenger cars will use the same neighborhood roadways, contributing to cumulative noise and transportation impacts as well as toxic diesel particulate emissions along the entire network of area roadways lined with homes and other sensitive receptors. Id. Fifth Street in particular will carry truck traffic from many if not all of these projects right by the Head Start and numerous residences.

PCEJ is not alone in these concerns; the San Bernardino City Unified School District (“District”) also opposes the Extensions due to the Projects’ “cumulative public health and transportation impacts.” District July 21, 2026 Comment Letter re Patriot Partners Warehouse Developments (attached as Exhibit B) at 1. The District rightfully points out that “children are among the most sensitive populations,” and increased exposure to diesel emissions from truck activity causes serious health risks. Id. The District also raises concern over the strain on transportation infrastructure from increased truck traffic, which can negatively impact the “daily travel patterns of students, staff, and families.” Id. at 2. PCEJ amplifies the District’s request that the City decline the Extensions.

The Planning Commission’s resolutions approving the Extensions make a cursory reference to the Commission’s 2023 resolutions originally approving the Projects in support of the findings necessary to approve the Extensions. Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 1, Attach. 4 at 4; Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 2, Attach. 4 at 4. But the MNDs prepared for these Projects did not adequately consider the 3 The City’s repeated failure to analyze cumulative impacts of closely related projects is suggestive of an unlawful pattern and practice of failing to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). See Californians for Native Salmon and Steelhead Association v. Department of Forestry (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1419. 214
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026

cumulative effects of building and operating up to 10 warehouses simultaneously in the midst of homes, schools, and other sensitive receptors.

Absent adequate analysis of the cumulative impacts of all of these warehouses, the City cannot find that granting the Extensions “will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.” Therefore, it must deny the Extensions.

C. The City has not analyzed the hydrology impacts for which it is now requiring mitigation measures.

In approving the Extensions, the Planning Commission revised the Conditions of Approval to require mitigation measures for hydrology impacts that were not disclosed or addressed in the Projects’ original MNDs. Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 1, Attach. 4, Exh. 3 at 47 (Engineering Condition of Approval 28); Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 2, Attach. 4, Exh. 3 at 40 (Engineering Condition of Approval 27).

These revised conditions now require “proposed improvements to mitigate project impacts” related to hydrology. However, the Projects’ MNDs did not find any significant impacts for hydrology, nor did they propose mitigation. Southwest Corner of 5th Street and Central Avenue Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration4 (2023) at 77- 78 (finding less than significant impacts to drainage patterns); Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration5 (2023) at 75-76 (finding the same).

If the City anticipates that the Project will have additional impacts that require additional mitigation, these issues must be properly analyzed under CEQA. Without this analysis, the City cannot find that granting the Extensions will not cause detriment or injury, and therefore must deny the Extensions.

II. The City should not grant extensions for concededly uncertain projects with subpar environmental analyses and outdated designs.

Moreover, the City has no reason to accommodate the uncertain prospects of a financially insecure applicant to the detriment of its residents. At the July 21, 2026 hearing on the extensions, the applicant represented that it does not have the funding to 4 Accessed at https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4088/FINAL-InitialStudy-Mitigated-Negative-Declaration-PDF. 5 Accessed at https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3618/Sixth-and-DelRosa-Warehouse-Initial-Study-Mitigated-Negative-Declaration-PDF. 215
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026

carry out the Projects and currently has no plan in place to secure that funding. The City retains full discretion to deny these Extensions, and it should exercise that discretion in the best interest of its residents. The City is not obligated to extend project approvals indefinitely in order to accommodate outdated facilities based on outdated economic assumptions. If economic conditions change and the applicant secures the necessary funding to build the Projects, it can submit new applications. At that time, the City can ensure complete analysis of impacts and full compliance with current standards governing warehouse siting and design.

III. Conclusion
The City Council should reverse the Planning Commission’s July 21, 2026 approvals of the Extensions. Due to the Projects’ close proximity to educational facilities and homes and the lack of cumulative impacts analysis, the City should not and cannot make the mandatory findings that the Projects will not be detrimental or injurious.

Moreover, rather than extend the approvals indefinitely in the face of changing economic conditions, the City can and should deny the Extensions and require the applicant to submit new applications if and when conditions warrant.

PCEJ reserves the right to supplement this letter with additional information and argument in advance of and during the City Council’s hearing on the appeal.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Kevin P. Bundy
Yeji Jung
Copy to (via email):

Lawrence A. Mainez, Community Development Director, [email protected] Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director, [email protected] Camille Duarte, Administrative Assistant, [email protected] Exhibits
216
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026

A. PCEJ Comment Letter re January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 3
B. San Bernardino Unified School District, July 21, 2026 Comment Letter re Patriot Partners Warehouse Developments
2100479.6
217
Exhibit A
218
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]
January 20, 2026
Via E-Mail
Chair Randall Hammerly and Members
City of Highland Planning Commission
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Email: [email protected]
Re: Patriot USICVI 5th Street, LLC application to construct a warehouse at the Southeast Corner of Victoria Avenue and 5th Street (January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 3)
Dear Chair Hammerly and Members of the Planning Commission:

The following comments, submitted on behalf of People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ”), concern the Southeast Corner 5th Street and Victoria Avenue Warehouse Project (“Project”) and its Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”).

The MND for the Project fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, § 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). The Project as designed is also inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

The City therefore cannot make or support the findings of approval required for the various components of the Project under the Municipal Code.1 The Project as designed further conflicts with AB 98/SB 414 (Government Code section 65098 et seq.) and cannot lawfully be approved.

As detailed below, many of the MND’s conclusions regarding the significance of the Project’s environmental impacts are not supported by substantial evidence. Indeed, 1 Specifically, the City cannot find the proposed General Plan amendment, zoning change, conditional use permit (“CUP”), design review application, or parcel map consistent with the General Plan due to the conflicts and inconsistencies addressed below. 219
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental impacts, necessitating preparation of an environmental impact report (“EIR”). Numerous mitigation measures proposed in the MND fail to meet CEQA’s standards for mitigation and are not sufficient to support the MND’s conclusion that the Project’s impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Moreover, numerous inadequacies and omissions in the MND render it insufficient as an environmental review document, and many of its conclusions lack substantial evidentiary support. Accordingly, the City may not approve the Project on the basis of this MND.

Nor can the Planning Commission or City Council lawfully make the CEQA findings proposed in the draft resolution attached to the Staff Report (see Staff Report Attachment C at 5-6, Part B, Section 4) or the findings regarding environmental impacts required under sections 16.08.030 through 16.08.050 of the City’s zoning ordinance.

PCEJ became aware of this Project only after the Planning Commission hearing was noticed. But many of the issues raised in this letter should not come as a surprise to the City or the Applicant. PCEJ notes that public agencies and community organizations previously submitted comment letters, including at least one expert report, to the City regarding this Project and the MND. See MND at PDF 1998-2096 (Appendix M). These comments raised numerous legal and evidentiary objections to the MND and provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that at least some of the Project’s impacts will be significant notwithstanding the MND’s conclusions. The MND asserts that two of these comment letters (on behalf of Advocates for the Environment and Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, including an expert report prepared by SWAPE) were subsequently “withdrawn” on the basis of unspecified agreements or “settlements” between the commenters and the Applicant. MND at PDF 1999, 2008-10, 2094.

However, the MND does not explicitly explain or correct the substantive legal and evidentiary deficiencies identified in these comments, and it fails to address the substantial evidence of significant impacts presented to the City. Accordingly, the MND remains inadequate and cannot lawfully support approval of the Project.

The comments of Advocates for the Environment and Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, including the expert report prepared by SWAPE, are therefore incorporated by reference herein. In accordance with CEQA, PCEJ reserves the right to raise any issues identified in these comments, and in other comments in the record, in any further administrative or legal proceedings regarding this Project. See Pub. Resources Code § 21177(a), (b); Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 873.
220
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

I. The City May Not Approve the Project Without Preparing an Environmental Impact Report Under CEQA.

CEQA is designed to ensure that “the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.” Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 604 [“San Mateo Gardens II”] (quoting No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 74). Thus, the statute requires an agency evaluating a project to develop an EIR whenever “substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project ‘may have a significant effect on the environment.’” Committee for Re-Evaluation of T-Line Loop v.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, 1245-46 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123).

The fair argument standard establishes a “low threshold” for requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928. Courts “owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination,” but rather must show “a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Id. (italics in original). Further, where the agency fails to study an entire area of environmental impacts, deficiencies in the record “enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.

Substantial evidence supporting a fair argument may consist of personal observations of local residents on nontechnical subjects (see, e.g., Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. Cty. of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882; Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1152), as well as expert opinion supported by facts—even if that opinion is not based on a specific analysis of the project at issue.

Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. In marginal cases, where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant impact and there is a disagreement among experts over the significance of the effect on the environment, the agency “must treat the effect as significant” and prepare an EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(g); City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 245.

As explained further below, ample substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts that were not properly analyzed and adequately mitigated in the MND. Because the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts, the City is required to prepare an EIR before it may approve the Project.
221
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

II. The MND’s Technical Analysis of Noise Impacts Is Missing and its Conclusions Are Deficient and Unsupported.

The MND finds the Project’s noise impacts less than significant based on noise modeling results purportedly attached as Appendix H. See MND at PDF 97-102 (repeatedly referring to analysis in Appendix H). However, Appendix H consists of a single page of traffic counts; it contains no noise modeling, data, or analysis. MND at PDF 1843-44. Absent such materials, the MND itself is incomplete, and neither the public nor decision-makers can meaningfully evaluate its conclusions. As a result, the City has not complied with CEQA’s requirement that a complete MND be circulated for at least a 20-day public comment period. CEQA Guidelines § 15073(a). A complete MND must be circulated before the Project can be considered by the Planning Commission.

Circulation of the noise analysis is particularly important because the discussion in the text of the MND indicates that the Project may have significant noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

For example, the Project’s construction noise will clearly exceed the City’s maximum noise standards at nearby residences. Compare MND at PDF 95 (describing City’s 60-70dBA daytime noise standards for residential and commercial areas) with PDF 98 (Table 21, estimating one-hour and eight-hour average construction noise in excess of 70-80 dB). The MND admits that the Project is not exempt from the City’s construction noise ordinance and therefore must provide both “a construction noise analysis” and “adequate mitigation measures.” Id. at PDF 95. As discussed above, Appendix H—on which the “construction noise analysis” in the MND relies—was not included in the MND. Moreover, the MND fails to consider “adequate mitigation measures.” The MND states that because the Project will comply with a General Plan provision limiting construction to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), no significant impact will occur, and no mitigation is required. MND at PDF 98-99. Yet the MND provides no analysis or evidence that the hours limitation will reduce or avoid excessive noise levels at all, much less prevent violations of City noise standards. A significant effect that occurs for eleven straight hours every day is still a significant effect. Discussion of “adequate mitigation measures” is required by both CEQA and the City’s ordinances.2 2 Rather than using the City’s noise standards to assess the significance of impacts, the MND appears to pivot, concluding that Project construction noise is not significant because it “would not exceed the FTA construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq 8- 222
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

The MND’s analysis of off-site traffic noise—including noise from heavy trucks—is also fatally deficient. The MND concludes that because the Project will not cause a doubling of traffic volumes, no increase above 3 dB—and therefore no significant impact—will occur. MND at PDF 102. However, the MND’s (missing) noise analysis apparently used a passenger-car-equivalent figure to calculate traffic volumes and focused solely on whether those volumes would double. Id. The analysis thereby appears to have ignored potential increases in noise from the heavy trucks that will travel back and forth on 5th Street to the driveway located across 5th Street from residences.

Compare Site Plan (showing northern truck entrance to 5th Street) with Ex. A. (Google Maps image showing approximate truck entrance location roughly 150 feet from 26604 5th Street multifamily residence). No traffic study was prepared for the Project, but the minimal information in the MND’s Traffic Scoping Form (Appendix I) shows that 80% of Project truck traffic will travel to and from the Project’s northern driveway along 5th Street east of the Project. See MND at PDF 1853. Trucks traveling on 5th Street in both directions will therefore pass in front of additional residences and Highland Head Start on their way to the 210 freeway. Ex. B. (Google Maps image showing 5th Street between Victoria and Central). As circulated, the MND lacks any analysis of truck traffic noise near these receptors, including single-event noise, which may cause significant impacts.

The MND also lacks any analysis of cumulative noise impacts from operation of multiple new warehouses located in the same neighborhood and using the same local roadway network. As discussed elsewhere in this letter, this Project is only one of nearly a dozen warehouses that have been built, approved, or planned in the last several years.

The MND completely—and unlawfully—omits any discussion of this Project’s contribution to cumulative construction and operational noise impacts.

Finally, the MND’s apparent conclusion that an increase of 3dB over ambient conditions is not significant (MND at PDF 102) is unsupported and appears to conflict hour at nearby sensitive receiver locations.” MND at PDF 98. However, the MND does not establish that the City of Highland has adopted “the FTA construction noise threshold” as a threshold of significance for warehouse construction projects near residences to the exclusion of its own General Plan and noise ordinance. Nor does the MND provide any analysis of whether this threshold is appropriate for use in this context or any other substantial evidence to support adoption of this threshold. If anything, the MND suggests that the FTA standards have not been adopted as a threshold, assuring readers that they have been “provided for comparison purposes in the absence of such limits at the state and local jurisdictional levels.” MND at PDF 94. The MND’s dismissal of construction noise impacts on the basis of the FTA threshold thus lacks any legal or evidentiary support.
223
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

with the FICON standards governing the significance of noise increases discussed in the MND. Ambient noise at two of the three sensitive receptor locations sampled already exceeds 65 dBLeq. Id. at PDF 93 (Table 19). Under the FICON standards, an increase of 2 dB is significant where existing ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBLdn. Id. at PDF 94 (Table 20). The MND discusses differences between the Leq and Ldn metrics (id. at PDF 92), but it contains no disclosure or analysis of existing, ambient noise levels expressed as Ldn that would permit a rational comparison with the FICON standards or support a significance conclusion.3 The MND has thus failed to provide a meaningful assessment of the Project’s potential noise increases, and its conclusion that the Project’s impacts will be less than significant lacks support.

III. The MND’s Analysis of Transportation Impacts Is Legally Deficient, Incomplete, Conclusory, and Unsupported by Substantial Evidence.

A. The MND Employes an Unlawful “Baseline” by Comparing Project VMT to “Buildout” Rather Than Existing Conditions.

An initial study must compare a project’s impacts to a “baseline” consisting of existing physical environmental conditions as of the time CEQA review begins. CEQA Guidelines § 15125; Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320 & fn. 5 (applying CEQA Guidelines section 15125 to initial study).“[T]he impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework.” Id. at 320.

Here, the MND compares the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts to citywide VMT at “buildout,” presumably meaning buildout conditions under the City’s General Plan. MND at PDF 1860 (Appendix J). Courts have squarely rejected this type of comparison with conditions allowed under adopted zoning and planning provisions rather than existing environmental conditions. See, e.g., Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 706-11. 3 Ambient measurements are expressed only as Leq and Lmax. MND at PDF 93. 224
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

B. The MND’s Bare Conclusions Regarding the Significance of VMT Impacts Are Unsupported by Model Data or Analysis and Contradict Readily Available Evidence.

The MND concludes that Project VMT—calculated as including only trips by commuting employees, not trucks—will be 19.45 per service population. MND at PDF 115, 1861. The MND compares this figure to the “future City buildout citywide average VMT per service population” of 22.54 per service population and concludes on that basis that the Project will have a less-than-significant impact. Id.

These conclusory statements lack evidentiary support in either the MND or the Urban Crossroads report attached as Appendix J. Appendix J claims that the SBTAM model was used to generate a Project VMT estimate (MND at PDF 1860-61), but it does not disclose or discuss the assumptions or input data used in the modeling run (including the assumed trip length for employee commute trips), much less justify the accuracy or suitability of those assumptions and data for this Project.

Nor does Appendix J justify the use of PA VMT per service population rather than another measure of VMT (for example, OD VMT per service population) for this Project.

MND at PDF 1865 (reproducing screenshot of SBCTA screening tool output showing PA VMT of 25.9 for 2022 “baseline year” in Project TAZ). According to SBCTA’s GISbased VMT screening tool, existing (2026) PA VMT per service population for the Traffic Analysis Zone containing the Project parcels is 27.6. Ex. C. (2026 PA VMT per Service Population).4 OD VMT per service population, however, is much higher, at 67.

Ex. D. (2026 OD VMT per Service Population). SBCTA’s tool also can be used to calculate PA VMT Per Worker, which for these parcels is 17.6—10.44% higher than the overall jurisdictional VMT of 15.9. Ex. E. (2026 PA VMT Per Worker). Accordingly, using either OD VMT per service population or PA VMT per worker, the Project would cause an increase in VMT compared to existing conditions and would have a significant impact.

PA VMT per service population may underestimate VMT for at least two reasons:
it may incorrectly assume that all trips are “resident”-based (i.e., that they start and end within the jurisdiction) and that employees always drive directly to work and back 4 The SBCTA VMT Screening Tool is a GIS application that can be accessed from the following website: https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (visited Jan. 14, 2026). Exhibits C through E were generated using this screening tool for the same parcel depicted in Attachment A to Appendix J (MND at PDF 1865), a baseline year of 2026, and a Threshold % reduction of zero.
225
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

without making any intermediate stops (causing additional VMT that would be captured using OD VMT per service population). See Ex. F. (Fehr & Peers, VMT Modeling Lexicon). The MND presents no evidence that these assumptions hold for this Project.

Thresholds of significance and methodological choices must be supported by substantial evidence. The MND and Appendix J lack a reasoned explanation and evidentiary support for the VMT analysis and conclusions presented.

Finally, the MND fails to explain its conclusion that the Project would generate substantially lower VMT (19.45 per service population) than the current VMT at the Project site (27.6 per service population using the PA VMT method). One would expect that new development located in a higher-VMT area would have similar VMT impacts.

Cf. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 948 (finding lack of substantial evidence to support county’s conclusion that “infill” development in higher-VMT zones would have less-than-significant VMT impacts). Once again, the MND’s lack of disclosure regarding data inputs, assumptions, and methods deprives its conclusions of evidentiary support.

C. The MND’s VMT Analysis Understates Trip Generation and Improperly Omits Heavy Truck Trips.

The MND’s VMT analysis is flawed because it apparently included only passenger vehicles in the analysis—and it seems to have undercounted those vehicles.

The VMT analysis assumes that the Project will employ 147 workers. MND at PDF 1861. However, a trip generation table attached to Appendix J states that the Project will generate 218 daily passenger vehicle trips and 83 daily truck trips, for a total of 301 actual trips. Id. at 1867. The trip generation table also employs a “passenger car equivalent” (“PCE”) factor for truck trips, concluding that the Project will generate 429 PCE trips. Id.

The MND fails to explain how the VMT analysis—which assumed only 147 “workers” and therefore apparently excluded numerous passenger vehicle trips and all truck trips, including two-axle trucks—squares with the trips the Project is actually predicted to generate. Moreover, the MND’s approach is irrational given that the proposed development project consists of a heavy-duty truck facility.

Guidance from the California Governor’s former Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”, now known as the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation) regarding the evaluation VMT impacts makes clear that truck VMT can be included. Ex. G. at 4 (OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018).

There is no reasoned basis for ignoring VMT from trucks in assessing the environmental 226
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

impacts of a warehouse project. Indeed, excluding trucks from VMT calculations is fundamentally misleading for this type of project and serves only to undermine any meaningful assessment of impacts.

IV. The MND Improperly Piecemeals its Analysis.

The MND fails because it piecemeals consideration of the Project’s impacts. As the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance comments (“GSEJA Comments”) observed, the Project is one “piecemealed portion of a larger overall project in the immediate vicinity developed by Patriot Partners.” MND at PDF 2012. Including this Project, there are at least seven projects proposed by the same Applicant in the same geographic area with a combined footprint of 913,889 square feet. As evidenced by the successive CUP numbers and public review periods, the Applicant and City knew these projects were proceeding simultaneously as a group. Indeed, the Staff Report confirms that these seven warehouses are in fact a single “project”: “This facility in conjunction with Patriot’s other six (6) developments will provide a comprehensive design program, promoting the corridor as a unified, business-friendly employment center.” Staff Report at 10.

Project Location Square footage
MND Public Review
start date
CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 Oct. 18, 2024 CUP 21-0075 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 Nov. 5, 2021 CUP 22-0026 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 July 13, 2022 CUP 22-0037 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 Aug. 22, 2022 CUP 22-0048 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 Aug. 8, 2022 CUP 22-0119 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 Mar. 24, 2023 CUP 23-00310 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 Jul. 14, 2023 Total 913,889
Table 1. Known Patriot Partners warehouse projects, including this Project.

A “project” under CEQA is “the whole of an action” that may cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). 5 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021110112
6 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022070212
7 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022080461
8 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022080147
9 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023030640
10 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023070268
227
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

The relevant “project” for CEQA analysis is “the activity which is being approved,” even if that activity “may be subject to several discretionary approvals by government agencies”; the term “does not mean each separate governmental approval.” Id. § 15378(c). Here, it is obvious that the Applicant’s “activity”—and thus the “project” for CEQA purposes—is to build several warehouses totaling nearly 1 million square feet in close proximity. The Staff Report expressly concedes as much. Staff Report at 10.

CEQA does not permit lead agencies to “piecemeal” analysis of a project, i.e., break up the project into smaller pieces and limit environmental analysis to each individual piece. See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396 (improper to “submerge[ environmental impacts] by chopping a large project into many little ones—each with a minimal potential impact on the environment—which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences”). The City must examine all of the Applicants’ warehouses as a single “project” in an EIR before proceeding with any further approvals or entitlements related to any of the individual warehouse projects.

V. The MND’s Analyses of, and Mitigation for, the Project’s Environmental Impacts are Legally Inadequate.

A. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Provide Mitigation for the Project’s Cumulative Impacts.

An initial study must analyze whether a project’s cumulative impacts are significant. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1). “An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project’s incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Id. § 15064(h)(1); see also id. §§ 15065(a)(3) (requiring mandatory finding of significance for “individually limited but cumulatively considerable” effects), 15355 (defining “cumulative impacts”).

A cumulative impacts analysis must include all “reasonably and practically” available information about the impacts of other projects, including projects “still in the planning stages” or “under review” if those projects are reasonably foreseeable. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 722-23; see also Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 869-72 (agency abused discretion by failing to address cumulative impacts in context of 228
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

separate project in planning stages, particularly where agency itself was participating in administrative proceedings for that project).

An MND may be invalidated, and an EIR may be required, due to an agency’s failure to adequately address cumulative impacts in an initial study. See, e.g., San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 382, 398-400.

1. The MND Improperly Dismisses Cumulative Impacts Based Entirely on a Conclusion that Project-Specific Impacts Are Less Than Significant.

A CEQA document may not dismiss the significance of a project’s cumulative impacts based solely on a conclusion that its project-specific impacts are less than significant. Focusing solely “upon the individual project’s effects rather than the combined effect” is “contrary to the intent of CEQA.” Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 720. Such an approach “avoids analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling.” Id. at 721.

The MND here takes precisely this unlawful approach, where it mentions cumulative impacts at all. In a few cursory sentences, the MND acknowledges that “project related biological, cultural and tribal cultural, and geological impacts [] could be potentially significant without the incorporation of mitigation” and that corresponding cumulative impacts also could be significant. MND at PDF 130. The MND then states that project-specific impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, and on that basis finds that all cumulative impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. Id.

Beyond this conclusory syllogism—which the courts have squarely found “contrary to the intent of CEQA”—the MND provides no analysis or factual discussion to support its conclusion that the Project will have no cumulatively considerable effects.

The MND’s approach is contrary to law and unsupported by evidence, and the Project cannot lawfully be approved on the basis of its conclusions.

Indeed, the data presented above concerning the multiple warehouses already in the planning and approval stages for this neighborhood illustrates the City’s egregious failure to consider cumulative impacts. This Project is merely one of ten warehouses proposed for (and, in some cases, under construction in) the neighborhood north of San Bernardino International Airport that together total nearly 1.6 million square feet. See 229
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

Fig. 1 below (map of proposed warehouses); Table 2 below (warehouse locations and square footage).

Most of these warehouses were proposed almost simultaneously by the Applicant for this Project.11 Yet the MND for this Project fails to consider the cumulative effects of building and operating all of these warehouses simultaneously in the middle of a neighborhood full of homes, schools, libraries, and other sensitive receptors.

The potential for significant cumulative impacts is obvious. As discussed below, construction air quality data and health risk assessments in the MNDs—as riddled with errors as they are12—show that the collective impact of these facilities will readily exceed applicable thresholds, threatening the health and safety of community members. Heavy trucks and passenger cars will use the same neighborhood roadways, contributing to cumulative noise and transportation impacts as well as toxic diesel particulate emissions along the entire network of area roadways lined with homes and other sensitive receptors.

The MND for this Project completely fails to address the cumulative context. At the very least, an EIR must be prepared for this Project in light of its considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts.

2. The MND Fails to Address Cumulative Impacts in Specific Topic Areas.
a. Air Quality
One particularly concerning omission is in the cumulative air quality analysis.

As the MND concedes, “Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if a project were to occur concurrently with another off-site project.” MND at PDF 27.

However, the MND claims that potential impacts of simultaneous projects “would be considered speculative” because “[s]chedules for potential future projects near the project site are currently unknown.” Id. This is patently false, as the Applicant itself has submitted and the City has approved proposals for at least six other warehouses in the area. See Table 1 above. The City has also approved at least three additional warehouses 11 As discussed above, the City has unlawfully “piecemealed” the analysis of the Applicant’s overall warehouse construction project, which was already a violation of CEQA. The lack of any meaningful analysis of cumulative impacts from these projects taken together has only further subverted CEQA’s purposes, misleading both decisionmakers and members of the public. 12 See MND at PDF 2026-2093 (SWAPE report).
230
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

proposed by other developers: CUP 22-005A13 (Crow Holdings West), CUP 23-00914 (Crow Holdings East), and DRA 22-02215 (Lovett Industrial). These projects have a combined development footprint of 1,597,005 square feet. See Table 2 below. And the Applicant for this Project is aware of, and in control of, construction timelines for seven of those projects, including this one. There is no basis for the Applicant or the City to claim that the combined impacts of these projects are “speculative.” The MND simply fails to analyze the cumulative localized impacts of all of these projects.

Figure 1. Map of warehouses. This Project in yellow; other Applicant warehouses in blue; warehouses proposed by other applicants in orange.

Developer Project Location Square footage
Patriot Partners CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 Patriot Partners CUP 21-007 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 Patriot Partners CUP 22-002 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 Patriot Partners CUP 22-003 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 Patriot Partners CUP 22-004 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 Patriot Partners CUP 22-011 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 Patriot Partners CUP 23-003 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 Crow Holdings CUP 22-005A
East side of Central Ave between 3rd &
5th St 154,876
Crow Holdings CUP 23-009 Between 5th & 3rd St, east of Central Ave 243,323 Lovett Industrial DRA 22-022 NWC of Palm Ave & Meines St 284,917 Total 1,597,005
Table 2. Known nearby warehouse projects, including this Project. 13 https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/509
14 https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/631
15 https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/513
231
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

Even considering only the Applicant’s projects, the combined impact on air quality likely exceeds significance thresholds. Several projects, including this Project, come very close to exceeding significance thresholds on their own. In particular, five of the Applicant’s seven projects will produce construction emissions for PM10 and PM2.5 at levels anywhere from 77% to 97% of the localized significance threshold. See highlighted figures in Ex. H. Similarly, for five of the seven projects, construction activities would result in a residential maximum individual cancer risk at levels from 65% to 99% of the significance threshold of 10 in 1 million. See id. For operational activities, CUP 21-007 (NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St) will cause a residential maximum individual cancer risk of 9.59, even higher than this Project’s risk of 9.48, with both levels close to the 10 in 1 million threshold. See id. As discussed in greater detail below, all of these projects are proposed for a disadvantaged community already suffering from severe environmental impacts, including a very high background cancer risk. The MND fails to evaluate how the emissions from each of the known warehouse projects nearby will combine with the Project’s impacts.
b. Population and Housing Impacts
The MND also fails to consider the cumulative growth in employment induced by all of the nearby warehouse projects. As a threshold matter, the MND incorrectly calculates the employment growth caused by this Project. The MND uses SCAG’s 2001 Employment Density Report to calculate employment estimates using data for San Bernardino County. MND at PDF 94. Instead, the MND should use the estimate from the City’s 2006 General Plan Land Use Element, which is both more recent and more locally specific. As the GSEJA Comments note, Table 2.2 - Nonresidential Buildout Estimates of the Land Use Element states that the Business Park Land Use designation will generate 1 employee for every 600 square feet.16 This means this Project will generate 290 employees.17
SCAG’s 2024 Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast notes that the City will add 4,200 jobs between 2019 and 2050.18 This Project alone represents 6.9% of that growth, and the nearby warehouse projects combined with this Project will generate 16 City of Highland, General Plan, Land Use Element, March 2006, at 2-21. https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3216/Land-Use-Element-PDF. 17 The MND’s use of incorrect employment figures also undermines its analysis other topic areas in the MND, including but not limited to VMT. 18 SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast, adopted April 4, 2024, at

44. https://www.scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-tr-demographicsgrowth-forecast-final-040424.pdf. 232
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

at minimum 2,666 employees or 63.5% of the employment growth forecast over 31 years, when we are less than a third through that time period. See Table 3 below. The MND fails to provide a cumulative analysis of the significant employment growth from these projects.

Project Location Square footage Employees % of forecast CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 290 6.9%
CUP 21-007 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 510 12.1%
CUP 22-002 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 91 2.2%
CUP 22-003 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 151 3.6% CUP 22-004 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 314 7.5% CUP 22-011 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 80 1.9%
CUP 23-003 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 90 2.1% CUP 22-005A
East side of Central Ave between 3rd &
5th St 154,876 259 6.2%
CUP 23-009 Between 5th & 3rd St, east of Central Ave 243,323 406 9.7% DRA 22-022 NWC of Palm Ave & Meines St 284,917 475 11.3% Total 1,597,005 2,666 63.5%
Table 3. Employees generated by known nearby warehouse projects, including this Project.
c. Transportation
The MND also fails to analyze cumulative transportation impacts. The local CMP requires a traffic impact analysis when “a development project, or at local discretion, a group of projects are forecast to generate 250 two-way peak hour trips.” Ex. I. at 4-4 (San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program, June 2016). The City of Highland requires a traffic report when the local CMP requires, or when a project generates more than 1,000 new two-way daily trips or 100 new two-way peak hour trips. MND at PDF 111.

Combining this Project with just two of the Applicant’s other projects results in peak hour trips exceeding the City’s threshold for a traffic report. PCE-adjusted peak hour trips for this Project total 90 trips. Combined with PCE-adjusted peak hour trips from CUP 21-007 (157 trips; see Ex. J. at 100, Table 26) and CUP 22-004 (55 trips; see Ex. K. at 100, Table 26), the projects together generate a total of 302 trips. Without even considering the rest of the projects, this well exceeds the 100 two-way peak hour trips threshold, requiring a traffic report. The MND must further analyze all cumulative impacts on traffic from all of the known warehouse projects. 233
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

d. General Plan Buildout Conditions.

As the GSEJA Comments note, the MND does not analyze cumulative impacts in relation to the City’s General Plan buildout projections. Table 2.2 - Nonresidential Buildout Estimates of the Land Use Element forecasts 2,407,126 square feet of building space developed under the Business Park Land Use designation through 2040.19 This Project alone represents 7.2% of that estimate, and the total footprint of the known warehouses represents 66.3% of the estimate. See Table 4 below. The MND fails to discuss the impacts of this significant combined development.

Project Location Square footage % of buildout
CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 7.2%
CUP 21-007 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 12.7%
CUP 22-002 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 2.3%
CUP 22-003 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 3.8%
CUP 22-004 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 7.8%
CUP 22-011 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 2.0%
CUP 23-003 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 2.2% CUP 22-005A
East side of Central Ave between 3rd &
5th St 154,876 6.4%
CUP 23-009 Between 5th & 3rd St, east of Central Ave 243,323 10.1% DRA 22-022 NWC of Palm Ave & Meines St 284,917 11.8%
Total 1,597,005 66.3%
Table 4. Percentage of Business Park buildout estimate generated by known nearby warehouse projects, including this Project.

B. The MND Fails to Properly Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Energy Impacts.

The MND’s conclusion that the Project would not result in any potentially significant energy impacts is not supported by adequate analysis or evidence. The MND must contain a detailed statement describing “measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” Pub. Resources Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines, Appx. F. Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines provides a list of potential energy use impacts and mitigation measures to guide that analysis. See CEQA Guidelines, Appx. F §§ II.C-II.D. It states that EIRs should consider, 19 City of Highland, General Plan, Land Use Element, March 2006, at 2-21. https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3216/Land-Use-Element-PDF. 234
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

among other things, (1) a project’s “energy requirements and . . . energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project,” (2) the project’s “effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity,” (3) the “effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy,” and (6) the project’s “project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.” See id., § II.C. Local agencies should also consider mitigation measures such as “siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption,” “reducing peak energy demand,” and “use of alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems.” Id. § II.D; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(b) (EIR must mitigate wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use). This MND’s energy impacts analysis falls short of evaluating the standards outlined in Appendix F as CEQA requires. See id., Appx. F §§ II (“Where items listed [in Appendix F]. . . are applicable or relevant to the project, they should be considered in the EIR.”); see also Cal. Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 211 (“Clean Energy”) (EIRs must address applicable considerations from Appendix F); Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 265 (“Ukiah Citizens”) (same).

Appendix F §§ II.F states that the project’s energy impact analysis should assess whether the project has “Unavoidable Adverse Effects [that] may include wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal that cannot be feasibly mitigated.” Here, the MND does not do the necessary work. Regarding impact question VI.a, whether the Project would “[r]esult in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation,” the MND concludes that this impact would be less than significant. The evidence cited is that the Project will be subject to the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards and that “vehicles would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy and potential reduction in VMT over time.” MND at PDF 65. Further, the MND states that “[s]ince the proposed project would comply with Title 24 conservation standards, the proposed project would not directly require the construction of new energy generation or supply facilities or result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.” MND at PDF 66.

The MND states that “the proposed project would not directly require the construction of new energy generation or supply facilities or result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.” This conclusion assumes that because the Project will not require the construction of new energy-generating or supply facilities to serve its energy needs, the Project is therefore not wasteful or inefficient. But 235
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

there is no supporting evidence or data for this claim. As shown below, the Project is indeed inefficient, wasteful, and consumes unnecessary energy from the grid, and mitigation is required.

Although other reliable clean energy sources exist, the Project proposes to burn natural gas for various purposes, including water heating and natural gas appliances and natural gas forklifts, as well as to allow gas-powered forklifts on site. MND at PDF 64.

This is both wasteful and inefficient. Furthermore, the project does not propose to generate any energy on-site. This approach completely wastes the solar energy that hits the site on a near-daily basis in sunny, inland Southern California and consumes unnecessary energy from the grid when on-site sources could be available. Installing onsite solar photovoltaics to generate electricity to consume on-site can avoid real, measurable inefficiencies that are inherent to buying electricity from the grid. A key efficiency advantage of on-site solar PV is that it avoids grid transmission & distribution losses. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates transmission & distribution (“T&D”) losses average approximately 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States. See Ex. L. Here, when solar PV could be used to generate energy on-site (“behind the meter”) and that energy could be used on-site, most of those upstream T&D losses could be avoided for that kWh. Therefore, on-site energy is less wasteful than electricity purchased from the grid.

This Project could generate enough renewable power to supply some or all of the Project’s electricity needs through the installation of solar photovoltaic panels on the building roof or in the parking field, but it does not appear to be doing either. On site solar would reduce the Project’s energy consumption from the grid, reduce energy waste, and reduce associated GHG emissions. It also aides in demonstrating consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and AB 1279 by making the Project net neutral in terms of energy demand and production. In sunny Southern California, a roughly 174,000 square foot building like the proposed warehouse could easily meet 100% of the Project’s electricity needs through a rooftop solar system. Assuming that 60% of the rooftop area can be used for solar panels, a rooftop solar system would generate, conservatively, over 1,600,000 kWh/year.20 This is well over the Project’s estimated operational electricity demand, 20 In warmer climates such as southern California, flat roofs have an access factor (percentage area of roof available to accommodate solar systems) of 60%. See Ex. M. (Lado Kurdgelashvili et al., Estimating Technical Potential for Rooftop Photovoltaics in California, Arizona and New Jersey, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP), 2016) at 28. Thus, an approximately 174,000 square foot building can allocate 104,000 square feet to a solar system (174,000 sq ft. × 60% access factor = 104,000 sq. 236
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

which the MND states is 987,255 kilowatt-hours per year during operation. See MND at

54. The Project would consume approximately 3,347,134 thousand British thermal units of natural gas per year of operations. See Id. This equates to approximately 980,948 kWh/year.21 A rooftop solar PV installation that generates over 1,600,000 kWh/year, as described above, could eliminate the need to use natural gas entirely, and all equipment and appliances could be substituted with electric ones. Burning natural gas is both inefficient and wasteful in that it is using a finite chemical energy that requires extraction, drilling, and transportation – particularly when a cleaner, more efficient source such as on-site solar is possible. Similarly, the Project’s continued reliance solely on fossil fuels for transportation suggests further inefficiency and waste in the Project’s energy consumption. The Project could demonstrate energy efficiency and a decreased reliance on fossil fuels by requiring some portion of on-site vehicles to be electric or utilize alternative fuels. It is simply not supportable for the MND to conclude that the Project would not “[r]esult in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation,” as the data above illustrates that is not the case. In this case, the Project unnecessarily consumes energy resources by burning fossil fuels when cleaner and more efficient energy sources are available, and by not incorporating on-site energy generation in the Project, instead unnecessarily pulling energy from the grid when it could be generated on-site for project consumption.

Next, the MND concludes that the Project would not “[c]onflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency” because the Project will comply with Title 24 standards. However, once again, the MND does not explain its conclusion that meeting minimum building requirements demonstrates that the Project would not conflict with state or local energy plans. Indeed, courts have rejected EIRs that rely merely on compliance with building codes to address project impacts without a more detailed analysis of the considerations outlined in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. See Clean Energy, 225 Cal.App.4th at 211 (“Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of new commercial construction, it does not address many of the ft.). Assuming that 100 square feet of rooftop can accommodate 1 kW of rooftop solar and assuming an annual solar energy yield of 1,550 hours per kW, 104,000 square feet of rooftop solar can produce approximately 1,612,000 kWh/year (104,000 square feet of rooftop = 1,040 kW of rooftop solar. 1,040 kW × 1,550 hour annual solar energy yield = 1,812,000 kWh/year). See Ex. N. (Los Angeles County Public Works Renewable Energy Master Plan (Jan. 2020)) at 30.
23 One kWh = 3,412.142 Btu.
237
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

considerations required under [A]ppendix F”); Ukiah Citizens, 248 Cal.App.4th at 265 (EIR “improperly relie[d] on compliance with the building code to mitigate operational and construction energy impacts, without further discussion of the . . . [A]ppendix F criteria”); see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(b) (discussing other relevant considerations in addition to compliance with the building code). Simply because a project complies with Title 24 conservation standards (which is the bare minimum required for the issuance of a building permit), this does not automatically result in a less than significant impact to energy resources.

The MND must provide evidence to support its conclusion that energy impacts will be less than significant. See CEQA Guidelines, Appx. F, § II.D. If impacts are significant, the MND must then also identify and describe energy-conserving measures, like those outlined in Appendix F, that would be implemented during operation of the Project to reduce the energy use. Here, the MND should have recognized the Project’s significant energy impacts and explored the applicable mitigation measures identified in Appendix F—for example, how incorporating renewable energy systems could mitigate the Project’s energy use impacts. See id. §§ II.D.2, II.D.4. Without a proper analysis and acknowledgement of foreseeable impacts and incorporation of adequate mitigation, the MND’s conclusions that the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant are not supported by substantial evidence. The facts suggest that the Project’s energy use in transportation and ongoing operation are indeed significant and that mitigation is required.

C. The MND Fails to Properly Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Air Quality and Hazardous Materials Impacts, which Substantial Evidence in the Record Shows Will Be Significant.

An expert report prepared by SWAPE in support of the GSEJA Comments identified numerous omissions, evidentiary deficiencies, and analytical flaws in the MND’s air quality and hazardous materials analyses. See MND at PDF 2026-93. The MND materials do not contain any substantive response to SWAPE’s report or the multiple flaws identified therein.

The SWAPE report also provided independent, expert evidence amply sufficient to support a fair argument that the Project’s air quality impacts will be significant. For example, SWAPE found that construction VOC emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds under the construction schedule actually proposed in the MND (as opposed to the different, and unsupported, construction schedule inputs apparently used in the air quality modeling). Id. at 2030-31, 2034. SWAPE also found that the Project as a whole would cause a significant health risk impact in excess of SCAQMD’s cancer risk 238
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

threshold. Id. at 2042-43. As SWAPE points out, this Project is one of many warehouse projects proposed to be located in a disadvantaged community already suffering from very high cancer risks. Id. at 2036 (showing Project site has an existing cancer risk of 439 in one million); see also generally id. at 2034-42.

Finally, noting that the MND’s Health Risk Assessment showed cancer risks very close to the threshold, SCAQMD requested that the City and Applicant incorporate a suite of standard mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts on air quality and the health of nearby residents. MND at PDF 1978-80. The Applicant refused on the ground that the Project’s impacts are less than significant and require no mitigation. Id. at 1983-84. The Applicant’s refusal to incorporate SCAQMD’s proposed mitigation is unlawful and unjustified, particularly in the context of substantial evidence in the SWAPE report that the Project’s impacts will be significant.

D. The Project Conflicts With Applicable Plans Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Which is a Significant Impact.

California’s Inland Empire—which generally comprises most of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties—is already host to more than 4,000 warehouses and roughly 600,000 daily truck trips that produce 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide.22 Together, these facilities result in thousands of truck trips, massive quantities of toxic air emissions, substantial truck traffic, and noise. Neighborhoods throughout the two counties area are already overburdened with impacts from these facilities, and the City of Highland is no exception. Warehouse development in the region is already having devastating human health and climate change impacts on the region, and the City of Highland should not permit additional warehouse development that will only exacerbate the issue. 22 See Ex. O “California warehouse boom comes with health, environmental costs for Inland Empire residents,” J. Newton, Cal Matters, Jan. 26, 2023, available at https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/01/inland-empire-california-warehousedevelopment/; Ex. P “Warehouse boom transformed Inland Empire. Are jobs worth the environmental degradation?” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 5, 2023, available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-02-05/warehouses-big-rigs-fill-inlandempire-streets; Ex. Q “Inland Empire residents are fighting warehouse sprawl,” R.

Fonseca, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 7, 2023, available at
https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2023-02-07/essential-californiawarehouses-inland-empire-essential-california. 239
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

The MND identifies the substantial GHG emissions that will be generated by the Project at 2,928 MT CO2e per year. The MND concludes that the Project’s GHG emissions impacts are less than significant, but the MND does not justify the threshold used to determine significance for GHG emissions and why it is suitable for this Project.

Further, the MND does not accurately recognize that the Project will conflict with several plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and does not explain how the project’s emissions align with California’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets.

1. The Project’s GHG Emissions Conflict With Targets Set in CARB’s 2022 and 2017 Scoping Plans.

A project can be found to be consistent with the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) 2022 Scoping Plan if it would meet the Scoping Plan policies and would not impede attainment of the goals therein. The MND states that “[t]he proposed project would support the state’s carbon neutrality goals, as implementation includes addition of urban-tree and native plantings throughout the project site, which represent opportunities for potential carbon removal and sequestration over the project life-time.” MND at PDF

77. However, the 2022 Scoping Plan emphasizes that reliance on carbon sequestration in the state’s natural and working lands will not be sufficient to address residual GHG emissions, and achieving carbon neutrality will require research, development, and deployment of additional methods. Nor does the MND provide any evidence that a handful of ornamental trees and shrubs planted in parking lots and alongside the warehouse building (see Landscape Sheet 1 of the Project Development Plans, Attachment B to the Planning Commission staff report) will meaningfully sequester enough carbon to offset the emissions from more than 400 passenger-car-equivalent trips every day.

The MND further states that “[g]iven that the specific path to neutrality will require development of technologies and programs that are not currently known or available, the project’s role in supporting the statewide goal would be speculative and cannot be wholly identified at this time.” MND at PDF 77. This statement is false and disingenuous. The Project indeed can include measures (including measures far more meaningful and effective than basic landscaping) that will bring the City – and, by extension, the State – closer to carbon neutrality.

Instead, the Project proposes to burn fossil fuels for energy, which contributes to GHG emissions of 2,928 MT CO2e per year. Paradoxically, the MND somehow concludes that the Project supports the State in meeting its GHG emissions reduction goals. In order to bolster this conclusion, the MND must include an explanation how this 240
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

is possible, including the assumptions underlying the conclusion that this Project helps contribute to achieving net neutral carbon emissions by 2045 in compliance with CARB and SCAQMD guidance. Since the MND does not provide any such explanation or supporting evidence, the MND should properly conclude that the Project cannot meet GHG threshold b: “the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases” even if the Project’s annual emissions do not exceed the annual threshold recommended by SCAQMD.

The MND contains numerous references to consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan. However, the project directly conflicts with the 2017 Scoping Plan’s recommended per capita GHG thresholds, which are to reduce emissions to 6.0 MTCO₂e per capita by 2030 and to 2.0 MTCO₂e per capita by 2050. See Ex. R at 99 (2017 CARB Scoping Plan). With the Project’s per-service population of 147 employees (see MND at 104) and GHG emissions of 2,928 MT CO2e per year, this equates to approximately 19.9 MT CO2e per capita per year, which is over three times the 2030 goal and nearly 10 times the 2050 target. The MND provides no explanation or discussion of how the project could possibly meet these targets during the Project’s operational lifespan. Without such evidence, the MND must conclude that the Project will remain inconsistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan's long-term goals.

Since the Project conflicts with CARB’s ambitious GHG reduction goals, its impacts are significant – both directly and cumulatively – and mitigation measures to reduce emission must be identified. Implementation of mitigation measures such as electrification of all on-site equipment, prohibition on natural gas burning equipment and appliances, and on-site energy generation as described in the Energy section of this letter would reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. On-site generation of the amount of energy needed to power the project would also contribute to consistency with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan to achieve carbon neutrality.

2. The Project’s GHG Emissions Exceed the SCAQMD 2035
Efficiency Target.

Beyond inconsistency with the CARB Scoping Plan, the Project’s service population efficiency value exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e per service population per year, indicating a potentially significant impact not identified or addressed by the MND. This is yet another example of where the MND’s conclusion that the Project’s impacts are less than significant is inaccurate and unsupported. Page 19 of the expert report prepared by SWAPE provides substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project’s GHG emissions impacts will be 241
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

significant. See MND at PDF 2044. The MND improperly omits any analysis of this threshold.

3. The Project is Inconsistent with the Statewide Net-Zero GHG Emissions Goals of Executive Order (EO) B-55-18.

The MND does not analyze consistency with EO B-55-18, which sets a statewide goal of net-zero GHG emissions no later than 2045 and maintain net negative emissions after reaching that point. The MND fails to quantify whether the project’s operational emissions materially impede achievement of statewide GHG reduction goals.

E. The MND’s reliance on the 3,000 MT CO2e/year South Coast Air Quality Management District threshold is improper and unsupported.

The MND uses SCAQMD’s “recommended” threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year to conclude that the Project’s annual operational greenhouse gas emissions are not significant. MND at 66. However, the MND has not supported the use of this threshold with substantial evidence as required by CEQA. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7(b).

Therefore, the MND’s reliance on this threshold to determine that greenhouse gas emissions are not significant is invalid.

As the Advocates for the Environment comments (“AE Comments”) note, SCAQMD has not formally adopted the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold, nor did it substantiate it with evidence. AE Comments, MND at 2002-2003. The cited document is merely a “Stakeholder Working Group Meeting” presentation, with no sources or evidence supporting the presented thresholds.23
Further, this unofficial threshold is from 2010 and does not incorporate recent state goals related to greenhouse gas emissions, such as EO B-55-18. See AE Comments, MND at 2003-2005. CEQA requires the MND’s analysis to “reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b); Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 518. The MND fails to do so and is deficient under CEQA. 23 SCAQMD, Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15, September 28, 2010. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008- 2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 242
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

F. The MND Improperly Defers Analysis and Mitigation.

The MND improperly defers analysis and mitigation on a number of topics, stating future assessment and review will preclude significant impacts. CEQA prohibits this type of deferred analysis and mitigation. “CEQA’s demand for meaningful information ‘is not satisfied by simply stating information will be provided in the future.’” Clean Energy, 225 Cal.App.4th at 200; see also Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92 (“reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decision making”).

For example, under Public Utilities Code section 21676(b), review by the San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission is required before the City may amend its General Plan, but the MND does not consider this review. See GSEJA Comments, MND at 2015-2016. The MND also improperly defers analysis on traffic flow and street design requirements, and emergency vehicle access requirements. It simply states that the Project “would be reviewed, designed, and constructed” according to applicable standards at later phases of review. MND at 106; see GSEJA Comments, MND at 2022- 2023. This deferred analysis is prohibited under CEQA.

VI. The Project Conflicts with the City of Highland General Plan and Cannot Be Approved.

The City cannot approve this Project because it conflicts with the City’s General Plan. The Project’s floor area ratio (“FAR”) is 0.56, and the MND states that the applicable maximum FAR within the Business Park designation is 0.6, citing the City’s General Plan. MND at 79. In fact, the General Plan sets the Business Park Maximum Intensity at 0.45 FAR.
24 Further, the buildout forecast for the Business Park designation estimates an even lower probable intensity of 0.30.25 Thus, the Project’s FAR of 0.56 exceeds the maximum density permitted by the City and is inconsistent with the General Plan.

To approve a conditional use permit, the City requires affirmative findings, including that the proposed use “is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Highland general plan” and all other development standards. City of Highland Mun.

Code, § 16.08.050(E)(1). Similarly, to approve a zoning change, the City Council must 24 City of Highland, General Plan, Land Use Element at 2-15, available at https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3216/Land-Use-Element-PDF. 25 Id., Table 2.2 - Nonresidential Buildout Estimates at 2-21. 243
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

find the zoning change “consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan, and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the general plan.” Id., § 16.08.040(D)(1). The City Council also must find that the General Plan amendment proposed as part of this Project “is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan, or the general plan as revised by the proposed amendment, and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the plan.” Id., §

16.08.030(G)(1). The findings proposed in the draft resolution (Attachment C to the Staff Report) do not address the Project’s facial inconsistency with the maximum FAR standards in the General Plan. Because the City cannot make the required findings, it cannot approve this Project.

To approve the CUP, the City must also find that “the site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development which is proposed.” Id., § 16.08.030(E)(3). Because the intensity of the Project at 0.56 FAR is in excess of the maximum allowed at 0.45 FAR, the Project is, by definition, too intense for a property with a Business Park General Plan land use designation. At 0.56 FAR, the Project is, in fact, developed too intensely for any of the City of Highland’s non-residential land use designations, where the highest allowable maximum intensity is 0.50 FAR.

The MND also fails to evaluate whether this inconsistency with the General Plan is a significant impact, which would require further analysis and/or mitigation.

VII. The Project As Designed Is Inconsistent with AB 98/SB 414 and Cannot Be Approved.

The Staff Report for the Project states that the Project is subject to certain provisions of AB 98/SB 414 currently codified at Government Code section 65098.1(d).

Staff Report at 10. As designed, this Project is inconsistent with AB 98/SB 414 and cannot be approved.

The Project does not meet the standards of Government Code section 65098.1(d).

Subdivision (d)(1) requires projects to “[o]rient truck loading bays on the side of the logistics use development that is away from the nearest sensitive receptor, to the extent feasible.” Here, the nearest sensitive receptor (at 26604 5th Street) is located just eastnortheast of the truck entry to the east side of the warehouse where the truck bays will be located. Compare Staff Report Attachment B at 2 (Site Plan) with Exs. A, B, and S (Google Maps images showing distances from truck entrance and loading bays to nearest sensitive receptor). The east side of the warehouse is the side located closest to the nearest sensitive receptor, not “away from” it as subdivision (d)(1) requires. Neither the Staff Report nor the draft resolution establishes that it would be infeasible to orient the 244
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

loading docks differently (for example, on the south side of the warehouse, toward 3rd Street and across from existing logistics uses).

The Project is also inconsistent with subdivision (d)(2), which requires projects to “[l]ocate truck entry, exit, and internal circulation away from sensitive receptors. Heavyduty diesel truck drive aisles shall be prohibited from being used on sides of the logistics use development that are directly adjacent to a sensitive receptor property line.” Here, the Project’s northern driveway is located virtually right across the street from the nearest sensitive receptor. Exs. A, B. As discussed above, 80% of the truck traffic from the Project will be turning in and out of this driveway directly in front of the multifamily residence at 26604 5th Street, and passing in front of this and other sensitive receptors in both directions. See Ex. B (Google Maps image showing uses along 5th Street immediately to the east of the Project, including additional multifamily residences and Highland Head Start). The north and east sides of the Project are also across the street from—and therefore effectively “directly adjacent to”—sensitive residential receptors, which subdivision (d)(2) expressly “prohibit[s].” The Project further fails to comply with subdivision (d)(3), which requires buffering and screening “as described in section 65098.2.” Section 65908.2(a)(1) requires buffers that “fully screen the logistics use development” from sensitive receptors within 900 feet of the development. Here, the Project’s loading docks will likely be visible (and audible) from the nearest sensitive receptor, which will have a direct line of sight through the northern driveway gate (and, from the second floor, over any adjacent wall).

Finally, the Staff Report fails to address the other requirements of section 65098.1(d), much less provide any evidence that the Project is consistent with them. The Project is facially inconsistent with AB 98/SB 414 and cannot be approved as designed.

VIII. The Staff Report and Draft Resolution Fail to Justify a Variance or Exception from Otherwise Applicable Parking Requirements.

The MND admits that the Project is inconsistent with applicable parking requirements under applicable ordinances. Appendix J2 to the MND states that the Project would require 209 parking spaces “per the Code.” MND at PDF 1871; Mun. Code § 16.52.030, Table 16.52.030A at E.3 (requiring one off-street parking space “per 1,000 gross ft. of floor area devoted to warehousing plus the required amount of parking for gross square footage devoted to other uses”). Yet the Project provides only 79 spaces—a 130-space shortfall. MND at PDF 1871.

The Project therefore cannot be approved without a variances and/or exception. A decrease in the required number of spaces “may be granted under the circumstances 245
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

identified in [Municipal Code section] 16.52.050, or by the approval of a variance.” Mun.

Code § 16.52.020(F)(2). Yet neither the MND, the Staff Report, nor the draft resolution provides an adequate justification for an exception or variance from parking requirements here.

First, none of the “circumstances identified” in Municipal Code section 16.52.050 apply here. The Staff Report mentions section 16.52.050(D) (Staff Report at 6), but that provision applies to buildings “contain[ing] extensive areas of employee facilities such as, but not limited to, cafeterias, racquetball courts, health facilities, or covered patios; multiple stairways and elevator shafts in multiple-story buildings, or atriums” that result in “gross leasable space . . . significantly below the 85 percent average assumed in the parking schedules.” Mun. Code § 16.52.050(D). There is no indication in the record that the Project contains any such features or that its “gross leasable space” is “significantly below the 85 percent average.” The Staff Report does not describe the Municipal Code requirement accurately, referring instead to a “low percentage of usable space.” Staff Report at 6. Moreover, the Staff Report never even attempts to establish that there is any limitation on “usable space” on the Project site, which the MND describes as entirely undeveloped. The parking study attached as Appendix J2 to the MND similarly fails to address the requirements of the Municipal Code; instead, it compares the Project to warehouses in other jurisdictions and asserts that the 79 spaces provided will be sufficient.
26 But the City must evaluate projects based on its own ordinances, not requirements in other jurisdictions. By its terms, Municipal Code section 16.52.050 does not permit an exception for this Project, and a finding to the contrary cannot be sustained on this record.

Nor can a variance from parking requirements be justified here. Municipal Code section 16.08.070 establishes firm criteria and specific findings for the granting of variances. The variance sought here does not meet the criteria for a minor variance from parking requirements (section 16.08.070(C)(2), allowing variances of no more than 30 percent, “not to exceed two spaces”) and therefore would be a major variance (section

16.08.070(D)). Neither the MND, the Staff Report, nor the draft resolution address the findings required for a variance in section 16.08.070(E). A variance cannot be granted on this record.
26 Moreover, by focusing solely on parking at warehouses in other jurisdictions, Appendix J2 fails to explain how 79 parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate the 147 employees and 218 daily passenger car trips anticipated elsewhere in Appendix J.

See MND at PDF 1861, 1867.
246
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

IX. Request for Notice
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.2 and any other applicable law, please provide copies of any and all future notices related to this project by email to Yeji Jung ([email protected]) and Kevin Bundy ([email protected]).

X. Conclusion
The MND cannot lawfully support approval of the Project. Its conclusions regarding the significance of the Project’s impacts are not supported by substantial evidence. Nor do the MND’s analyses—many of which are incomplete, inadequately described, and unsupported—justify a finding that the Project’s impacts will be less than significant. On the contrary, substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. The City must prepare an EIR in compliance with CEQA before the Planning Commission can further consider or approve this Project.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Kevin P. Bundy
Yeji Jung
Kristi Bascom, AICP
Copy to (via email):

Camille Duarte, Administrative Assistant, [email protected] Exhibits
A. Google Maps Street View screenshot of approximate truck entrance location roughly 150 feet from 26604 5th Street multifamily residence (image accessed January 2026)
B. Google Maps Street View screenshot of 5th Street between Victoria and Central (image accessed January 2026)
C. SBCTA VMT Screening Tool result, 2026 PA VMT per Service Population, from website https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (accessed January 2026) D. SBCTA VMT Screening Tool result, 2026 OD VMT per Service Population, from website https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (accessed January 2026) 247
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

E. SBCTA VMT Screening Tool result, 2026 PA VMT Per Worker, from website https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (accessed January 2026) F. Fehr & Peers, VMT Modeling Lexicon (undated)
G. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Dec. 2018) H. Patriot Warehouses: Localized Significance Thresholds data, summary prepared by Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP (January 2026)
I. San Bernardino Associated Governments, San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program 2016 Update (June 2016)
J. Dudek, 6th Street and Victoria Avenue Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 21-007, City of Highland (November 2021)
K. Dudek, Victoria Avenue and Cypress Street Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 22-004, City of Highland (August 2022)
L. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Frequently Asked Questions from EIA website (www.eia.gov, accessed January 14, 2026)
M. Lado Kurdgelashvili et al., Estimating Technical Potential for Rooftop Photovoltaics in California, Arizona and New Jersey, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP), 2016
N. Los Angeles County Public Works, Public Works Renewable Energy Master Plan (January 2020)
O. Jim Newton, California warehouse boom comes with health, environmental costs for Inland Empire residents, Cal Matters (Jan. 26, 2023, updated August 1, 2024) P. Rachel Uranga, Warehouse boom transformed Inland Empire. Are jobs worth the environmental degradation? Los Angeles Times (Feb. 5, 2023) Q. Ryan Fonseca, Inland Empire residents are fighting warehouse sprawl, Los Angeles Times (Feb. 7, 2023)
R. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (November 2017)
S. Google Maps Street View screenshot of distance from property line of nearest sensitive receptor. (image accessed January 2026)
2013073.12
248
Exhibit B
249
250
251
ATTACHMENT 9
City Council Resolution No. 2026 - ____ to uphold PC’s Approval 252
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO DENY APPEAL (APP 26-003), AND UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF A THREE (3) YEAR
EXTENSION OF TIME (EXT 26-003) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (CUP 22-011) AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DRA 21-015) RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 47,889 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 6TH STREET,
APPROXIMATELY 930 FEET WEST OF DEL ROSA DRIVE; AND MAKING

A FINDING THAT THE EXTENSION OF TIME IS NOT A PROJECT UNDER

CEQA OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21166 AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162.

APN: 0279-201-24-0000
(PROJECT APPLICANT: PATRIOT USICVI DEL ROSA LLC)
APPELLANT: Peoples Collective for Environmental Justice A. RECITALS

1. On September 13, 2022, the Applicant, Patriot USICVI Del Rosa LLC, filed an application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) to develop a 47,889 square foot industrial warehouse and associated improvements including loading docks, passenger vehicle parking spaces, a stormwater detention/infiltration basin, and landscape area (the “Project”) on the property generally located on the south side of 6th Street, approximately 930 feet west of Del Rosa Drive (“Property”). Related applications were also filed for Design Review (DRA 21-015) including a Site Plan, Building Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan, Conceptual Landscape Plan; and Variance (VAR 22-004) to increase the maximum building height permitted to 46 feet.

2. On May 16, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) (Resolution No. 2023-020) to develop the Project. The Planning Commission also approved Variance (VAR 22-004) (Resolution No. 2023-021) to increase the maximum permitted building height to 46 feet, and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015) (Resolution No. 2023-022), including the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan, and Conceptual Landscape Plan. The Planning Commission also adopted An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project (Resolution 2023-023) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City subsequently filed a Notice of Determination with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board on May 22, 2023 and the State Clearinghouse on May 23, 2023, triggering a 30-day statute of limitations that ended on June 22, 2023. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b).) No party challenged the sufficiency of the IS/MND. The deadline to file an action or proceeding to 253
challenge the decision to approve the Project was August 14, 2023. (Gov’t.

Code Section 65009(c)(1)(E).) No party challenged the approval of the Project.

3. On June 10, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 470, amending City of Highland Municipal Code Chapter 16 to enhance the City’s regulatory framework, streamline processes, promote sustainable development, and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. This Municipal Code amendment, in part, increased the allowable building height in the Business Park zone to 50 feet, negating the need for the variance approved for the Project.

4. On May 16, 2026, CUP 22-011, VAR 22-004, and DRA 21-015 were scheduled to expire pursuant to the applicable Conditions of Approval.

5. In March of 2026, the Applicant submitted an Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) application to extend the expiration date of Conditional Use Permit Application (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015) for an additional three (3) years to May 16, 2029.

6. On May 19, 2026, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the Extension of Time application to June 16, 2026, at the Applicant’s request due to a scheduling conflict.

7. On June 16, 2026, at Staff’s request, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the Extension of Time application to allow Staff additional time to revise the Project resolution and associated environmental documentation.

The Planning Commission also received public testimony on the Extension of Time application.

8. On July 21, 2026, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-012 approving Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) to extend the expiration date of Conditional Use Permit Application (CUP 22- 011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015) for an additional three (3) years to May 16, 2029. The Planning Commission found that the original approvals included the adoption of IS/MND and MMRP and that, pursuant to Pub. Res. Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review was required for the Extension of Time. The City filed a Notice of Determination with the San Bernardino County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse on July 28, 2026.

9. On August 3, 2026, the Appellant filed an Appeal (APP 26-003) to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the three (3) year entitlement extension.

10.On October 3, 2026, the City gave public notice by advertising in the SB Sun, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Highland, and by mailing notices to property owners within 300 feet of the project site of the holding of a public hearing at which the Project would be considered.

11.All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 254
B. RESOLUTION
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Highland as follows:

Section 1. The City Council finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part “A” of this Resolution, are true and correct.

Section 2. The City of Highland City Council, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself and on its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, including the staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 21, 2026, and staff report to the City Council dated October 13, 2026, written comments received, and any oral testimony presented, does find and determine the following facts and conclusions:
a. All necessary Public Hearings and opportunities for public testimony and comment have been conducted in compliance with State Law and the Municipal Code of the City of Highland.
b. The granting of an Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (HMC Section 16.08.200.B(5).)
The Extension of Time does not modify the approved Project’s layout, height, size, parking, access, circulation, landscaping, operations, or intensity of use, and the time for any challenge to the previous approval has long since passed. The approved Project previously was found to be compliant with all Municipal, Fire & Building Codes. At the time of original Project approval, each division of the City reviewed the Project and provided relevant Conditions of Approval that were adopted for the Project. The necessary ingress and egress are provided and all public utilities and services will be in place. Mitigation imposed on the Project at approval has already been found to reduce any impacts to public health or safety to less than significant. The approved project was found in compliance with the Highland General Plan and Municipal Code standards related to warehousing in the Business Park District within the 5th Street Corridor Policy Area. It meets development code standards such as land use, setbacks, density, lighting, parking, circulation, etc. The Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

More specifically, at the time the original permits were approved, the Head Start was in the same location, the proposed internal circulation on the site was the same, the same sensitive residential receptors existed in the vicinity of the site, and the traffic impacts 255
analyzed were the same. Further, all of the residential uses in the area, as well as the Head Start, are legal non-conforming uses within districts zoned for industrial and business park uses. The General Plan envisions transitioning this area away from residential and similar uses towards the uses identified in the “Employment District” zones - Business Park, Industrial, and other job-producing land uses. Since the approval of the original permits, only one additional warehouse in the area has been approved, with an additional 244,000 sf of warehousing space. That permit was issued in August 2024, on property where the City’s land use designations and zoning allow for and encourage the warehousing uses approved by the City.

AB 98 was passed by the California Legislature in 2024 and further modified by the passage of SB 415 in 2025. These bills were codified in Government Code Sections 65098, et seq. and set forth four scenarios requiring specific conditions be placed on warehouse development proposals. These bills do not apply to the Project because they were passed after the Project was permitted and approved. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1.6.) Furthermore, none of the four scenarios triggering these statutes apply to the Project:
(i) Warehouse is 250,000 sf or more and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(a).) The Project does not involve a warehouse of 250,000 sf or more.
(ii) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial or where land needs to be rezoned and loading dock is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(b).) The Project is located on property that has been designated and zoned for Business Park since 2006 and did not require a General Plan or zoning amendment.
(iii) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial but located within the “warehouse concentration region.” (Gov’t. Code Section
65098.1(c).) The City of Highland is not within the statutorily designated warehouse concentration region.
(iv) Warehouse is less than 250,000 sf and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor utilizing site zoned industrial or where application to rezone to industrial was submitted by September 30, 2024 and rezone was approved. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(d).) The Project is located on property that has been zoned for Business Park since 2006 and no rezone occurred.

In sum, the City Council finds that the required findings for the Extension of Time can and hereby are made and are supported by substantial evidence, including as set forth herein and as included in the Staff Report. Appellant’s position is based on asking the City to reevaluate the grounds upon which it issued the original approvals in 2023; those approvals were never challenged and the 256
time to do so has long since expired. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b); Gov’t. Code § 65009(c)(1)(E).)
c. The granting of an Extension of Time for Design Review Application (DRA 22-008) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (HMC Section 16.08.200.B(5).)
The Extension of Time does not modify the approved Project’s layout, height, size, parking, access, circulation, landscaping, operations, or intensity of use, and the time for any challenge to those approvals has long since passed. The Project has been found to be in compliance with Municipal, Fire & Building Codes. At the time of original Project approval, each division of the City reviewed the project and provided relevant Conditions of Approval that were adopted for the Project. The necessary ingress and egress are provided and all public utilities and services will be in place.

Mitigation imposed on the Project at approval has already been found to reduce any impacts to public health or safety to less than significant. The approved Project was found in compliance with the Highland General Plan and Municipal Code standards related to warehousing in the Business Park District within the 5th Street Corridor Policy Area. It meets development code standards such as land use, setbacks, density, lighting, parking, circulation, etc. The Project would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvement in the vicinity.

More specifically, at the time the original permits were approved, the Head Start was in the same location, the proposed internal circulation on the site was the same, the same sensitive residential receptors existed in the vicinity of the site, and the traffic impacts analyzed were the same. Further, all of the residential uses in the area, as well as the Head Start, are legal non-conforming uses within districts zoned for industrial and business park uses. The General Plan envisions transitioning this area away from residential and similar uses towards the uses identified in the “Employment District” zones - Business Park, Industrial, and other job-producing land uses. Since the approval of the original permits, only one additional warehouse in the area has been approved, with an additional 244,000 sf of warehousing space. That permit was issued in August 2024, on property where the City’s land use designations and zoning allow for and encourage the warehousing uses approved by the City.

AB 98 was passed by the California Legislature in 2024 and further modified by the passage of SB 415 in 2025. These bills were codified in Government Code Sections 65098, et seq. and set forth four scenarios requiring specific conditions be placed on 257
warehouse development proposals. These bills do not apply to the Project because they were passed after the Project was permitted and approved. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1.6.) Furthermore, none of the four scenarios triggering these statutes apply to the Project:
(i) Warehouse is 250,000 sf or more and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(a).) The Project does not involve a warehouse of 250,000 sf or more.
(ii) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial or where land needs to be rezoned and loading dock is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(b).) The Project is located on property that has been designated and zoned for Business Park since 2006 and did not require a General Plan or zoning amendment.
(iii) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial but located within the “warehouse concentration region.” (Gov’t. Code Section
65098.1(c).) The City of Highland is not within the statutorily designated warehouse concentration region.
(iv) Warehouse is less than 250,000 sf and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor utilizing site zoned industrial or where application to rezone to industrial was submitted by September 30, 2024 and rezone was approved. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(d).) The Project is located on property that has been zoned for Business Park since 2006 and no rezone occurred.

In sum, the City Council finds that the required findings for the Extension of Time can and hereby are made, and are supported by substantial evidence, including as set forth herein and as included in the Staff Report. Appellant’s position is based on asking the City to reevaluate the grounds upon which it issued the original approvals in 2023; those approvals were never challenged and the time to do so has long since expired. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b); Gov’t. Code § 65009(c)(1)(E).)
d. The underlying Project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The adopted IS/MND evaluated the Project’s environmental effects, including cumulative impacts, and concluded that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts with implementation of the adopted mitigation measures.

This appeal and the underlying Extension of Time application have also been reviewed in accordance with CEQA. The requested Extension of Time constitutes an administrative action that does not authorize new development, modify the previously approved Project, or result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Accordingly, the Extension of Time is not 258
a "project" subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378(b)(5) and (c).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if the requested Extension of Time constituted a project under CEQA, the City is prohibited from requiring further environmental review unless the conditions for subsequent or supplemental environmental review in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. As set forth below, staff has reviewed those conditions with respect to Extension of Time for the Project and has determined that no further environmental review may be required.

No Substantial Changes to the Project
The current request is for a three year Extension of Time for previously approved discretionary entitlements and does not propose any modification to the approved Project. The approved site layout, building height, building size, parking, access, circulation, landscaping, operational characteristics, and intensity of use remain unchanged from those evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND.

There are no substantial changes to the Project requiring subsequent environment review.

No New Information
The impacts of the Project on sensitive receptors, emissions, noise, hydrology, and traffic and traffic safety impacts that Appellant raises, both on a project-specific and cumulative level, were all topics analyzed in the original IS/MND.

Hydrology was analyzed in detail for the Project and the analysis noted that the “on-site drainage plan would be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable standards related to the collection and treatment of stormwater.” (IS/MND, p. 77.) Engineering Condition No. 27 was updated to clarify the required components of the hydrology study in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual (Attachment 3 – Conditions of Approval). The original condition required the developer to “submit a hydrology study to determine storm water runoff quantities tributary to and generated by the Project for review and approval by the City Engineer and include hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilities.” The modified condition requires the developer to “submit a comprehensive hydrology study per San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual that includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Pre and post development analysis for 10-year and 100-year storms.
• Hydrology maps of pre- and post- development conditions • Proposed method of flow conveyance and proposed
improvements to mitigate project impacts with supporting calculations.
259
• Hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilities.

This revised Engineering Condition of Approval clarifies the original condition to perform a comprehensive hydrology study. The original IS/MND evaluated drainage and hydrology, analyzed the Preliminary Drainage Report prepared for the Project, found that the drainage and storm drain facilities planned for the site were consistent with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, and that impacts on drainage and hydrology would be less than significant. The drainage plan continues to serve the same purpose (collection and treatment of stormwater), does not create any additional impacts, and does not require any new mitigation. The second trigger for further environmental review is not met.

No Substantial Changes in the Circumstances Under Which the Project Is Being Undertaken
The IS/MND analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project. The warehouse permitting in this area has been expected and encouraged in the City’s General Plan since 2006, where 184 acres and almost 2.5 million square feet of Business Park uses were designated and zoned for this “5th Street Corridor” strategic location between the airport and the I-210 Freeway. The General Plan specifically intended the 5th Street Corridor to capture employment growth in the region with Business Park and Industrial Uses. (General Plan, p. 2-38.) The IS/MND for the approved Project specifically acknowledges the purpose of the 5th Street Corridor is to take advantage of the increasing demand for industrial uses west of I-15 by providing opportunity to capture some of this potential employment growth by creating an area within the City dominated by Business Park and Industrial land uses (5th Street Warehouse, MND, p. 80).

The actual development of the long-term intended, designated, and permitted uses in this area is not a substantial change in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken. Further, there is no evidence provided in the appeal that there are any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant effects.

Once environmental review for a project has been completed, the City is prohibited from requiring further environmental review unless the specific conditions for subsequent or supplemental
environmental review in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. No such conditions exists, as described above, and the time to challenge the IS/MND itself has long since passed.
260
Section 3. Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions set forth above, and all evidence in the record as a whole supporting those facts and conclusions, the City Council hereby denies Appellant’s appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval and approves Extension of Time Application No. 26-003, subject to the amended conditions of approval attached herein as Exhibit “A”, granting a three (3) year Extension of Time, to May 16, 2029, for Conditional Use Permit Application and (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015) related to the development of a 47,889 square foot warehouse..

Section 4. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions set forth above, and all evidence in the record as a whole supporting those facts and conclusions, the City Council hereby finds that the Extension of Time approved herein is not a project under CEQA or, in the alternative, that no further environmental review is required pursuant to Pub. Res. Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The Community Development Director is directed to file a Notice of Determination.

Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
C. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION.

The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner prescribed by law.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of October 2026. ____________________________
Penny Lilburn, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Alondra Munoz, CMC
City Clerk
261
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
262

CITY OF HIGHLAND

PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date:

Applicant:

File/Index:

Proposal:

Location:

May 16, 2023 (Modified July 21, 2026)
Patriot USICV Victoria, LLC
Conditional Use Permit CUP 22-011
Development and operation of a 47,899 square foot speculative industrial warehouse/office building and associated improvements.

A 2.83 acre site on the south side of 6th Street, approximately 930 feet west of Del Rosa Drive; Assessor’s Parcel Number 0279-201-24 Related Entitlements: DRA-22-015, VAR-22-004

PLANNING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Note: These conditions represent Planning Division conditions only and are meant to be only one part of the Project’s overall conditions that may include Building and Safety, Engineering, and the Fire Department conditions of approval. All required on-site and offsite improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy, except where noted.

Conditional Use Permit CUP-22-011 is conditionally approved, subject to compliance with the requirements as specified below. The Conditions listed below are continuing Conditions; failure of the Applicant and/or operator to comply with any or all Conditions at any time, shall result in initiating revocation of the subject permit.

1. Conditional Use Permit CUP-22-011 shall become null and void:
a. Unless all conditions have been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land or structures authorized by this design review application, and have occurred within thirty-six (36) months from the approval date this design review application shall expire and be null and void without further action by the City of Highland.
b. Where circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant cause delays which do not permit compliance within the time limitation established in this Section, the Planning Commission may grant an extension of time for a period of time not to exceed an additional thirty-six (36) months. An application for an extension of time must be set forth in writing, stating the reasons for the extension, and must be filed with the community development department no less than 30 calendar days nor more than 90 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the permit or approval. Such application shall be filed together with the City’s processing fee, as established by the City Council.
263
NOTE: All required on-site and off-site improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy.

2. The proposed Entitlement permits the construction and operation of an approximately 47,899 square foot warehouse/office and associated improvements including loading docks, passenger vehicle parking, a stormwater detention/infiltration basin, landscaping and off-site improvements along the project frontages of 6
th Street.
a. Three complete sets of revised plans reflecting changes required by these conditions of approval and Planning Commission directives shall be submitted to the planning Department within two weeks of this project’s approval.

3. The project site has been reviewed and approved for warehouse/logistics use with no outdoor storage of materials. Any change of use of this project site, the occupancy, or tenant change in the building, or portion thereof, may require a revised plot plan be submitted to the City for review and approval, which identifies location of use, letter of intent and parking requirements.

4. No outdoor storage facilities may be constructed or placed onsite for either permanent or temporary use. This includes, but is not limited to storage sheds, cargo containers, tents, canopies, or similar structures.

5. There shall be no long-term on-site parking of semi-trailer trucks unrelated to the warehouse business in operation. Off-site parking on public streets in the vicinity is prohibited.

6. The operator and recorded owner of the property shall submit to the Planning Division written evidence of agreement with all conditions of this approval before the approval becomes effective. Plan check cannot begin prior to receipt of this signed documentation.

7. In compliance with the Highland Municipal Code, the Applicant/Owner shall agree, at his/her sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third-party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the Applicant/Owner of his/her obligations under this condition.

8. The Owner/Applicant is responsible for implementing all conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Fire 264
Department, and Police Department. No final inspection or clearances shall be given until all conditions are met. Each condition of approval is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable.

9. Revisions, modification, or deletions of associated plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Revisions may require additional review by the Planning Commission.

10. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b), this Application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued, until: (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, and; (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino.
a. The Applicant shall provide the Planning Division with a check for the appropriate fee, made payable to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, no later than 24 hours after receiving approval of the project. The City will file the NOD and fee payment with the County/State and will provide the Applicant with a copy of the receipt and filed NOD.
b. Construction and operation of the proposed project shall be in compliance with the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

11. Development Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with City policy.

12. Prior to the issuance of a business license for future tenants, the Planning Commission shall review and approve the hours of operation, if anything other than 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.
265

CITY OF HIGHLAND

PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date:

Applicant:

File/Index:

Proposal:

Location:

May 16, 2023 (Modified July 21, 2026)
Patriot USICV Victoria, LLC
Design Review Application DRA-22-015
Design Review of a 47,899 square foot concrete tilt-up warehouse/office distribution facility. DRA includes the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan.

A 2.83 acre site on the south side of 6th Street, approximately 930 feet west of Del Rosa Drive; Assessor’s Parcel Number 0279-201-24 Related Entitlements: CUP-22-011, VAR-22-004

PLANNING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Note: These conditions represent Planning Division conditions only and are meant to be only one part of the Project’s overall conditions that may include Building and Safety, Engineering, and the Fire Department conditions of approval. All required on-site and offsite improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy, except where noted.

This Design Review Application is conditionally approved, subject to compliance with the requirements as specified below. The Conditions listed below are continuing Conditions; failure of the Applicant and/or operator to comply with any or all Conditions at any time, shall result in initiating revocation of the subject permit.

1. Design Review Application (DRA-22-015) shall become null and void:
a. Unless all conditions have been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land or structures authorized by this design review application, and have occurred within thirty-six (36) months from the approval date this design review application shall expire and be null and void without further action by the City of Highland.
b. Where circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant cause delays which do not permit compliance within the time limitation established in this Section, the Planning Commission may grant an extension of time for a period of time not to exceed an additional thirty-six (36) months. An application for an extension of time must be set forth in writing, stating the reasons for the extension, and must be filed with the community development department no less than 30 calendar days nor more than 90 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the permit or approval. Such application shall be filed together with the City’s processing fee, as established by the City Council.
266
NOTE: All required on-site and off-site improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy.

2. The proposed Design Review entitlement includes approval of a Site Plan, Building Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan for the construction and operation of an approximate 47,899 square foot speculative industrial warehouse/office and associated improvements including loading docks, passenger vehicle parking, a stormwater detention/infiltration basin, landscaping and off-site improvements as illustrated in project plans. a. The approved site plan, building elevations, conceptual grading plan, conceptual landscape plan, color and material samples are on file with the Planning Division and included herein by reference. b. Three complete sets of plans reflecting these conditions of approval and any Planning Commission directives shall be submitted to the planning Department within two weeks of this project’s approval.

3. The operator and recorded owner of the property shall submit to the Planning Division written evidence of agreement with all conditions of this approval before the approval becomes effective. Plan check cannot begin prior to receipt of this signed documentation.

4. In compliance with the Highland Municipal Code, the Applicant/Owner shall agree, at his/her sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third-party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the Applicant/Owner of his/her obligations under this condition.

5. The Owner/Applicant is responsible for implementing all conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Fire Department, and Police Department. No final inspection or clearances shall be given until all conditions are met. Each condition of approval is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable.

6. Revisions, modification, or deletions of associated plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Revisions may require additional review by the Planning Commission.
267

7. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b), this Application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until: (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, and; (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino.
a. The Applicant shall provide the Planning Division with a check for the appropriate fee, made payable to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, no later than 24 hours after receiving approval of the project. The City will file the NOD and fee payment with the County/State and will provide the Applicant with a copy of the receipt and filed NOD.

8. Development Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with City policy.

9. A copy of the utility plan shall be submitted with or prior to the submittal of a grading plan to the Community Development Director and City Engineer for review and approval. The utility plan shall show the location of all proposed above ground electrical transformers, utility cabinets, back flow devices, detector check valves, etc. both on site and in the public right-of-way.

10. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City, all on and off-site landscaping, irrigation or other improvements shown on the approved landscaping and irrigation plans, including any walls and fences, shall be installed.

11. The project site has been reviewed and approved for warehouse use. Any change of use of this project site, the occupancy, or tenant change in the building, or portion thereof, may require a revised plot plan be submitted to the City for review and approval, which identifies location of use, letter of intent and parking requirements. Outdoor storage of materials is prohibited.

12. All permanent parking areas shall be paved and permanently maintained with asphalt or concrete and designated with clearly painted lines. The number of parking spaces, including disabled parking, shall comply with the approved Site Plan.

13. The Applicant / Developer shall install a bicycle rack on-site near the building. The bike racks shall be located in areas where they will not impede the flow of pedestrian traffic.

14. All ground mounted, as well as wall mounted mechanical, electrical, or gas equipment shall be screened from public view by the use of landscaping and/or architectural treatments compatible with the adjoining building’s architectural design.
268

15. All rooftop mounted mechanical equipment, with the exception of solar panels, shall be screened from public view. This can be accomplished by architectural treatments of parapets equal in height to the tallest piece of roof-mounted equipment, but not to exceed an overall height of 44 feet.

16. The photometric plan shall be provided to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading plan in compliance with Municipal Code Sections 16.40.160 Lighting and 16.48.080 Light and glare. a) The amount of illumination projected onto a residentially zoned property or use should not exceed 0.1 foot-candle at the property line. Illumination should not exceed 0.5 foot-candles measured at the property line adjacent to non-residential properties.
b) Lights shall be shielded and directed away from surrounding properties and right-of-way.
c) Parking lot light standards shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25') in height measured from grade.
d) Parking lot light standards shall be located at a distance from parking lot trees, so the trees do not interfere with the lighting pattern or the light fixture.

Lighting standards shall be shown on the landscape plans and appropriately positions so as not to displace the intended location of trees in parking lot planters.

17. The design and installation of the Signs shall be in accordance with Chapter 16.56, Sign Regulations, of the Highland Municipal Code.

18. The Developer shall comply with all applicable Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan related to the associated entitlements; CUP-22-011., VAR-22-004.
269
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Sixth Street and Del Rosa
Drive Warehouse Project
APRIL 2023
Prepared for:

CITY OF HIGHLAND
27215 Base Line
Highland, California 92346
Contact: Angela Tafolla
Prepared by:
27372 Calle Arroyo
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Contact: Patrick Cruz
270
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
271
14700 i
APRIL 2023
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table.........................................................................................3 TABLE
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...................................................................................................3 272
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 ii APRIL 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
273
14700 1
APRIL 2023
1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a public agency adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) take affirmative steps to determine that approved mitigation measures are implemented after project approval. The lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the mitigation measures incorporated into a project or included as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance with the MND during project implementation (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6(a)(1)).

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by the City of Highland (City) to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures identified in the MND for the proposed Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project (project) located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive in Highland, California (project) when construction begins. The City, as the lead agency, will be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures are carried out. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (paleontological resources), and tribal cultural resources.

The remainder of this MMRP consists of a table that identifies the mitigation measures by resource for each project component. Table 1 identifies the mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, list of mitigation measures, party responsible for implementing mitigation measures, timing for implementation of mitigation measures, agency responsible for monitoring of implementation, and date of completion. With the MND and related documents, this MMRP will be kept on file at the following location:

City of Highland
Planning Department
27215 Base Line
Highland, California 92346
274
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 2
APRIL 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
275
14700 3
APRIL 2023
2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
Air Quality
MM-AQ-1: Construction Equipment Emissions
Reductions. The following measures shall be
incorporated into the project to reduce diesel
particulate matter (DPM) health risk generated by
construction equipment used for the project. Prior to
the issuance of a grading permit, the following shall
be incorporated into the grading plan and/or grading
permit conditions:

For off-road equipment with engines rated at 75
horsepower or greater, no construction equipment
shall be used that is less than Tier 4 Interim. An
exemption from these requirements may be granted
in the event that the applicant documents that
equipment with the required tier is not reasonably
available and corresponding reductions in criteria air
pollutant emissions are achieved from other
construction equipment. For example, if a Tier 4
Interim piece of equipment is not reasonably
available at the time of construction and a lower tier
equipment is used instead (e.g., Tier 3), another
piece of equipment could be upgraded from a Tier 4
Interim to a higher tier (i.e., Tier 4 Final) or replaced with an alternative-fueled (not diesel-fueled)
equipment to offset the emissions associated with
using a piece of equipment that does not meet Tier 4
Interim standards.

Before an exemption may be considered, the
applicant shall be required to demonstrate that two
During
construction
Project applicant and
their construction
contractor
City of Highland
276
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 4
APRIL 2023
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
construction fleet owners/operators in the region
were contacted and that those owners/operators
confirmed Tier 4 Interim or better equipment could
not be located in the region. To ensure that Tier 4
construction equipment or better would be used
during the project’s construction, the applicant will
include this requirement in applicable bid
documents, purchase orders, and contracts.

Successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the
ability to supply the compliant construction
equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and
construction activities. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and
California Air Resources Board or South Coast Air
Quality Management District operating permit (if
applicable) shall be available upon request at the
time of mobilization of each applicable unit of
equipment.

MM-AQ-2: Operational Forklifts. The project shall
require all operational forklifts to be electric
powered.

During operation Project applicant City of Highland
Biological Resources
MM-BIO-1: Avian Nesting Season Avoidance.

Construction activities shall be avoided during the
bird nesting season (generally February 1 through
August 30) to ensure compliance with the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and
Game Code Section 3500 et seq. If avoidance of the
nesting season is not feasible, then a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within a maximum of 3 days
prior to the start of construction in areas that could
Prior to and during
construction
Project applicant and
their construction
contractor
City of Highland
277
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 5
APRIL 2023
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
support tree-, shrub-, and ground-nesting birds to
ensure that birds are not engaged in active nesting
within 100 feet of the project’s construction limits. If nesting birds are discovered during the preconstruction survey, then the qualified biologist shall identify an appropriate buffer where no groundbreaking activities are allowed to occur until after the birds have fledged from the nest. The active nest
buffer size depends on the species’ sensitivity to
disturbance (typically up to 500 feet for raptors and
300 feet for passerines), and ongoing biological
monitoring during construction may be required.

Construction activities may take place in other areas
on the project site, outside of the nest avoidance
buffer. No construction activities may take place
within the nest avoidance buffer unless authorized
by an on-site monitoring biologist.

Cultural Resources
MM-CUL-1: Worker Environmental Awareness
Program. Prior to the start of construction activities, all construction personnel and monitors shall be
trained regarding identification and treatment
protocol for inadvertent discoveries of cultural
resources (archaeological and tribal) and human
remains. A basic presentation and handout or
pamphlet shall be prepared in order to ensure
proper identification and treatment of inadvertent
discoveries of cultural resources and human
remains. The purpose of the Worker Environmental
Awareness Program training is to provide specific
details on the kinds of materials that may be
identified during ground-disturbing activities and
Prior to
construction
Project applicant and
their construction
contractor
City of Highland
278
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 6
APRIL 2023
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
explain the importance of and legal basis for the
protection of human remains and significant cultural
resources. Each worker shall also be trained in the
proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural
resources or human remains are uncovered during
ground-disturbing activities. These procedures
include but are not limited to work curtailment or
redirection and the immediate contact of the site
supervisor and archaeological monitoring staff.

MM-CUL-2: Retention of an On-Call Qualified
Archaeologist. A qualified archaeologist shall be
retained and on-call to respond and address any
inadvertent discoveries identified project
implementation.

During
construction
Project applicant and
their construction
contractor
City of Highland
MM-CUL-3: Inadvertent Discovery Clause. In the
event that potential archaeological resources (sites,
features, or artifacts) are exposed during ground
disturbance, all construction work occurring within
100 feet of the find shall immediately stop, and the
qualified archaeologist that has been retained on
call must be notified immediately to assess the
significance of the find and determine whether
additional study is warranted. 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. Depending upon the significance of the
find under the California Environmental Quality Act
During
construction
Project applicant and
their construction
contractor
City of Highland
279
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 7
APRIL 2023
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
(CEQA), the archaeologist may simply record the find
and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves
significant under CEQA, additional work (e.g.,
preparation of an archaeological treatment plan,
testing, data recovery, or monitoring) may be
warranted if the resource cannot be feasibly
avoided. If monitoring is warranted, an
archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared
within 60 days following completion of ground
disturbance and submitted to the City of Highland for
review. This report shall document compliance with
approved mitigation, document the monitoring
efforts, and include an appendix with daily
monitoring logs. 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. The final report shall be
submitted to the South Central Coastal Information
Center.

In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code, if human remains are
found, the county coroner shall be immediately
notified of the discovery. If human remains or
funerary objects are encountered during any
activities associated with the project, work in the
immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the
find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be
280
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 8
APRIL 2023
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
§7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of
the project. No further excavation or disturbance of
the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the county
coroner has determined the appropriate treatment
and disposition of the human remains. If the county
coroner determines that the remains are, or are
believed to be, Native American, he or she shall
follow all required protocols according to California
Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98.

Geology and Soils
MM-GEO-1: Geotechnical Investigation Report
Recommendations. The property owner/developer
shall implement all recommendations in the
approved geotechnical investigation report for the
proposed project during site preparation, grading,
and construction, and compliance with the approved
geotechnical investigation shall be verified in the
field by a qualified representative. The property
owner/developer shall demonstrate to the City of
Highland’s Building & Safety Department, Planning
Department, and/or Public Works/Engineering
Department staff that all or equivalent
recommendations in the Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation, Proposed Industrial Warehouse
Development, South Side of 6th Street and West of
Del Rosa Drive, Highland, California prepared by
NorCal Engineering, dated June 9, 2022, or any
updates to that report have been incorporated into
the proposed project’s design and grading plans.

During
construction
Project applicant City of Highland
281
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 9
APRIL 2023
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
MM-GEO-2: Discovery of Paleontological Resources.

In the event that paleontological resources (i.e.,
fossil remains) are exposed during construction
activities for the project, all construction work
occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately
stop until a qualitied paleontologist, as defined by
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s guidelines,
can assess the nature and importance of the find.

Depending on the significance of the find, the
qualified paleontologist may record the find and
allow work to continue or may recommend salvage
and recovery of the resource. All recommendations
shall be made in accordance with the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology’s guidelines and shall be
subject to review and approval by the City of
Highland. Work in the area of the find shall only
resume upon approval of a qualified paleontologist.

During
construction
Project applicant City of Highland
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM-TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources. The
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural
Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted,
as detailed in MM-CUL-3, 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 resource be deemed
significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015),
a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan
shall be created by the retained archaeologist for the
project, in coordination with YSMN, and all
subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This
Prior to and during
construction
Project applicant and
their construction
contractor
City of Highland
282
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 10 APRIL 2023
Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
Date of Completion/
Notes
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. 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 the City for dissemination to
YSMN. The City and/or applicant shall, in good faith,
consult with the YSMN throughout the life of the
project.
283
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 11 APRIL 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
284
Building and Safety Division Conditions of Approval
Date: February 1, 2023
Project: 47,889 sq/ft warehouse building
Applicant:

Site Location:

Patriot Development Partners - Kevin Rice
South side of 6th St. West of Del Rosa Dr.

Project Numbers: CUP: 22-011, DRA: 21-015, VAR 22-004
APN: 0279-201-24-0000

1. Please provide the following number of construction plans and documents listed below for the first review of the proposed project The initial plan review time will take two weeks on most projects. The applicant will receive an application number at the time plans are submitted for Building & Safety's plan review. This number is needed to obtain information regarding your project.
(3) Architectural Plans
(3) Condition of Approval from all departments:

To be included in Architectural plan set at plan submittal (3) Structural Plans
(2) Structural Calculations
(3) Plot/Site Plans
(3) Electrical Plans
(3) Electrical Load Calculations
(3) Exiting Plans
(3) Plumbing Plans/Isometrics
(3) Mechanical Plans
(3) HVAC Duct Layout Plans
(2) Roof and Floor Truss Plans
(2) Title 24 Energy Calculations
(2) Soils Report
(3) Precise Grading Plans
* Grading, Photometric, or Landscape Plans:

Please mark ''FOR REFERENCE ONLY"
(3) Site Disabled Access Plan
(3) Temporary Fence Plan
(1) Approved Health Department Plans (as applicable)
(2) Energy Commissioning Plan

2. All structures shall be designed in accordance with the current version of the California Building Codes (2022), including the California Green Building

285
286
287
288
October 24, 2022
Angela Tafolla, Assistant Planner
City of Highland
Community Development Department – Planning Division
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
RE: PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW:

CUP 22-011
Patriot Partners Warehouse
6 th Street, West of Del Rosa Dr.

Dear Angela:

We have reviewed the preliminary landscape plans for the facility listed above in comparison to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and recently processed applications of similar occupancy. Accordingly, we recommend the following landscape-specific conditions:
1) Landscape plan does not provide forstreet trees orsidewalk shading along 6 th
Street. Applicant shall coordinate with City Landscape Architect for tree selection and spacing.
2) 6
th street frontage trees are sparse against a very tall and boldly patterned structure. They also share a similarsize and mature shape (mediumsize,multi trunk, dome canopy) except for the two taller pine trees. In addition, both main species are also deciduous (Desert Willow & Chilean Mesquite).

Applicant shall provide additional tree species that will have a more upright columnar growth pattern to accentuate the façades and vertical design details, as well as offering a balance of evergreen foliage in the winter months.
3) To verify that the landscape complements the appearance and scale of the warehouse architecture, applicant shall include the actual proposed planting speciesin architectural renderings. Current renderings do notreflect the proposed planting concept.
4) Current conceptual planting plan does not offer many taller plant speciesthat would create a foundation and/or transition for the 44’ tall structure or offer screening from adjacent properties. Applicant shall add additional species that will meet the need for more vertical planting.
289
5) Applicant shall include planting imagery of plants included in the conceptual design palette with plants grouped by size (Trees, Vines, Foreground, Midground, Background, and Groundcover) for better communication of palette for design review.
6) Applicant shall include vines along the screen wall that borders the truck loading/ unloading area and trash enclosure to soften the visual appearance of the wall surface.
7) Applicant shall clarify perimeter barrier treatment. The only barrier type currently noted on the building plans is a 8’ concrete tilt-up wall facing the street and 8’ tubular steel fencing for perimeter. How will this screen or minimize the size and scale of the proposed building and daily activitiesfrom adjacent residential areas? 8) Applicantshall verify shading requirementfor parking lots. Architectural plans refer “per landscape plans”, yet the supplied landscape plans do not include said calculations.
9) Applicant shall further refine the exterior space outside the main office entrance, as to create a transitionalscale from existing residential lots and school site facing the proposed development, to the industrial-scale development. 10) Provide concrete headers where frontage landscape meets adjacent neighboring parcelsto protect the integrity of the proposed planting, and to define the limits of maintenance responsibility.

We look forward to discussing these items in further detail. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at (951) 369-0700.

Sincerely,

COMMUNITY WORKS DESIGN GROUP
Dan Burkhart ASLA, Certified Arborist WE—11637A
for
Scott Rice ASLA, LEED AP, CASp
City Landscape Architect
Consultant to the City of Highland via Community Works Design Group Landscape Architect CA #5111
290
City of Highland, FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION, Conditions of Approval.

DATE : October 12, 2022 Page 1 of 7
APPLICANT : Patriot Development Partners
APN : 0279-201-24
SITE LOCATION: South Side of 6
th Street West of Del Rosa Drive.

FILE/ INDEX No.: CUP 22-011 DRA 21-015 VAR 22-004
A tiered level of mitigation options has been developed and listed below are the systems and/or modifications required for your project. Compliance of the following items are a condition of FINAL OCCUPANCY APPROVAL. These conditions are required as acceptable solutions to the adverse fire conditions impacting firefighting and emergency operations accompanying the site/area. They will either assist in detection and extinguishment of the fire and/or facilitate the anticipated emergency operations.

This project is protected by the City of Highland Fire Department I Cal-Fire / California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the city of highland fire marshal office for verification of current fire protection development requirements. All new construction shall comply_ with the currently adopted California Fire Code and all applicable statutes, appendices, codes, ordinances, standards and policies of the City of Highland Fire Department/ Fire Prevention Division /Cal-Fire / California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Fire Department Review of all projects is required.

ALL CONSTRUCTION (New and renovations to existing) SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Along with amendments as adopted within the Highland Municipal Code (Ord. #411 ).

Note: All weather access roads (CFC) and fire hydrant/water system installations shall be in place, inspected and approved, PRIOR to combustible material being brought on site.

Note: The City of Highland has 2 areas within the 'FIRE SAFETY OVERLAY DISTRICT' designated as FR-1 and FR-2. Both areas may border or overlap areas identified by the State/CalFire as 'High Fire Severity Zone' or 'Very High Fire Severity Zone'. See HMC for construction requirements.
1 291
292
293
294
295
296
297
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx City of Highland
Engineering Department
Conditions of Approval
EXT 26-003, CUP 22-011, DRA 21-015 Patriot Warehouse 6th Street and 700 LF West of Del Rosa Dr. APN 0279-201-24
B - Required Prior to Building Permit/Construction
C - Required Prior to Building Occupancy
D - Ongoing
E - Required Prior to Grading Permit
* - Non Standard Conditions
PC Approved ________
PC Approved 5/16/2023

SOILS/ GRADING/ DRAINAGE
E 1. Design grading and landscaping plans to comply with the City’s clear sight triangle criteria at public street intersections and at private driveways. Walls, fencing, monument signs, slope, and landscaping, within the clear sight triangle, must not exceed thirty inches in height measured from the flowline of the street, unless a sight distance analysis that demonstrates sight distance is adequately maintained is submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.

E 2. Submit a preliminary soils report, prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Comply with the recommendations contained in the report and any amendments thereof as approved by the City Engineer.

E 3. Submit the structural design and location for any required retaining walls for review and approval by the City Engineer. Construct concrete v-ditches and drainage system at the back of retaining walls in accordance with the Grading Plan Checklist and as required by the City Engineer.

E 4. Submit rough and/or precise grading plans to the City Engineer for review and approval.

Comply with the City of Highland grading standards as shown on the grading plan checklist.

E 5. Submit an erosion control plan to minimize potential increases in erosion and sediment transport during construction activity for City Engineer approval. Place erosion control measures during or after grading work as required by the City Engineer.

E 6. Design short-term erosion control in accordance with Best Management Practices such as, hydroseeding, mulching, jute matting or plastic sheeting to protect slopes; silt fencing to control site perimeter; and straw bale barriers, sand bag barriers, rock filters or sediment basins to control internal erosion, or other methods to stabilize disturbed areas, as approved by the City Engineer.

D 7. Implement dust control measures during construction activities including, but not limited to, daily watering of construction area as frequently as necessary during active and inactive periods, utilizing soil emulsions, limiting construction vehicle speed to 10 miles per hour, stabilizing construction entrances to prevent trackout of sediments, and street sweeping 298
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

STREET IMPROVEMENT
E 8. Design grading to intercept and conduct off-site tributary drainage flow around or through the project site in a manner that does not adversely affect adjacent properties. Conveyance of on-site and off-site tributary flows shall be maintained by the underlying property owner.

E 9. Design grading to drain the entire area of the project to the proposed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) infiltration system and to accommodate overflows as necessary.

E* 10. Plot all existing and proposed easements on grading plan and note disposition of any existing utilities, appurtenances, fences, and access roads.

D* 11. Construct temporary sedimentation basins for use during the grading and construction period of the project. Do not start using the proposed infiltration system until the site is stabilized for erosion and sedimentation.

B 12. Submit original wet signed and stamped rough grading certifications from the soils engineer and the grading engineer, along with compaction reports, to the City Engineer.

C 13. Submit original wet signed and stamped final grading certification from the grading engineer, to the City Engineer.

C* 14. Construct new street improvements along 6
th Street project frontage including, but not
limited to:
a) Construct ultimate landscape improvements at back of sidewalk and interim parkway landscape improvements at back of curb.
b) Two interim commercial drive approaches (per City Std. 213) at existing southerly curb face per the proposed site plan with sidewalk crossing constructed at back of right-of-way. Minimum 40’ driveway width for trucking ingress/egress is 40’.

Minimum driveway width for vehicle parking ingress/egress is 26’. c) Remove existing improvements along southside of 6
th Street including southside
drive approach, join existing where to be maintained, and construct new street improvements as directed including but not limited to:

1. Reconstruct 8” curb and gutter located 22’ south of street centerline per City Std. 203 or modified drive approach.

2. Remove existing 4’ parkway sidewalk.

3. Remove existing curb ramp at approximately center of the frontage.

4. Construct 6’ wide sidewalk to be future curb adjacent sidewalk per City Std 208 Type B.
d) Design the limits and extent of removal of existing improvements, and construction of transitional improvements to complete items a-c above and as approved by the City Engineer.

E 15. Submit engineering plans for street improvements and signing & striping to the City Engineer for review and approval. Indicate the location of any existing utility/facility which would affect construction on plans and profiles. Comply with the City design standards as shown on the street and storm drain improvement checklist. Provide ADA access to site from right of way.
299
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

WATER QUALTIY/ DRAINAGE
C 16. Design and construct public improvements including sidewalk, driveway approaches and access ramps, as needed, in accordance with all requirements of the State of California Accessibility Standards, Title 24 California Administrative Code. Redesign and reconstruct existing frontage improvements if found not in compliance with City Standards.

C* 17. Install new LS3 metered street light system along the project frontage of 6 th Street. The new
street lights, electrical conduits, wiring and meter etc. will be owned and maintained by the City. The street lights shall be equipped with a Light Emitting Diode (LED) luminaire on a marbelite pole with types and at the location specified by the City Engineer. Pay the City street lighting energy and maintenance charges for the initial 12 months.

C* 18. Install traffic control signs and pavement markings, specifically R26(S)(CA) signs, along the project frontage with specific locations and types approved by the City Engineer.

C 19. Submit "Record Revisions" to all plans to reflect the improvements as constructed, and any changes made during construction.

E 20. Obtain approval by the City Engineer of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (F-WQMP), prepared in accordance with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements in effect at the time the Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan was approved unless subsequent City NPDES permits require otherwise. The F-WQMP shall (1) be prepared, signed, and sealed by a licensed Civil Engineer, (2) include Site Design Low Impact Development and Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for residential development, (3) include a BMP implementation, operation, and funding mechanism, and (4) be certified by the property owner. The property owner shall also enter into a Stormwater BMP Transfer, Access, and Maintenance Agreement with the City on standard City form. Include a copy of the recorded agreement in the F-WQMP. Construct BMPs in accordance with the approved F-WQMP.

E 21. Construct and implement site design BMPs specified in the project approved F-WQMP including, but not limited to, underground infiltration system, pretreatment devices approved at time of C-WQMP approval, and raised curb landscaped areas and parking lot islands.

Alternate site design BMPs which are equally effective may be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.

22. Include the project grading plan, landscape plan and utility plan with the first submittal of the F-WQMP .

C 23. Submit two sets of WQMP BMP Exhibits with a “WQMP BMP As-Built Certificate” wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. The Certificate shall state:
“I hereby certify that the Water Quality Management Plan Best Management Practices have been constructed under my supervision in accordance with the approved plans and are functional to the best of my knowledge.”
C* 24. Construct on-site private drainage system, HDPE or other pipe material as approved by City Engineer, to drain the entire project site to the proposed WQMP BMPs in accordance with the approved Final Water Quality Management Plan, and construct necessary drainage 300
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

DEDICATION/ ANNEXATION
overflow facilities. Construct an overflow pipe to convey any overflow from the proposed underground infiltration system to fronting streets as necessary.

B 25. At the underground infiltration system proposed by the Final WQMP, conduct at least two new infiltration tests using a double-ring infiltrometer. The tests shall be conducted at the proposed chamber system subgrade elevation, prior to the submittal of the F-WQMP. After obtaining the results from the two tests, the engineer and geotechnical engineer shall determine if additional testing is required.

C 26. Register the underground chambers with EPA as a Class V Injection Well.

E 27. Submit a comprehensive hydrology study per San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual that includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Pre and post development analysis for 10-year and 100-year storms. • Hydrology maps of pre- and post- development conditions. • Proposed method of flow conveyance and proposed improvements to mitigate project impacts with supporting calculations.
• Hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilities.

C 28. Intercept and convey off-site drainage tributary to the project boundary around or through the project in a manner that will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.

E 29. Submit engineering plans for public and private drainage systems to the City Engineer for review and approval. Comply with the City design standards as shown the street and storm drain improvement checklist.

C* 30. Apply to the City to annex the project into the City’s Consolidated Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) for potential City maintenance of parkway and frontage landscaping along 6 th
Street. The City will maintain parkway and frontage landscaping utilizing LMD revenue only if the City determines that adequate maintenance is not being provided by the property owner. The potential future amount of assessment will include the estimated on-going maintenance cost and one-time construction cost to convert the privately-maintained system to the City-maintained system.

C* 31. Dedicate an irrevocable offer of dedication via a separate instrument:
a) (1) 10-foot wide minimum landscape easement across the 6th Street frontage b) (2) sidewalk easements at the Project’s commercial drive approaches as approved by the City Engineer.
c) (1) temporary construction easement granting permission for the City to enter the property to construct and restore landscaping. The exact dimensions of the landscape easement will be determined at the time on-site improvement plans have been prepared.

Submit legal description and plat documents for these dedications, prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer and shall include the current property grant deed, a current title report (less than three months old), traverse calculation sheets which show error of closures. Inverse calculations will not be accepted for plan check. And, if applicable, copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land division. 301
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

FEES/ PERMITS/ BONDING

UTILITIES/ CONSTRUCTION
C* 32. Offer a temporary construction easement granting permission for the City and its contractor to enter the property to construct future public improvements. The exact location, dimensions and lifetime of the temporary construction easement will be determined by the City Engineer and duration and impact of construction within the easement may last 12 months.

E 33. Pay appropriate Engineering fees for district annexation, plan check, WQMP review, hydrology study review, structural calculation review, on-site and off-site inspection, utility excavation permits, GIS plan update, microfilming and storage of plans, and other required fees.

D 34. Obtain a permit from Engineering prior to any on-site construction or construction within the public right-of-way.

E 35. Post a deposit for erosion control which shall not be released prior to completion of all onsite construction.

C 36. Bond for all required street, grading, water, sewer, on-site landscaping, and landscape maintenance district improvements in accordance with City Development Code.

C 37. Enter into a non-subdivision agreement for construction of improvements with the City of Highland using the adopted City form.

C 38. Pay a fee in lieu of design and construction of asphalt concrete pavement, class II aggregate base, 8” curb and gutter, and (2) commercial drive approaches. The fee amount will be determined by the Engineering Department. Pay an in lieu fee for design and relocation of SoCal Gas 8” high pressure gas line.

E 39. Obtain written permission from the adjoining property owners for offsite grading and/or perimeter wall construction, if any.

B 40. Prior to relocating or modifying private apartment complex improvements that have been constructed on Patriot’s private property, coordinate temporary fencing and construction with the adjacent property owner/ management group. Install construction fencing and screening in accordance with Building and Safety Division Policy 335.

C 41. Reconstruct existing public improvements removed or damaged during construction.

Pavement repair, which may include A.C. overlay, T-cut trench repair and/or slurry seal after removal of existing striping shall be across all or a portion of damaged pavement caused by this project as determined by the City Engineer.

C* 42. Coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any existing public utilities as necessary.
302
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx C 43. Provide all utility services to each building, including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, cable TV, internet, and telephone. All utilities listed under Highland Municipal Code Section 16.40.380 (A) are to be underground per Ordinance 315.

E 44. Comply with applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Provide written verification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board specifying the projects WDID number.

B 45. Destroy any abandoned wells on the property or similar structures that might result in contamination of underground waters in a manner approved by the City Engineer.

B 46. All underground structures, except those desired to be retained, must be broken in, backfilled, and inspected before covering.

D 47. Comply with the prevailing City design and construction standards and requirements at the time of permit issuance.

B 48. Design and construct a trash enclosure per City Standard 700.

C 49. Install telephone, cable television, and internet enclosures underground whenever the underground installation is an available option offered by the utility companies. If the underground installation is not an available option and utility enclosures must be installed above ground, install the above-ground utility enclosures and any flush mount utility enclosures at locations where construction of retaining walls will not be necessary for compliance with the setback requirements of the utility companies.

B* 50. Submit a Composite Utility Plan indicating the location of all above ground and flush mount water, electric, cable TV, internet, and telephone utility structures prior to City issuance of utility permits.
303
Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.20.

Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director Maricela Marroquin, City Attorney
Prepared By: Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Disposition and Development/Affordable Housing Agreement between the City of Highland/Housing Authority and Wakeland Highland, LP
(Work Program, HP)
Recommendation:

1. Authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to execute the subject Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Disposition and Development/Affordable Housing Agreement;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2026 - ____, amending Resolution No. 2026-011 to update the prescribed income levels referenced in the resolution consistent with the revisions made by Amendment No. 1; and

3. Direct staff to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board.

Fiscal Impact:

There are no fiscal impacts on the City's General Fund associated with the subject Agreement Amendment No. 1. Costs associated with this Amendment No. 1 are nominal and include Staff and City Attorney time to review and prepare the Amendment No. 1 document, the resolution, and other administrative functions.

Public Notice:

The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.

Background:

On May 9, 2023, the City Council/Housing Authority entered into a Disposition and Development/Affordable Housing Agreement and Ground Lease with Wakeland Highland LP (an affiliate of Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation) authorizing Wakeland (Developer) to construct and manage a 90-unit affordable senior housing project (inclusive of 89 senior housing units and one manager's unit) on property owned by the Authority on Central Avenue just south of Jeffery Court Senior Apartments.
1 On March 10, 2026, the City Council/Housing Authority approved an Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement/Affordable Housing Agreement and Ground Lease with Wakeland Highland LP (AHA). The Amendment incorporated a "dual track" development option. This dual track option will allow Wakeland to construct one single-phased project consisting of a total of 90-units, or a two-phased project where the first phase will include 60- units and the second phase will include a minimum of 30-units. Based on the funding sources available, Wakeland has determined to move forward with the dual track option.

On July 21, 2026, Wakeland Highland LP submitted an Application to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) for a 9% low-income housing tax credit for the Highland Senior Affordable Housing project consisting of 60-units in the first phase.

Summary of Amendment No. 1
Amendment No. 1 revises the affordability level distribution to maximize the Project's competitiveness under the CTCAC's lowest income scoring criteria. For the first phase of the Project, the Developer will restrict the fifty-nine (59) affordable units as follows: fifteen (15) units at 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI), fifteen (15) units at 50% AMI, and twenty-nine (29) units at 60% AMI. CTCAC requires projects seeking the additional scoring associated with 30% AMI units to distribute those units beginning with the largest affordable bedroom type, with at least 10% of the larger units restricted at 30% AMI. Due to the fact the Project includes seven (7) affordable two-bedroom units, at lease one (1) two-bedroom unit must be restricted at 30% AMI. Accordingly, the revised affordability mix to be part of the subject Amendment No.1 is as follows:
• 30% AMI: Fourteen (14) one-bedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom unit. • 50% AMI: Fifteen (15) one-bedroom units.
• 60% AMI: Twenty-three (23) one-bedroom units and six (6) two-bedroom units.

Additionally, the AHA requires that the Developer enter into a Regulatory Agreement (part of Attachment 11 of the AHA) as part of the granting of public funds for the Project. In short, the Housing Authority's Regulatory Agreement restricts 49% of the Project units, which equates to a total of 29 units in the 60-unit Project (Phase 1). This Amendment No. 1 will update the restricted units to align with the revised unit mix and affordability levels, such that twenty-three (23) one-bedroom units at 60% AMI and six (6) two-bedroom units at 60% will be restricted by the Regulatory Agreement. Attachment 13, the Regulatory Agreement between the City and the Developer, similarity needs to be revised to reflect the new unit mix and affordability levels.

On March 10, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-011 approving the AHA, approving a density bonus, and making a finding under CEQA. Section 14 of the Resolution No. 2026-011, pertaining to the density bonus, needs to be revised to reflect the revised income level distribution set forth above. The proposed changes to Section 14 of Resolution No. 2026-011 do not impact the density bonuses that the Developer will receive or any of the parking or other City requirements imposed on the Project.

This item is in the City's Work Program and listed as a High Priority Project.

The subject Amendment No.1 was reviewed by the City Attorney. 2 Environmental Determination:

The subject Amendment No. 1 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061, the "common sense" exemption that CEQA only applies to projects which have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In the case of the subject Amendment No. 1, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question (amending the AHA) may have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore Amendment No. 1 is not subject to CEQA.

Attachments:

1. Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Affordable Housing Agreement between the City of Highland and Wakeland Highland LP

2. Resolution No. 2026-____
3 1628\31\5097577.1
ATTACHMENT 1
4 1628\31\5097577.1
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED DISPOSITION AND

DEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Affordability Housing Agreement (“Amendment No. 1”) is made and entered into a of October 13, 2026 by and among the Highland Housing Authority, a public body corporation and politic ("Authority"), the City of Highland, a municipal corporation ("City") and Wakeland Highland LP, a California limited partnership ("Developer").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Authority, City and Developer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Affordable Housing Agreement as of March 10, 2026 (the "DDA") to allow for the construction of a 90 unit senior affordable housing project on the properties located at 7344 Central Avenue (APNs 1192-431-05 and 1192-431-04) in either one or two phases. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the DDA.

WHEREAS, Authority, City and Developer desire to amend the DDA by modifying Attachments 6, 11 and 13 thereto to revise certain affordability restrictions set forth therein.

AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree to amend the DDA as follows:

1. Amendment of Attachment 6: Form of Ground Lease. Attachment 6 to the DDA "Form of Ground Lease" is amended by revising the definition of "Prescribed Income Levels" set forth in Section 1.1 to read as follows:
"Prescribed Income Levels" means: [if Developer elects the Single Phase Project: for the forty-four (44) Required Affordable Units: (i) for twenty-three (23) one bedroom units and four (4) two-bedroom units (twenty-seven (27) units total), a thirty percent (30%) Income Household as published by TCAC for the County (i.e., Extremely Low Income Households); and (ii) for four (4) two- bedroom units and thirteen (13) one-bedroom units (seventeen (17) units total), a fifty percent (50%) Income Households as published by TCAC for the County (i.e., Very Low Income Households). [If Developer elects the TwoPhase Project: for the twenty-nine (29) Required Affordable Units in Phase 1, twenty-three (23) one-bedroom units and six (6) two-bedroom units, a sixty percent (60%) Low-Income Household as published by TCAC for the County (i.e., Low Income Households).]

2. Amendment of Attachment 11: Form of Authority Regulatory Agreement.

Attachment 11 to the DDA "Form of Authority Regulatory Agreement" is amended as follows:
5 1628\31\5097577.1
(a) Section 16 of Article I is revised to read: "Section 16. "Extremely Low Income Unit" means the [twenty-seven (27)][zero (0)] Units to be occupied at Affordable Rent by an Extremely Low Income Household."
(b) Section 21 of Article I is revised to read: "Section 21. "Low Income Unit'' means the twenty-nine (29) units in Phase 1 of the Two-Phase Project to be occupied at an Affordable Rent by a 60% Low Income Household."
(c) Section 24 of Article I is revised to read: "Section 24. "Prescribed Income Levels" means, [If Developer elects the Single Phase Project]: for the forty-four (44) Required Affordable Units: (i) for twenty-three (23) one bedroom units and four (4) twobedroom units (twenty-seven (27) units total), the income earned by a 30% Income Household for the County as published by TCAC and (ii) for four ( 4) two bedroom units and thirteen (13) one bedroom units (seventeen (17) units total), the income earned by a 50% Income Household for the County as published by TCAC. [lf Developer elects the Two-Phase Project]: for the twenty-nine (29) Required Affordable Units: twenty-three (23) one-bedroom units and six (6) two-bedroom units, the income earned by a 60% Income Household for the County as published by TCAC;" (d) Section 33 of Article I is revised to read: "Section 33. "Very Low Income Unit" means the [seventeen (17)] [zero (0)] Units to be occupied at Affordable Rent by a 50% Very Low Income Household."

3. Amendment of Attachment 13: Form of Regulatory Agreement (Density Bonus).

Attachment 13 to the DDA "Form of Regulatory Agreement ("Density Bonus")” is amended as follows:
(a) The second paragraph captioned "WHEREAS" is restated to read as follows:
"WHEREAS, the City adopted its Resolution No. 2026-011 on March 10, 2026 granting development incentives and land use waivers requested by Developer in such application in exchange for the restrictions in this Regulatory Agreement (Density Bonus), as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Affordable Housing Agreement executed by City, Developer and Highland Housing Authority as of October 13, 2026, which restricts [for the Single Phase Project: eighty-nine (89) of the units as follows: (i) twenty-seven (27) units (twenty-three (23) one-bedroom units and four (4) two-bedroom units) are restricted to senior households who make no more than 30% of Median Income for the Area (i.e., extremely low income households); (ii) another twenty-seven (27) units (twenty-three (23) one-bedroom and four (4) two-bedroom units) are restricted to senior households who make no more than 50% of Median Income for the Area (i.e., very low income households); and (iii) and another thirty (35) units (thirty-one (31) one-bedroom units and four (4) two-bedroom units) are restricted to senior households who make no more than 60% of Median Income for the Area (i.e., low income households). There will be one unrestricted manager’s unit][for Phase 1 of the Two-Phase Project: fifty-nine (59) of the units as follows: (i) fourteen (14) one bedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom unit, a 30% Income Household as published by TCAC for the County (i.e., extremely 6 1628\31\5097577.1
low income households); (ii) fifteen (15) one bedroom units, a 50% Income Household as published by TCAC for the County; and (iii) another twenty-three (23) one bedroom units and six (6) two bedroom units a 60% Income Household as published by TCAC for the County. There will be one unrestricted manager's unit].” (b) Section 22 of Article I of Attachment 13 is revised to read as follows: "Section 20. "Prescribed Income Levels" means that any household may not make more than the following income levels: [if the 90-unit Single Phase Project: eighty-nine (89) of the units as follows: (i) twenty-seven (27) units (twenty-three (23) one-bedroom units and four ( 4) two-bedroom units) a 30% Income Household as published by TCAC for the County (i.e., Extremely Low Income Households); (ii) another twenty-seven (27) units (twenty-three (23) one-bedroom and four (4) two bedroom units) a 50% Income Household as published by TCAC for the County (i.e., Very Low Income Households); and (iii) and another thirty-five (35) units (thirty-one (31) one-bedroom units and four (4) two-bedroom units) a 60% Income Household as published by TCAC for the County (i.e., Low Income Households). There will be one unrestricted manager's unit] [if the 60- Unit Two-Phase Project: fifty-nine (59) of the units as fol1ows: (i) fourteen (14) one bedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom unit, a 30% Income Household as published by TCAC for the County (i.e., extremely low income households); (ii) fifteen (15) one bedroom units, a 50% Income Household as published by TCAC for the County; and (iii) another twenty-three (23) one bedroom units and six (6) two bedroom units a 60% Income Household as published by TCAC for the County. There will be one (1) unrestricted manager's unit."
(c) Article I of Attachment 13 is revised to delete all references to “45% Very Low Income Households” and “45% Very Low Income Units”.
(d) Section 2 of Article II of Attachment 13 is revised to delete all references to “45% Very Low Income Households” and replace with “Low Income Household.”

4. Ratification and Confirmation. The parties hereby ratify and confirm each and every provision of the DDA, as modified pursuant to paragraphs 1-3. Except as expressly modified herein, the remainder of the DDA, and its Attachments, remain unchanged.

The parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Affordable Housing Agreement as of the date first written above.

DEVELOPER:

WAKELAND HIGHLAND LP,
a California limited partnership
By: Wakeland Highland LLC,
a California limited liability company
Its: Managing General Partner
7 1628\31\5097577.1
By: Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation,
a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
Its: Sole Member and Manager
By: _________________________
Name: Rebecca Louie
Its: President and Chief Executive Officer
AUTHORITY:

HIGHLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY,
A public body, corporate and politic
By: _______________________________
Jimmy Saldana, Authority Board Member
CITY:

CITY OF HIGHLAND,
A municipal corporation
By: _______________________________
Jimmy Saldana, Mayor Pro Tem
8 -1-
11026-0001\3220939v2.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
9 -2-
11026-0001\3220939v2.doc
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2026-011 TO UPDATE THE

AFFORDABILITY LEVELS REFERENCED IN THE RESOLUTION AND

MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

THE HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. On March 10, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026- 011 which approved (1) an Amended and Restated Disposition and Development/Affordable Housing Agreement with Wakeland Highland, LP (“AHA”), (2) a Density Bonus, and (3) Made a Finding of Exemption Under the California Environment Quality Act. The AHA authorized Wakeland to develop a 90 unit senior affordable housing project (the “Project”) on the vacant parcel on Central Avenue (Assessor Parcel Number 1192-431-05) and 7433 Central Avenue (“the Property”), in either one or two phases.

Section 2. Due to specific funding sources, Wakeland has elected to move forward with a two-phase project. To maximize the Project's competitiveness under the CTCAC's lowest income scoring criteria, Wakeland has requested to revise the prescribed income levels for the first phase of the Project.

Section 3. Section 14 of Resolution No. 2026-011 which identified the density bonus the Project would be receiving, identified the income levels for the Project.

Section 14 of Resolution No. 2016-11 is hereby revised to reflect the new income levels with the text of the second paragraph of Section 14 being revised to read as follows:

While the Housing Authority is only restricting 49% of the units through the Regulatory Agreement (Grant Funds), Wakeland is proposing a 100% affordable project, and therefore is eligible to receive four development incentives. Wakeland and the City will be entering into a Regulatory Agreement (Density Bonus) that restricts all the units in the development, except for the manager’s unit, as affordable for lower income households as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5. More specifically, under the Regulatory Agreement (Density Bonus), for the Single-Phase Project, 89 units are restricted as follows: (i) 27 units (23 one-bedroom units and 4 twobedroom units) are restricted to senior households who make no more than 30% of 10 -3-
11026-0001\3220939v2.doc
Median Income for the Area (i.e., extremely low income households); (ii) another 27 units (23 one-bedroom and 4 two-bedroom units) are restricted to senior households who make no more than 50% of Median Income for the Area (i.e., very low income households); and (iii) and another 35 units (31 one-bedroom units and 4 two-bedroom units) are restricted to senior households who make no more than 60% of Median Income for the Area (i.e., low income households). If Wakeland elects to construct the Project in phases, for Phase 1 of the Two-Phase Project, 59 of the units are restricted as follows: (i) 15 units (14 one bedroom units and 1 two bedroom units) are restricted to senior households who make no more than 30% of Median Income for the Area (i.e., extremely low income households); (ii) another 15 one bedroom units are restricted to senior households who make no more than 50% Median Income for the Area (i.e., very low income households); and (iii) another 29 units (23 one bedroom units and 6 two bedroom units) are restricted to senior households who make no more than 60% of Median Income for the Area (i.e., low income households). There will be one unrestricted manager's unit.

Section 4. Except as expressly identified in Section 3 above, the remainder of Resolution 2026-011 remains in effect and unchanged.

Section 5. The adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061, the "common sense" exemption that CEQA only applies to projects which have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Section 6. The Mayor Pro Tem and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to execute and deliver any and all necessary documents and instruments and to do all things which they may deem necessary or proper in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and the transaction contemplated hereby; and any such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of October 2026 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______
___

JIMMY SALDANA, VICE CHAIR
11 -4-
11026-0001\3220939v2.doc
ATTEST:
________

ALONDRA MUNOZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
12 Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.21.

Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Maricela Marroquin, City Attorney
Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Prepared By: Tish Nava-Cruz, Director of Administrative Services/City Treasurer Subject: 2025 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Award
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Accept the 2025 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) award in the amount of $26,366 and authorize the appropriation of grant funds for special project overtime, including gang sweeps, DUI checkpoints, quality-of-life enforcement, and burglary suppression efforts; and

2. Authorize the City Manager, in conjunction with the City Attorney, to review, approve, execute, and accept any necessary documents related to the grant award and administration of the annual Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for a three-year period.

This authorization is intended to streamline the annual grant administration process while maintaining City Council oversight of the funding. The City Manager’s delegated authority shall be limited to the review, execution, and acceptance of the annual grant award, MOU, and related grant documents, and shall not authorize changes to the Council-approved purpose or use of the grant funds without further City Council approval.

Fiscal Impact:

The total 2025 grant award to the City is $26,366.

Public Notice:

The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.

Background:

The City of Highland has been awarded funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. The grant provides financial support to local law enforcement agencies to enhance public safety initiatives. The City will utilize these funds for special project overtime, focusing on gang sweeps, DUI checkpoints, quality-of-life enforcement, and burglary suppression efforts. These targeted operations support proactive 1 policing efforts and public safety within the community.

Due to the short timelines and annual deadlines associated with the JAG grant process, staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the City Manager, in conjunction with the City Attorney, to review, approve, execute, and accept the annual JAG grant award, MOU, and any necessary related documents for a three-year period. This authority would allow the City to meet grant deadlines and streamline the annual grant administration process without requiring a separate Council action each year.

The City Manager will continue to provide the City Council with an annual update identifying the JAG grant award amount. If the proposed use of JAG funds changes from the purpose previously approved by the City Council, the matter will be brought back to the City Council for approval prior to implementing the change. This approach allows for timely administration of the grant while maintaining City Council oversight of the funding and its intended use.

Attachments:

1. Subrecipient Agreement

2. Interlocal Agreement

3. Certification Regarding Lobbying
2 Attachment 1
Subrecipient Agreement
3 San Bernardino County
385 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0120
Law and Justice Group
909-387-5005
Grant
Sub-Award
PAGE 1 OFϯϬ
AWARD NUMBER: 15PBJA-25-GG-03553-JAGX
SUB-AWARD NUMBER: 15PBJA-23-GG-03189-JAGX-,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚ
AWARD DATE 7/31/2026
PREVIOUS AWARD AMOUNT $0
AMOUNT OF THIS AWARD $Ϯϲ͕ϯϲϲ
TOTAL SUB-AWARD $Ϯϲ͕ϯϲϲ
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

DATE DATE
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

SIGNATURE OF APPROVING OFFICIAL SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED SUBRECIPIENT OFFICIAL Brent Martin, Chair
San Bernardino County Law and Justice Group

GRANTEE APPROVAL SUBRECIPIENT ACCEPTANCE

TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING OFFICIAL TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED SUBRECIPIENT ĂƌůŽƐĂŵĂŶŽ, City Manager
City of ,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚ
Title I of Public Law 90-351 (generally codified at 34 U.S.C. 10101-10726), including subpart 1 of part E (codified at 34 U.S.C. 10151-10158); see also 28 U.S.C. 530C(a)
CATALOG OF DOMESTIC FEDERAL ASSISTANCE (CFDA Number)

16.738 - Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

THE ABOVE GRANT PROJECT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTH ON THE ATTACHED PAGE(S), WHICH INCLUDE THE AWARD CONDITIONS (PAGES ϮͲϮϲ), AND THE SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING PROCEDURES FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO LAW AND JUSTICE GROUP (PAGES ϮϳͲϯϬ).

STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR GRANT

PROJECT TITLE
San Bernardino County and Disparate Jurisdictions 2025 Justice Assistance Grant Projects
SUBRECIPIENT UEI NO.

:sEhϯϱ'ϳϲ
SUBRECIPIENT IRS/VENDOR NO. PROJECT PERIOD: FROM 10/01/2024 TO 09/30/2028 ϯϯͲϬϮϳϬϲϯϴ BUDGET PERIOD: FROM 10/01/2024 TO 09/30/2028 City of ,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚ
ϮϳϮϭϱĂƐĞ>ŝŶĞ
,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚ͕ϵϮϯϰϲͲϯϭϭϯ
SUBRECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS (Including Zip Code)
1 4
Compliance with general appropriations-law restrictions on the use of federal funds (FY 2025)
The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable restrictions on the use of federal funds set out in federal appropriations statutes. Pertinent restrictions that may be set out in applicable appropriations acts are indicated at
https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/FY25AppropriationsRestrictions.htm, and are incorporated by reference here.

Should a question arise as to whether a particular use of federal funds by a recipient (or a subrecipient) would or might fall within the scope of an appropriations-law restriction, the recipient is to contact OJP for guidance, and may not proceed without the express prior written approval of OJP.

Compliance with DOJ regulations pertaining to civil rights and nondiscrimination - 28 C.F.R. Part 38
The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable requirements of 28 C.F.R. Part 38.

Among other things, 28 C.F.R. Part 38 states that recipients may not use direct Federal financial assistance from the Department of Justice to support or engage in any explicitly religious activities except when consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and any other applicable requirements. An organization receiving Federal financial assistance also may not, in providing services funded by the Department of Justice or in outreach activities related to such services, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or refusal to attend or participate in a religious practice. Part 38 also sets out rules and requirements that pertain to recipient and subrecipient ("subgrantee") organizations that engage in or conduct explicitly religious activities, as well as rules and requirements that pertain to recipients and subrecipients that are faith-based or religious organizations. In addition, Part 38 states that a faithbased organization that participates in a Department of Justice funded program retains its independence from the Government and may continue to carry out its mission consistent with religious freedom and conscience protections in Federal law.

Recipients and subrecipients that provide social services under this award must give written notice to beneficiaries and prospective beneficiaries prior to the provision of services (if practicable) which shall include language substantially similar to the language in 28 CFR Part 38, Appendix C, sections (1) through (4). A sample written notice may be found at https://www.ojp.gov/program/civil-rights-office/partnerships-faith-based-andother-neighborhood-organizations.

In certain instances, a faith-based or religious organization may be able to take religion into account when making hiring decisions, provided it satisfies certain requirements. For more information, see “Nondiscrimination provisions and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” accessible at https://www.ojp.gov/funding/explore/legaloverview2025/civilrightsrequirements. 1 2
3 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 2 5
Requirements pertaining to prohibited conduct related to trafficking in persons (including reporting requirements and OJP authority to terminate award) The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable requirements (including requirements to report allegations) pertaining to prohibited conduct related to the trafficking of persons, whether on the part of recipients, subrecipients ("subgrantees"), or individuals defined (for purposes of this condition) as "employees" of the recipient or of any subrecipient.

The details of the recipient's obligations related to prohibited conduct related to trafficking in persons are posted on the OJP web site at https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/ProhibitedConduct-Trafficking.htm (Award condition: Prohibited conduct by recipients and subrecipients related to trafficking in persons (including reporting requirements and OJP authority to terminate award)), and are incorporated by reference here.

All subawards ("subgrants") must have specific federal authorization The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable requirements for authorization of any subaward. This condition applies to agreements that -- for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements -- OJP considers a "subaward" (and therefore does not consider a procurement "contract").

The details of the requirement for authorization of any subaward are posted on the OJP website at https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SubawardAuthorization.htm (Award condition: All subawards ("subgrants") must have specific federal authorization), and are incorporated by reference here.

Specific post-award approval required to use a noncompetitive approach in any procurement contract that would exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold
The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable requirements to obtain specific advance approval to use a noncompetitive approach in any procurement contract that would exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, as set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). See the definition of simplified acquisition threshold in the FAR at 48 CFR part 2, subpart 2.1. This condition applies to agreements that - - for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements -- OJP considers a procurement "contract" (and therefore does not consider a subaward).

The details of the requirement for advance approval to use a noncompetitive approach in a procurement contract under an OJP award are posted on the OJP website at
https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/NoncompetitiveProcurement.htm (Award condition: Specific post-award approval required to use a noncompetitive approach in a procurement contract (if contract would exceed Simplified Acquisition Threshold)), and are incorporated by reference here.

Federal Civil Rights and Nondiscrimination Laws (certification) The recipient agrees that its compliance with all applicable Federal civil rights 4 5
6 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 3 6
and nondiscrimination laws is material to the government's decision to make this award and any payment thereunder, including for purposes of the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729-3730 and 3801-3812), and, by accepting this award, certifies that it does not operate any programs (including any such programs having components relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion) that violate any applicable Federal civil rights or nondiscrimination laws.

Requirements of the award; remedies for non-compliance or for materially false statements
The conditions of this award are material requirements of the award.

Compliance with any assurances or certifications submitted by or on behalf of the recipient that relate to conduct during the period of performance also is a material requirement of this award.

Limited Exceptions. In certain special circumstances, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") may determine that a legal notice regarding award requirements is necessary or that it will not enforce, or enforce only in part, one or more requirements otherwise applicable to the award. Any such notice or exception regarding enforcement, including any such notice or exception made during the period of performance, is (or will be during the period of performance) set out through the Office of Justice Programs ("OJP") webpage entitled "Legal Notices: Special circumstances as to particular award conditions" (ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalNotices-AwardReqts.htm), and incorporated by reference into the award.

By signing and accepting this award on behalf of the recipient, the authorized recipient official accepts all material requirements of the award, and specifically adopts, as if personally executed by the authorized recipient official, all assurances or certifications submitted by or on behalf of the recipient that relate to conduct during the period of performance.

Failure to comply with one or more award requirements -- whether a condition set out in full below, a condition incorporated by reference below, or an assurance or certification related to conduct during the award period -- may result in OJP taking appropriate action with respect to the recipient and the award. Among other things, the OJP may withhold award funds, disallow costs, or suspend or terminate the award. DOJ, including OJP, also may take other legal action as appropriate.

Any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement to the federal government related to this award (or concealment or omission of a material fact) may be the subject of criminal prosecution (including under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or 1621, and/or 34 U.S.C. 10271-10273), and also may lead to imposition of civil penalties and administrative remedies for false claims or otherwise (including under 31 U.S.C. 3729-3730 and 3801-3812).

Should any provision of a requirement of this award be held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, that provision shall first be applied with a limited construction so as to give it the maximum effect permitted by law. Should it be held, instead, that the provision is utterly invalid or -unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severable from this award.

Effect of failure to address audit issues
The recipient understands and agrees that the DOJ awarding agency (OJP or 7 8
8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 4 7
OVW, as appropriate) may withhold award funds, or may impose other related requirements, if (as determined by the DOJ awarding agency) the recipient does not satisfactorily and promptly address outstanding issues from audits required by the Part 200 Uniform Requirements (or by the terms of this award), or other outstanding issues that arise in connection with audits, investigations, or reviews of DOJ awards.

Applicability of Part 200 Uniform Requirements
The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, as adopted and supplemented by DOJ in 2 C.F.R. Part 2800 (together, the "Part 200 Uniform Requirements"), including, without limitation, the provisions regarding termination in 2 C.F.R. 200.340, apply to this award from OJP.

For more information and resources on the Part 200 Uniform Requirements as they relate to OJP awards and subawards ("subgrants"), see the OJP website at https://ojp.gov/funding/Part200UniformRequirements.htm.

Record retention and access: Records pertinent to the award that the recipient (and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier) must retain -- typically for a period of 3 years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report (SF 425), unless a different retention period applies -- and to which the recipient (and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier) must provide access, include performance measurement information, in addition to the financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and other pertinent records indicated at 2 C.F.R. 200.334.

In the event that an award-related question arises from documents or other materials prepared or distributed by OJP that may appear to conflict with, or differ in some way from, the provisions of the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, the recipient is to contact OJP promptly for clarification.

Reporting potential fraud, waste, and abuse, and similar misconduct The recipient, and any subrecipients ("subgrantees") at any tier, must promptly refer to the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) any credible evidence that a principal, employee, agent, subrecipient, contractor, subcontractor, or other person has, in connection with funds under this award-- (1) submitted a claim that violates the False Claims Act; or (2) committed a criminal or civil violation of laws pertaining to fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, gratuity, or similar misconduct.

Potential fraud, waste, abuse, or misconduct involving or relating to funds under this award should be reported to the OIG by--(1) online submission accessible via the OIG webpage at https://oig.justice.gov/hotline/contactgrants.htm (select "Submit Report Online"); (2) mail directed to: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Investigations Division, ATTN: Fraud Detection Office, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20530; and/or (3) by facsimile directed to the DOJ OIG Investigations Division (Attn: Grantee Reporting) at (202) 616-9881 (fax).

Additional information is available from the DOJ OIG website at https://oig.justice.gov/hotline.
9 10
8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 5 8
Requirements related to "de minimis" indirect cost rate A recipient that is eligible under the Part 200 Uniform Requirements and other applicable law to use the "de minimis" indirect cost rate described in 2 C.F.R. 200.414(f), and that elects to use the "de minimis" indirect cost rate, must advise OJP in writing of both its eligibility and its election, and must comply with all associated requirements in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements. The "de minimis" rate may be applied only to modified total direct costs (MTDC) as defined by the Part 200 Uniform Requirements.

Compliance with applicable rules regarding approval, planning, and reporting of conferences, meetings, trainings, and other events
The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and official DOJ guidance (including specific cost limits, prior approval and reporting requirements, where applicable) governing the use of federal funds for expenses related to conferences (as that term is defined by DOJ), including the provision of food and/or beverages at such conferences, and costs of attendance at such conferences.

Information on the pertinent DOJ definition of conferences and the rules applicable to this award appears in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide (currently, as section 3.10 of "Postaward Requirements" in the "DOJ Grants Financial Guide").

Requirement for data on performance and effectiveness under the award The recipient must collect and maintain data that measure the performance and effectiveness of work under this award. The data must be provided to OJP in the manner (including within the timeframes) specified by OJP in the program solicitation or other applicable written guidance. Data collection supports compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, and other applicable laws.

Compliance with DOJ Grants Financial Guide
References to the DOJ Grants Financial Guide are to the DOJ Grants Financial Guide as posted on the OJP website (currently, the "DOJ Grants Financial Guide" available at https://ojp.gov/financialguide/DOJ/index.htm), including any updated version that may be posted during the period of performance. The recipient agrees to comply with the DOJ Grants Financial Guide.

Compliance with DOJ regulations pertaining to civil rights and nondiscrimination - 28 C.F.R. Part 42
The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable requirements of 28 C.F.R. Part 42, specifically including 28 C.F.R. § 42.106(d), 28 C.F.R. § 42.405(c), and 28 C.F.R. § 42.505(f), which 11 12
13 14
15 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 6 9
contain notice requirements that covered recipients must follow regarding the dissemination of information regarding federal nondiscrimination requirements.

Determination of suitability to interact with participating minors SCOPE. This condition applies to this award if it is indicated -- in the application for the award (as approved by DOJ)(or in the application for any subaward, at any tier), the DOJ funding announcement (solicitation), or an associated federal statute -- that a purpose of some or all of the activities to be carried out under the award (whether by the recipient, or a subrecipient at any tier) is to benefit a set of individuals under 18 years of age.

The recipient, and any subrecipient at any tier, must make determinations of suitability before certain individuals may interact with participating minors. This requirement applies regardless of an individual's employment status.

The details of this requirement are posted on the OJP web site at https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/Interact-Minors.htm (Award condition:

Determination of suitability required, in advance, for certain individuals who may interact with participating minors), and are incorporated by reference here.

Requirement to disclose whether recipient is designated "high risk" by a federal grant-making agency outside of DOJ
If the recipient is designated "high risk" by a federal grant-making agency outside of DOJ, currently or at any time during the course of the period of performance under this award, the recipient must disclose that fact and certain related information to OJP by email at
[email protected]. For purposes of this disclosure, high risk includes any status under which a federal awarding agency provides additional oversight due to the recipient's past performance, or other programmatic or financial concerns with the recipient. The recipient's disclosure must include the following: 1. The federal awarding agency that currently designates the recipient high risk, 2. The date the recipient was designated high risk, 3. The high-risk point of contact at that federal awarding agency (name, phone number, and email address), and 4. The reasons for the high-risk status, as set out by the federal awarding agency.

Employment eligibility verification for hiring under the award

1. The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must-- A. Ensure that, as part of the hiring process for any position within the United States that is or will be funded (in whole or in part) with award funds, the recipient (or any subrecipient) properly verifies the employment eligibility of the individual who is being hired, consistent with the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1).

B. Notify all persons associated with the recipient (or any subrecipient) who are or will be involved in activities under this award of both-- (1) this award requirement for verification of employment eligibility, and 16 17
18 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 7 10
(2) the associated provisions in 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1) that, generally speaking, make it unlawful, in the United States, to hire (or recruit for employment) certain aliens.

C. Provide training (to the extent necessary) to those persons required by this condition to be notified of the award requirement for employment eligibility verification and of the associated provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1).

D. As part of the recordkeeping for the award (including pursuant to the Part 200 Uniform Requirements), maintain records of all employment eligibility verifications pertinent to compliance with this award condition in accordance with Form I-9 record retention requirements, as well as records of all pertinent notifications and trainings.

2. Monitoring
The recipient's monitoring responsibilities include monitoring of subrecipient compliance with this condition.

3. Allowable costs
To the extent that such costs are not reimbursed under any other federal program, award funds may be obligated for the reasonable, necessary, and allocable costs (if any) of actions designed to ensure compliance with this condition.

4. Rules of construction
A. Staff involved in the hiring process
For purposes of this condition, persons "who are or will be involved in activities under this award" specifically includes (without limitation) any and all recipient (or any subrecipient) officials or other staff who are or will be involved in the hiring process with respect to a position that is or will be funded (in whole or in part) with award funds.

B. Employment eligibility confirmation with E-Verify
For purposes of satisfying the requirement of this condition regarding verification of employment eligibility, the recipient (or any subrecipient) may choose to participate in, and use, E-Verify (www.e-verify.gov), provided an appropriate person authorized to act on behalf of the recipient (or subrecipient) uses E-Verify (and follows the proper E-Verify procedures, including in the event of a "Tentative Nonconfirmation" or a "Final Nonconfirmation") to confirm employment eligibility for each hiring for a position in the United States that is or will be funded (in whole or in part) with award funds.

C. "United States" specifically includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

D. Nothing in this condition shall be understood to authorize or require any recipient, any subrecipient at any tier, or any person or other entity, to violate any federal law, including any applicable civil rights or nondiscrimination law.

E. Nothing in this condition, including in paragraph 4.B., shall be understood to relieve any recipient, any subrecipient at any tier, or any person or other entity, of any obligation otherwise imposed by law, including 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1).

Questions about E-Verify should be directed to DHS. For more information 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 8 11
about E-Verify visit the E-Verify website (https://www.e-verify.gov/) or email EVerify at [email protected]. E-Verify employer agents can email E-Verify at E[email protected].

Questions about the meaning or scope of this condition should be directed to OJP, before award acceptance.

Encouragement of policies to ban text messaging while driving Pursuant to Executive Order 13513, "Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While Driving," 74 Fed. Reg. 51225 (October 1, 2009), DOJ encourages recipients and subrecipients ("subgrantees") to adopt and enforce policies banning employees from text messaging while driving any vehicle during the course of performing work funded by this award, and to establish workplace safety policies and conduct education, awareness, and other outreach to decrease crashes caused by distracted drivers.

Reclassification of various statutory provisions to a new Title 34 of the United States Code
On September 1, 2017, various statutory provisions previously codified elsewhere in the U.S. Code were editorially reclassified (that is, moved and renumbered) to a new Title 34, entitled "Crime Control and Law Enforcement." The reclassification encompassed a number of statutory provisions pertinent to OJP awards (that is, OJP grants and cooperative agreements), including many provisions previously codified in Title 42 of the U.S. Code.

Effective as of September 1, 2017, any reference in this award document to a statutory provision that has been reclassified to the new Title 34 of the U.S.

Code is to be read as a reference to that statutory provision as reclassified to Title 34. This rule of construction specifically includes references set out in award conditions, references set out in material incorporated by reference through award conditions, and references set out in other award requirements.

Restrictions and certifications regarding non-disclosure agreements and related matters
No recipient or subrecipient ("subgrantee") under this award, or entity that receives a procurement contract or subcontract with any funds under this award, may require any employee or contractor to sign an internal confidentiality agreement or statement that prohibits or otherwise restricts, or purports to prohibit or restrict, the reporting (in accordance with law) of waste, fraud, or abuse to an investigative or law enforcement representative of a federal department or agency authorized to receive such information.

The foregoing is not intended, and shall not be understood by the agency making this award, to contravene requirements applicable to Standard Form 312 (which relates to classified information), Form 4414 (which relates to sensitive compartmented information), or any other form issued by a federal department or agency governing the nondisclosure of classified information.

1. In accepting this award, the recipient--
a. represents that it neither requires nor has required internal confidentiality 19 20
21 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 9 12
agreements or statements from employees or contractors that currently prohibit or otherwise currently restrict (or purport to prohibit or restrict) employees or contractors from reporting waste, fraud, or abuse as described above; and
b. certifies that, if it learns or is notified that it is or has been requiring its employees or contractors to execute agreements or statements that prohibit or otherwise restrict (or purport to prohibit or restrict), reporting of waste, fraud, or abuse as described above, it will immediately stop any further obligations of award funds, will provide prompt written notification to the federal agency making this award, and will resume (or permit resumption of) such obligations only if expressly authorized to do so by that agency.

2. If the recipient does or is authorized under this award to make subawards ("subgrants"), procurement contracts, or both--
a. it represents that--
(1) it has determined that no other entity that the recipient's application proposes may or will receive award funds (whether through a subaward ("subgrant"), procurement contract, or subcontract under a procurement contract) either requires or has required internal confidentiality agreements or statements from employees or contractors that currently prohibit or otherwise currently restrict (or purport to prohibit or restrict) employees or contractors from reporting waste, fraud, or abuse as described above; and (2) it has made appropriate inquiry, or otherwise has an adequate factual basis, to support this representation; and
b. it certifies that, if it learns or is notified that any subrecipient, contractor, or subcontractor entity that receives funds under this award is or has been requiring its employees or contractors to execute agreements or statements that prohibit or otherwise restrict (or purport to prohibit or restrict), reporting of waste, fraud, or abuse as described above, it will immediately stop any further obligations of award funds to or by that entity, will provide prompt written notification to the federal agency making this award, and will resume (or permit resumption of) such obligations only if expressly authorized to do so by that agency.

OJP Training Guiding Principles
Any training or training materials that the recipient -- or any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier -- develops or delivers with OJP award funds must adhere to the OJP Training Guiding Principles for Grantees and Subgrantees, available at https://www.ojp.gov/funding/implement/training-guiding-principlesgrantees-and-subgrantees.

Requirement to report potentially duplicative funding
If the recipient currently has other active awards of federal funds, or if the recipient receives any other award of federal funds during the period of performance for this award, the recipient promptly must determine whether funds from any of those other federal awards have been, are being, or are to be used (in whole or in part) for one or more of the identical cost items for which funds are provided under this award. If so, the recipient must promptly notify the DOJ awarding agency (OJP or OVW, as appropriate) in writing of the 22 23
8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 10 13
potential duplication, and, if so requested by the DOJ awarding agency, must seek a budget-modification or change-of-project-scope Grant Award Modification (GAM) to eliminate any inappropriate duplication of funding.

Required training for Grant Award Administrator and Financial Manager The Grant Award Administrator and all Financial Managers for this award must have successfully completed an "OJP financial management and grant administration training" by 120 days after the date of the recipient's acceptance of the award. Successful completion of such a training on or after January 1, 2022, will satisfy this condition.

In the event that either the Grant Award Administrator or a Financial Manager for this award changes during the period of performance, the new Grant Award Administrator or Financial Manager must have successfully completed an "OJP financial management and grant administration training" by 120 calendar days after the date the Entity Administrator enters updated Grant Award Administrator or Financial Manager information in JustGrants. Successful completion of such a training on or after January 1, 2022, will satisfy this condition.

A list of OJP trainings that OJP will consider "OJP financial management and grant administration training" for purposes of this condition is available at https://onlinegfmt.training.ojp.gov/. All trainings that satisfy this condition include a session on grant fraud prevention and detection.

The recipient should anticipate that OJP will immediately withhold ("freeze") award funds if the recipient fails to comply with this condition. The recipient's failure to comply also may lead OJP to impose additional appropriate conditions on this award.

Compliance with 41 U.S.C. 4712 (including prohibitions on reprisal; notice to employees)
The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must comply with, and is subject to, all applicable provisions of 41 U.S.C. 4712, including all applicable provisions that prohibit, under specified circumstances, discrimination against an employee as reprisal for the employee's disclosure of information related to gross mismanagement of a federal grant, a gross waste of federal funds, an abuse of authority relating to a federal grant, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a federal grant.

The recipient also must inform its employees, in writing (and in the predominant native language of the workforce), of employee rights and remedies under 41 U.S.C. 4712.

Should a question arise as to the applicability of the provisions of 41 U.S.C. 4712 to this award, the recipient is to contact the DOJ awarding agency (OJP or OVW, as appropriate) for guidance.

Potential imposition of additional requirements
The recipient agrees to comply with any additional requirements that may be 24 25
26 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 11 14
imposed by the DOJ awarding agency (OJP or OVW, as appropriate) during the period of performance for this award, if the recipient is designated as "high-risk" for purposes of the DOJ high-risk grantee list.

Requirement to report actual or imminent breach of personally identifiable information (PII)
The recipient (and any "subrecipient" at any tier) must have written procedures in place to respond in the event of an actual or imminent "breach" (OMB M-17- 12) if it (or a subrecipient) -- (1) creates, collects, uses, processes, stores, maintains, disseminates, discloses, or disposes of "Personally Identifiable Information (PII)" (2 CFR 200.1) within the scope of an OJP grant-funded program or activity, or (2) uses or operates a "Federal information system" (OMB Circular A-130). The recipient's breach procedures must include a requirement to report actual or imminent breach of PII to an OJP Program Manager no later than 24 hours after an occurrence of an actual breach, or the detection of an imminent breach.

Requirements related to System for Award Management and Universal Identifier Requirements
The recipient must comply with applicable requirements regarding the System for Award Management (SAM), currently accessible at https://www.sam.gov/.

This includes applicable requirements regarding registration with SAM, as well as maintaining the currency of information in SAM.

The recipient also must comply with applicable restrictions on subawards ("subgrants") to first-tier subrecipients (first-tier "subgrantees"), including restrictions on subawards to entities that do not acquire and provide (to the recipient) the unique entity identifier required for SAM registration.

The details of the recipient's obligations related to SAM and to unique entity identifiers are posted on the OJP web site at
https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SAM.htm (Award condition: System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier Requirements), and are incorporated by reference here.

This condition does not apply to an award to an individual who received the award as a natural person (i.e., unrelated to any business or non-profit organization that he or she may own or operate in his or her name).

Restrictions on "lobbying"
In general, as a matter of federal law, federal funds awarded by OJP may not be used by the recipient, or any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, either directly or indirectly, to support or oppose the enactment, repeal, modification, or adoption of any law, regulation, or policy, at any level of government. See 18 U.S.C. 1913. (There may be exceptions if an applicable federal statute specifically authorizes certain activities that otherwise would be barred by law.) Another federal law generally prohibits federal funds awarded by OJP from being used by the recipient, or any subrecipient at any tier, to pay any person to influence (or attempt to influence) a federal agency, a Member of Congress, or Congress (or an official or employee of any of them) with respect to the 27 28
29 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 12 15
awarding of a federal grant or cooperative agreement, subgrant, contract, subcontract, or loan, or with respect to actions such as renewing, extending, or modifying any such award. See 31 U.S.C. 1352. Certain exceptions to this law apply, including an exception that applies to Indian tribes and tribal organizations.

Should any question arise as to whether a particular use of federal funds by a recipient (or subrecipient) would or might fall within the scope of these prohibitions, the recipient is to contact OJP for guidance, and may not proceed without the express prior written approval of OJP.

Compliance with DOJ regulations pertaining to civil rights and nondiscrimination - 28 C.F.R. Part 54
The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable requirements of 28 C.F.R. Part 54, which relates to nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in certain "education programs." Among other items, 28 C.F.R. § 54.140 contains notice requirements that covered recipients must follow regarding the dissemination of information regarding federal nondiscrimination requirements.

The recipient understands that, in accepting this award, the Authorized Representative declares and certifies, among other things, that he or she possesses the requisite legal authority to accept the award on behalf of the recipient entity and, in so doing, accepts (or adopts) all material requirements that relate to conduct throughout the period of performance under this award.

The recipient further understands, and agrees, that it will not assign anyone to the role of Authorized Representative during the period of performance under the award without first ensuring that the individual has the requisite legal authority.

Verification and updating of recipient contact information The recipient must verify its Grant Award Administrator, Financial Manager, and Authorized Representative contact information in JustGrants, including telephone number and e-mail address. If any information is incorrect or has changed, the award recipient’s Entity Administrator must make changes to contact information through DIAMD. Instructions on how to update contact information in JustGrants can be found at
https://justicegrants.usdoj.gov/training/training-entity-management.

FFATA reporting: Subawards and executive compensation
The recipient must comply with applicable requirements to report first-tier subawards ("subgrants") of $30,000 or more and, in certain circumstances, to report the names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated executives of the recipient and first-tier subrecipients (first-tier "subgrantees") of award funds. The details of recipient obligations, which derive from the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), are set forth in 2 C.F.R. part 170, Appendix A (“Award Term”) and are incorporated by reference here.
30 31
32 33
8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 13 16
This condition, including its reporting requirement, does not apply to-- (1) an award of less than $30,000, or (2) an award made to an individual who received the award as a natural person (i.e., unrelated to any business or nonprofit organization that he or she may own or operate in his or her name).

Note: In early March 2025, the reporting system that had been used for subaward reporting, the FFATA (Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) was retired and functionality moved to SAM.gov. For more information, including steps on how to connect your FSRS account to SAM.gov, visit https://sam.gov/fsrs.

The recipient agrees to comply with OJP grant monitoring guidelines, protocols, and procedures, and to cooperate with BJA and OCFO on all grant monitoring requests, including requests related to desk reviews, enhanced programmatic desk reviews, and/or site visits. The recipient agrees to provide to BJA and OCFO all documentation necessary to complete monitoring tasks, including documentation related to any subawards made under this award.

Further, the recipient agrees to abide by reasonable deadlines set by BJA and OCFO for providing the requested documents. Failure to cooperate with BJA's/OCFO's grant monitoring activities may result in sanctions affecting the recipient's DOJ awards, including, but not limited to: withholdings and/or other restrictions on the recipient's access to grant funds; referral to the Office of the Inspector General for audit review; designation of the recipient as a DOJ High Risk grantee; or termination of an award(s).

Any publication (e.g., curricula, training materials, publications, reports, videos, or any other written, web-based, or audio-visual, or other materials) funded in whole or in part under this award, (with the exception of press releases, websites, and mobile applications), shall contain the following statement: “This project was supported by Grant No. <Award_Number> awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice."
Any website or mobile application that is funded in whole or in part under this award must include the following statement where most practicable: "This website [or application] was supported by Grant No. <Award_Number> awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website [or application] (including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided)." The full text of the foregoing statement must be clearly visible. The statement may also be included through a link, entitled "Notice of Federal Funding and Federal Disclaimer," to the full text of the statement.

Upon specific request by BJA, the recipient must submit to BJA for review and approval (or, for recipients or subrecipients that are institutions of higher education, review and comment) any publication or product developed under this award at least 30 working days prior to the targeted dissemination date.

The current edition of the DOJ Grants Financial Guide provides additional guidance on allowable printing and publication activities. 34 35
36 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 14 17
Confidentiality of data
The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must comply with all confidentiality requirements of 34 U.S.C. 10231 and 28 C.F.R. Part 22 that are applicable to collection, use, and revelation of data or information. The recipient further agrees, as a condition of award approval, to submit a Privacy Certificate that is in accord with requirements of 28 C.F.R. Part 22 and, in particular, 28 C.F.R. 22.23 for any applicable project.

The recipient agrees to cooperate with any assessments, national evaluation efforts, or information or data collection requests, including, but not limited to, the provision of any information required for the assessment or evaluation of any activities within this project.

Protection of human research subjects
The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must comply with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. Part 46 and all OJP policies and procedures regarding the protection of human research subjects, including obtainment of Institutional Review Board approval, if appropriate, and subject informed consent.

Compliance with 28 C.F.R. Part 23
With respect to any information technology system funded or supported by funds under this award, the recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must comply with 28 C.F.R. Part 23, Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies, if OJP determines this regulation to be applicable. Should OJP determine 28 C.F.R. Part 23 to be applicable, OJP may, at its discretion, perform audits of the system, as per the regulation. Should any violation of 28 C.F.R. Part 23 occur, the recipient may be fined as per 34 U.S.C. 10231(c)-(d).

The recipient may not satisfy such a fine with federal funds.

Justice Information Sharing
Information sharing projects funded under this award must comply with DOJ's Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) guidelines. The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must conform to the Global Standards Package (GSP) and all constituent elements, where applicable, as described at: https://bja.ojp.gov/program/it/gsp-grant-condition. The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must document planned approaches to information sharing and describe compliance with the GSP and appropriate privacy policy that protects shared information, or provide detailed justification for why an alternative approach is recommended.

Avoidance of duplication of networks
To avoid duplicating existing networks or IT systems in any initiatives funded by BJA for law enforcement information sharing systems that involve interstate 37 38
39 40
41 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 15 18
connectivity between jurisdictions, such systems shall employ, to the extent possible, existing networks as the communication backbone to achieve interstate connectivity, unless the recipient can demonstrate to the satisfaction of BJA that this requirement would not be cost effective or would impair the functionality of an existing or proposed IT system.

Law enforcement task forces - required training
Within 120 days of award acceptance, each current member of a law enforcement task force funded with award funds who is a task force commander, agency executive, task force officer, or other task force member of equivalent rank, must complete required online task force training.

Additionally, all future task force members must complete this training once during the period of performance for this award, or once every four years if multiple OJP awards include this requirement.

The required training is available free of charge online through the BJA-funded Center for Task Force Integrity and Leadership (www.ctfli.org). The training addresses task force effectiveness, as well as other key issues including privacy and civil liberties/rights, task force performance measurement, personnel selection, and task force oversight and accountability. If award funds are used to support a task force, the recipient must compile and maintain a task force personnel roster, along with course completion certificates.

Additional information regarding the training is available through BJA's web site and the Center for Task Force Integrity and Leadership (www.ctfli.org).

Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act and related statutes Upon request, the recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must assist BJA in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, and other related federal environmental requirements in the use of these award funds, either directly by the recipient or by a subrecipient. Accordingly, the recipient agrees to determine if any of the following activities will be funded by the grant prior to obligating funds for any of these purposes. If it is determined that any of the following activities will be funded by the award, the recipient agrees to contact BJA, and follow instructions regarding NEPA compliance.

The activities covered by this condition are:
a. New construction;
b. Minor renovation or remodeling of a property located in an environmentally or historically sensitive area, including properties located within a 100-year flood plain, a wetland, or habitat for endangered species, or a property listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; c. A renovation, lease, or any proposed use of a building or facility that will either (a) result in a change in its basic prior use or (b) significantly change its size;
d. Implementation of a new program involving the use of chemicals other than chemicals that are (a) purchased as an incidental component of a funded activity and (b) traditionally used, for example, in office, household, recreational, or education environments;
e. Implementation of a program relating to clandestine methamphetamine laboratory operations, including the identification, seizure, or closure of 42 43
8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 16 19
clandestine methamphetamine laboratories; and
f. Any extraordinary or unusual project with potential to have a significant environmental impact.

The recipient understands and agrees that complying with NEPA may require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement, as directed by BJA.

The recipient shall ensure that each DNA analysis conducted under this award will be performed either (1) by accredited government-owned laboratories, or (2) through an accredited fee-for-service vendor. The accreditation must be by an accrediting body that is a signatory to an internationally recognized arrangement and that offers accreditation to forensic science conformity assessment bodies using an accreditation standard that is recognized by that internationally recognized arrangement. Any laboratory conducting STR, YSTR, or mitochondrial DNA testing undergo external audits not less than once every 2 years that demonstrate compliance with the DNA Quality Assurance Standards established by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

If award funds are used for DNA testing of evidentiary materials, recipients shall ensure that any resulting eligible DNA profiles must be uploaded to the Combined DNA Index System ("CODIS," the DNA database operated by the FBI) by a government DNA laboratory with access to CODIS, and, where applicable, uploaded to the National DNA Index System (NDIS). Award funds may be used for forensic genetic genealogy in accordance with United States Department of Justice Interim Policy Forensic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching and program requirements. With the exception of Forensic Genetic Genealogy, no profiles generated under this award may be entered or uploaded into any non-governmental DNA database without prior express written approval from BJA. Award funds may not be used for the purchase of DNA equipment and supplies unless the resulting DNA profiles may be accepted for entry into CODIS. Booking agencies should work with their state CODIS agency to ensure all requirements are met for participation in Rapid DNA (see National Rapid DNA Booking Operational Procedures Manual).

The recipient shall ensure that each DNA analysis conducted and each DNA profile generated under this award, and each stored DNA sample that results from this award, are maintained in accordance with any applicable federal privacy requirements and restrictions on disclosure.

Recipients utilizing award funds for forensic genealogy testing must adhere to the United States Department of Justice Interim Policy Forensic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching
(https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/download), and must collect and report the metrics identified in Section IX of that document to BJA.

Establishment of trust fund
If award funds are being drawn down in advance, the recipient (or a subrecipient, with respect to a subaward) is required to establish a trust fund account. Recipients (and subrecipients) must maintain advance payments of federal awards in interest-bearing accounts, unless regulatory exclusions apply (2 C.F.R. 200.305(b)(11)). The trust fund, including any interest, may not be used to pay debts or expenses incurred by other activities beyond the 44 45
46 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 17 20
scope of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. The recipient also agrees to obligate the award funds in the trust fund (including any interest earned) during the period of performance for the award and expend within 90 days thereafter. Any unobligated or unexpended funds, including interest earned, must be returned to OJP at the time of closeout.

As of the first day of the period of performance for the award, the recipient may choose to incur project costs using non-federal funds, but any such project costs are incurred at the recipient's risk until, at a minimum-- (1) the recipient makes a valid acceptance of the award, and (2) all applicable withholding conditions are removed by OJP (via an Award Condition Modification (ACM)). (A withholding condition is a condition in the award document that precludes the recipient from expending or drawing down all or a portion of the award funds until the condition is removed.) Except to the extent (if any) that an award condition expressly precludes reimbursement of project costs incurred "at-risk," if and when the recipient makes a valid acceptance of this award and OJP removes each applicable withholding condition through an Award Condition Modification (ACM), the recipient is authorized to obligate (federal) award funds to reimburse itself for project costs incurred "at-risk" earlier during the period of performance (such as project costs incurred prior to award acceptance or prior to removal of an applicable withholding condition), provided that those project costs otherwise are allowable costs under the award.

Submission of eligible records relevant to the National Instant Background Check System
Consonant with federal statutes that pertain to firearms and background checks -- including 18 U.S.C. 922 and 34 U.S.C. ch. 409 -- if the recipient (or any subrecipient at any tier) uses this award to fund (in whole or in part) a specific project or program (such as a law enforcement, prosecution, or court program) that results in any court dispositions, information, or other records that are "eligible records" (under federal or State law) relevant to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS), or that has as one of its purposes the establishment or improvement of records systems that contain any court dispositions, information, or other records that are "eligible records" (under federal or State law) relevant to the NICS, the recipient (or subrecipient, if applicable) must ensure that all such court dispositions, information, or other records that are "eligible records" (under federal or State law) relevant to the NICS are promptly made available to the NICS or to the "State" repository/database that is electronically available to (and accessed by) the NICS, and -- when appropriate -- promptly must update, correct, modify, or remove such NICS-relevant "eligible records".

In the event of minor and transitory non-compliance, the recipient may submit evidence to demonstrate diligent monitoring of compliance with this condition (including subrecipient compliance). DOJ will give great weight to any such evidence in any express written determination regarding this condition.

Compliance with trauma kit standards
If the recipient uses funds under this award to purchase trauma kits or trauma kit components, the recipient must ensure that the trauma kits purchased meet 47 48
49 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 18 21
the performance standards established consistent with 34 U.S.C. § 10202(d), as such standards are in effect at the time of purchase.

Initial period of performance; requests for extension.

The recipient understands that for award amounts of less than $25,000 under JAG, the initial period of performance of the award will be less than four years.

The recipient further understands that any requests for an extension of the period of performance for an award of less than $25,000 will be approved automatically for up to a total period of performance of four years, pursuant to 34 U.S.C. 10152(f) and in accordance with the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) associated with this award.

Any request for an extension of the period of performance beyond a four-year award period will require approval, and the approval (if any) will be at the discretion of OJP.

Noninterference (with award funds and within the funded "program or activity") with federal law enforcement: No public disclosure of certain law-enforcementsensitive information SCOPE. This condition applies throughout the entire award period of performance. Its provisions must be among those included in any subaward (at any tier).

1. No use of funds to interfere: No public disclosure of federal law-enforcement information in order to conceal, harbor, or shield.

Consistent with the purposes and objectives of federal law enforcement statutes and federal criminal law (including 8 U.S.C. 1324 and 18 U.S.C. chs. 1, 49, 227), no State or local government entity, agency, or official (including a government-contracted correctional facility) may use funds under this award to make any public disclosure of any federal law-enforcement information in a direct or indirect attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection any fugitive from justice under 18 U.S.C. ch. 49, or any alien who has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. ch. 12— without regard to whether such disclosure would constitute (or could form a predicate for) a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1071 or 1072 or of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a).

2. Noninterference: No public disclosure of federal law-enforcement information in order to conceal, harbor, or shield within the funded “program or activity.”
With respect to the "program or activity" funded in whole or part under this award (including any such program or activity of any subrecipient at any tier), and consistent with federal law as cited in para. 1 of this condition, no State or local government entity, agency, or official (including a government-contracted correctional facility) within the funded program or activity may make any public disclosure of any federal law-enforcement information in a direct or indirect attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection any fugitive from justice under 18 U.S.C. ch. 49, or any alien who has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. ch. 12—without regard to whether such disclosure would constitute (or could form a predicate for) a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1071 or 1072 or of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a).

3. Monitoring. The recipient's monitoring responsibilities include monitoring of subrecipient compliance with this condition.

4. Allowable costs. To the extent that such costs are not reimbursed under any other federal program, award funds may be obligated for the reasonable, necessary, and allocable costs (if any) of actions (e.g., training) designed to ensure compliance with this condition.

5. Rules of construction.
50 51
8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 19 22
A. For purposes of this condition—
(1) the term "alien" means what it means under section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (see 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3));
(2) the term "federal law-enforcement information" means law-enforcementsensitive information communicated or made available, by the federal government, to a State or local government entity, agency, or official, through any means, including, without limitation—
(a) through any database,
(b) in connection with any law enforcement partnership or task-force, (c) in connection with any request for law enforcement assistance or - cooperation, or
(d) through any deconfliction (or courtesy) notice of planned, imminent, commencing, continuing, or impending federal law enforcement activity; (3) the term "law-enforcement-sensitive information" means records or information compiled for any law-enforcement purpose; and (4) the term "public disclosure" means any communication or release other than one—
(a) within the recipient, or
(b) to any subrecipient (at any tier) that is a government entity.

B. This condition shall be enforceable to the extent that it does not otherwise contravene any express requirement of any federal law, or of any judicial ruling, governing or applicable to the award.

C. The "Rules of Construction" set out in the "Noninterference (with award funds and within the funded "program or activity") with federal law enforcement: information-communication restrictions; ongoing compliance" award condition are incorporated by reference as though set forth here in full.

Noninterference (with award funds and within the funded "program or activity") with federal law enforcement: information-communication restrictions SCOPE. This condition applies throughout the entire award period of performance. Its provisions must be among those included in any subaward (at any tier).

1. Throughout the entire award period of performance, no State or local government entity, -agency, or -official may use funds under this award (including under any subaward, at any tier) to prohibit or in any way restrict— (1) any government entity or -official from sending or receiving information regarding citizenship or immigration status to or from DHS; or (2) a government entity or agency from sending, requesting or receiving, or exchanging information regarding immigration status to, from, or with DHS, or from maintaining such information.

Any prohibition (or restriction) that violates this condition is an "informationcommunication restriction" under this award.

2. With respect to the "program or activity" funded in whole or part under this award (including any such program or activity of any subrecipient at any tier), throughout the entire award period of performance, no State or local government entity, agency, or official may implement an “informationcommunication restriction.”

3. The recipient's monitoring responsibilities include monitoring of subrecipient compliance with the requirements of this condition.

4. Allowable costs. Compliance with these requirements is an authorized and priority purpose of this award. To the extent that such costs are not reimbursed under any other federal program, award funds may be obligated for the reasonable, necessary, and allocable costs (if any) that the recipient, or any subrecipient at any tier that is a State or local government incurs to implement this condition.

5. Rules of Construction.

A. For purposes of this condition:
(1) "State" and "local government" include any agency or other entity thereof, 52 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 20 23
but not any public institution of higher education or Indian tribe. (2) "Program or activity" means what it means under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (see 42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a).
(3) "Immigration status" means what it means under 8 U.S.C. 1373 and 8 U.S.C. 1644; and terms that are defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101 mean what they mean under that section 1101, except that "State" also includes American Samoa.
(4) “DHS” means the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

B. Nothing in this condition shall be understood to authorize or require any recipient, any subrecipient at any tier, any State or local government, or any other entity (or individual) to violate any federal law, including any applicable civil rights or nondiscrimination law.

C. This condition shall be enforceable to the extent that it does not otherwise contravene any express requirement of any federal law, or of any judicial ruling, governing or applicable to the award.

Noninterference (with award funds and within the funded "program or activity") with federal law enforcement: Notice of scheduled release SCOPE. This condition applies throughout the entire award period of performance. Its provisions must be among those included in any subaward at any tier.

1. No use of funds to interfere with "removal" process: Notice of scheduled release date and time.

Consonant with federal law enforcement statutes—including 8 U.S.C. 1231 (for an alien incarcerated by a State or local government, a 90-day "removal period" during which the federal government "shall" detain and then "shall" remove an alien from the U.S. "begins" no later than "the date the alien is released from ... confinement"; also, the federal government is expressly authorized to make payments to a "State or a political subdivision of the State ... with respect to the incarceration of [an] undocumented criminal alien"); 8 U.S.C. 1226 (the federal government "shall take into custody" certain criminal aliens "when the alien is released"); and 8 U.S.C. 1366 (requiring an annual report to Congress on "the number of illegal alien[ felons] in Federal and State prisons" and programs underway "to ensure the prompt removal" from the U.S. of removable "criminal aliens")—no State or local government entity, agency, or official (including a government-contracted correctional facility) may use funds under this award to interfere with the "removal" process by failing to provide (as early as practicable (see para. 5.B. below)) advance notice to DHS of the scheduled release date and time for a particular alien, if a State or local government (or government-contracted) correctional facility receives from DHS a formal written request pursuant to the INA that seeks such advance notice.

2. Noninterference with "removal" process: Notice of scheduled release date and time within the funded “program or activity.”
With respect to the "program or activity" funded in whole or part under this award (including any such program or activity of any subrecipient at any tier), and consonant with federal law enforcement statutes as cited in para. 1 of this condition, no State or local government entity, agency, or official (including a government-contracted correctional facility) within the funded program or activity may interfere with the "removal" process by failing to provide (as early as practicable (see para. 4.B. below)) advance notice to DHS of the scheduled release date and time for a particular alien, if a State or local government (or government-contracted) correctional facility receives from DHS a formal written request pursuant to the INA that seeks such advance notice.

3. Monitoring. The recipient's monitoring responsibilities include monitoring of subrecipient compliance with this condition.

4. Allowable costs. To the extent that such costs are not reimbursed under any other federal program, award funds may be obligated for the reasonable, 53 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 21 24
necessary, and allocable costs (if any) of actions (e.g., training) designed to ensure compliance with this condition.

5. Rules of construction
A. Nothing in this condition shall be understood to authorize or require any recipient, any subrecipient at any tier, any State or local government, or any other entity or individual to maintain (or detain) any individual in custody beyond the date and time the individual otherwise would have been released.

B. Applicability.
(1) Current DHS practice is ordinarily to request advance notice of scheduled release "as early as practicable (at least 48 hours, if possible)." (See DHS Form I-247A (3/17)). If (e.g., in light of the date DHS made such request) the scheduled release date and time for an alien are such as not to allow for the advance notice that DHS has requested, it shall NOT be a violation of this condition to provide only as much advance notice as, in fact, practicable. (2) Current DHS practice is to use the same form for a second, distinct purpose—to request that an individual be detained for up to 48 hours AFTER the scheduled release. This condition does NOT encompass such DHS requests for detention.

C. This condition shall be enforceable to the extent that it does not otherwise contravene any express requirement of any federal law, or of any judicial ruling, governing or applicable to the award.

D. The "Rules of Construction" set out in the "Noninterference (with award funds and within the funded "program or activity") with federal law enforcement: Interrogation of certain aliens" award condition are incorporated by reference as though set forth here in full.

Noninterference (with award funds and within the funded "program or activity") with federal law enforcement: Interrogation of certain aliens SCOPE. This condition applies throughout the entire award period of performance. Its provisions must be among those included in any subaward (at any tier).

1. No use of funds to interfere with statutory law enforcement access to correctional facilities.

Consonant with federal law enforcement statutes and regulations—including 8 U.S.C. 1357(a) (under which certain federal officers and employees "have power without warrant ... to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain” in the United States), and 8 C.F.R. 287.5(a) (under which that power may be exercised "anywhere in or outside” the United States)—no State or local government entity, agency, or official within the funded program or activity may use funds under this award to interfere with the exercise of that power to interrogate "without warrant" (by agents of the United States acting under color of federal law) by impeding access to any State or local government (or government-contracted) correctional facility by such agents for the purpose of "interrogat[ing] any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his [or her] right to be or to remain in the United States."

2. Noninterference with statutory law enforcement access to correctional facilities within the funded “program or activity.”
With respect to the "program or activity" funded in whole or part under this award (including any such program or activity of any subrecipient at any tier), and consonant with federal law enforcement statutes and regulations as cited in para. 1 of this condition, no State or local government entity, agency, or official within the funded program or activity may interfere with the exercise of that power to interrogate "without warrant" (by agents of the United States acting under color of federal law) by impeding access to any State or local government (or government-contracted) correctional facility by such agents for the purpose of "interrogat[ing] any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his [or her] right to be or to remain in the United States." 54 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 22 25

3. Monitoring. The recipient's monitoring responsibilities include monitoring of subrecipient compliance with this condition.

4. Allowable costs. To the extent that such costs are not reimbursed under any other federal program, award funds may be obligated for the reasonable, necessary, and allocable costs (if any) of actions (e.g., training) designed to ensure compliance with this condition.

5. Rules of construction
A. For purposes of this condition:
(1) The term "alien" means what it means under sec. 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)), except that, with respect to a juvenile offender, it means “criminal alien.”
(2) The term “juvenile offender” means what it means under 28 C.F.R.

31.304(f) (as in effect on Jan. 1, 2026.)
(3) The term "criminal alien" means, with respect to a juvenile offender, an alien who is deportable on the basis of—
(a) conviction described in 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2), or
(b) conduct described in 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4).
(4) The term "conviction" means what it means under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48). (Adjudication of a juvenile as having committed an offense does not constitute "conviction" for purposes of this condition.)
(5) The term "correctional facility" means what it means under 34 U.S.C. 10251(a)(7)) as of Jan. 1, 2026.
(6) The term "impede" includes taking or continuing any action, or implementing or maintaining any law, policy, rule, or practice, that— (a) is designed to prevent or to significantly delay or complicate, or (b) has the effect of preventing or of significantly delaying or complicating. (7) "State" and "local government" include any agency or other entity thereof, but not any public institution of higher education or Indian tribe. (8) "Program or activity" means what it means under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (see 42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a).

B. Nothing in this condition shall be understood to authorize or require any recipient, any subrecipient at any tier, any State or local government, or any other entity (or individual) to violate any federal law, including any applicable civil rights or nondiscrimination law.

C. This condition shall be enforceable to the extent that it does not otherwise contravene any express requirement of any federal law, or of any judicial ruling, governing or applicable to the award.

The recipient understands and agrees that no award funds may be used for any expenses related to public awareness campaigns for an extreme risk protection program.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) programs funded under this award must include, at a minimum: pre-deprivation and post-deprivation due process rights that prevent any violation or infringement of the Constitution of the United States, including but not limited to the Bill of Rights, and the substantive or procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the States, and as interpreted by State courts and United States courts (including the Supreme Court of the United States). Such programs must include, at the appropriate phase to prevent any violation of constitutional rights, at minimum, notice, the right to an in-person hearing, an unbiased adjudicator, the right to know opposing evidence, the right to present evidence, and the right to confront adverse witnesses; the right to be represented by counsel at no expense to the government; pre-deprivation and post-deprivation heightened evidentiary standards and proof which mean not less than the protections 55 56
8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 23 26
afforded to a similarly situated litigant in Federal court or promulgated by the State's evidentiary body, and sufficient to ensure the full protections of the Constitution of the United States, including but not limited to the Bill of Rights, and the substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the States, and as interpreted by State courts and United States courts (including the Supreme Court of the United States). The heightened evidentiary standards and proof under such programs must, at all appropriate phases to prevent any violation of any constitutional right, at minimum, prevent reliance upon evidence that is unsworn or unaffirmed, irrelevant, based on inadmissible hearsay, unreliable, vague, speculative, and lacking a foundation; and penalties for abuse of the program.

Recipients who plan to use funding to support ERPO programs must submit a Certification Relating to Pub. L. No. 90-351, Title I, Sec. 501(a)(1)(I)(iv), signed by the principal legal officer, certifying that the ERPO program to be funded satisfies each of the listed requirements prior to the use of award funds for ERPO programs. Funds proposed for ERPO programs may be withheld, pending confirmation of compliance with the terms of this award.

No funds may be used for C-UAS except with express prior approval from BJA. To request such approval, the recipient (or subrecipient, at any tier) must submit to BJA a written certification that, among other things, certifies that any C-UAS purchased with award funds will only be procured and used in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including criminal, surveillance, aviation, and communications laws. Any CUAS purchased with award funds will be included on the list of technologies established by subsection (d)(2)(A)(iii) section 210G of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 124n(d)(2)(A)(iii)) to exercise the authority granted under subsection (a)(2) of such section. The certification also requires that the award recipient consult qualified legal counsel to review the proposed purchase and operation of C-UAS, and that the recipient will complete required trainings and obtain all required approvals, certifications, licenses, and authorizations prior to deployment, and will coordinate with relevant authorities as required. The recipient (or subrecipient) also must assure BJA that it has sufficient policies and procedures regarding privacy, civil liberties, and information technology cybersecurity related to the operation of the C-UAS. Finally, the recipient (or subrecipient) may be required to provide additional documentation to verify purchase and the related policies for the C-UAS. Funds proposed for the purchase of C-UAS may be withheld, pending confirmation of compliance with the terms of this award. Additional information and the required certification form may be found here: https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/uas.

Expenditures prohibited without waiver
No funds under this award may be expended on the purchase of items prohibited by the JAG program statute, unless, as set forth at 34 U.S.C. 10152, the BJA Director certifies that extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist, making such expenditures essential to the maintenance of public safety and good order. Funds proposed for the purchase of prohibited items may be withheld, pending confirmation of compliance with the terms of this award.

No funds may be used for UAS except with express prior approval from BJA.

To request such approval, the recipient (or subrecipient, at any tier) must submit to BJA a written certification that, among other things, certifies that only 57 58
59 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 24 27
UAS verified by the Defense Contract Monitoring Agency's “Blue UAS Cleared List” or any successor list (available at https://bluelist.appsplatformportals.us/) as not manufactured by a “covered foreign entity” may be purchased or operated under the federal award and, further, that no modifications or additional accessories may be introduced to the UAS funded by the award.

The purchased UAS may not be used to process, store, or transmit Federal information. The recipient (or subrecipient) also must assure BJA that it has sufficient policies and procedures regarding privacy, civil liberties, and information technology cybersecurity related to the operation of the UAS.

Finally, the recipient (or subrecipient) may be required to provide additional documentation to verify purchase and the related policies for the UAS. Funds proposed for the purchase of UAS may be withheld, pending confirmation of compliance with the terms of this award. Additional information and the required certification form may be found here: https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/uas.

In accepting this award, the recipient agrees not to use award funds for purchases of body-worn cameras (BWCs) or related expenses for any agency unless that agency has submitted a certification to BJA that it has policies and procedures in place that reinforce appropriate agency Use of Force policies and training and address technology usage, evidence acquisition, data storage and retention, as well as privacy issues, accountability and discipline.

The recipient must keep signed certifications on file for any subrecipients planning to utilize funds from this award for BWCs or related expenses. Funds proposed for the purchase of BWCs or related expenses may be withheld, pending confirmation of compliance with the terms of this award.

Certification of body armor "mandatory wear" policies, and compliance with NIJ standards
If the recipient uses funds under this award to purchase body armor, the recipient must submit a signed certification that each law enforcement agency receiving body armor purchased with funds from this award has a written "mandatory wear" policy in effect. The recipient must keep signed certifications on file for any subrecipients planning to utilize funds from this award for ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body armor purchases. This policy must be in place for at least all uniformed officers before any funds from this award may be used by an agency for body armor. There are no requirements regarding the nature of the policy other than it be a mandatory wear policy for all uniformed officers while on duty. Funds proposed for the purchase of body armor may be withheld, pending confirmation of compliance with the terms of this award.

Ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body armor purchased with award funds may be purchased at any threat level, make or model, from any distributor or manufacturer, as long as the body armor has been tested and found to comply with applicable National Institute of Justice (NIJ) ballistic or stab standards, and is listed on the NIJ Compliant Body Armor Model List. In addition, ballisticresistant and stab-resistant body armor purchased must be uniquely fitted, as set forth in 34 U.S.C. 10202(c)(1)(A). The latest NIJ standard information and the NIJ Compliant Body Armor List may be found by following the links located on the NIJ Body Armor page: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/equipment-andtechnology/body-armor 60 61
62 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 25 28
Withholding of funds for Memorandum of Understanding
The recipient may not expend or draw down any award funds until BJA has reviewed and approved the required Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and an Award Condition Modification (ACM) has been issued to remove this condition.

Recipient integrity and performance matters: Requirement to report information on certain civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings to SAM and FAPIIS
The recipient must comply with any and all applicable requirements regarding reporting of information on civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings connected with (or connected to the performance of) either this OJP award or any other grant, cooperative agreement, or procurement contract from the federal government. Under certain circumstances, recipients of OJP awards are required to report information about such proceedings, through the federal System for Award Management (known as "SAM"), to the designated federal integrity and performance system (currently, "FAPIIS").

The details of recipient obligations regarding the required reporting (and updating) of information on certain civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings to the federal designated integrity and performance system (currently, "FAPIIS") within SAM are posted on the OJP website at https://ojp.gov/funding/FAPIIS.htm (Award condition: Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters, including Recipient Reporting to FAPIIS), and are incorporated by reference here.
63 8/4/26, 10:13 AM Funded Award FAW-191077
https://justgrants.usdoj.gov/prweb/PRAuth/app/JGITS/3yZ6Bxxi_lpDExTOT4XnAjzjAXmVNevW*/!STANDARD 26 29
 
^ƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐWƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ
ŽƵŶƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶĞƌŶĂƌĚŝŶŽ
>ĂǁĂŶĚ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ'ƌŽƵƉ
'ƌĂŶƚǁĂƌĚͬ^ƵďͲǁĂƌĚWƌŽĐĞƐƐ
tŚĞŶ ƚŚĞ >ĂǁĂŶĚ :ƵƐƚŝĐĞ'ƌŽƵƉ ;>Θ:'Ϳ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶ ŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚ ƚŚĂƚŝƚ ŚĂƐ ďĞĞŶĂǁĂƌĚĞĚĂŐƌĂŶƚ͕Ă ŽĂƌĚ ŐĞŶĚĂ/ƚĞŵƚŽĂĐĐĞƉƚƚŚĞŐƌĂŶƚǁŝůůďĞƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚĂŶĚƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŽĂƌĚŽĨ^ƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌƐ;K^ͿĨŽƌ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĂů͘tŚĞƌĞƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚƚŽďĞŐƌĂŶƚĞĚ͕Ă^ƵďͲǁĂƌĚŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďLJƚŚĞ >Θ:' ;ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚͿĂŶĚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďLJƚŚĞK^ĂŶĚƚŚĞƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͘dŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞŽĨĨŝĐŝĂůƐǁŝůůƐŝŐŶƚŚĞ ƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͘  dŚĞ ^ƵďͲǁĂƌĚ ŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ ǁŝůů ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨLJ ƚŚĞ ĨĞĚĞƌĂů ĂǁĂƌĚ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĞĂĐŚĨĞĚĞƌĂůƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚ͘ dŚĞ^ƵďͲǁĂƌĚŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞ'ƌĂŶƚǁĂƌĚEƵŵďĞƌ͕ǁĂƌĚĂƚĞ͕ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ>ŝƐƚŝŶŐEƵŵďĞƌ ;>EͿŶƵŵďĞƌ͕WƌŽũĞĐƚdŝƚůĞ͕WƌŽũĞĐƚWĞƌŝŽĚ͕ǁĂƌĚŵŽƵŶƚ͕ĂŶĚĂůůĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞ ƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚ͘dŚĞ>Θ:'͛Ɛ^ƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐWƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐǁŝůůďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ^ƵďͲǁĂƌĚŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͘ 'ƌĂŶƚZĞǀĞŶƵĞ
tŚĞŶŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚƚŚĂƚĂŐƌĂŶƚĂǁĂƌĚŚĂƐďĞĞŶŵĂĚĞ͕ƚŚĞ'ƌĂŶƚŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐĂďƵĚŐĞƚĐŽĚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞ ŐƌĂŶƚĂǁĂƌĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƵĚŝƚŽƌͲŽŶƚƌŽůůĞƌͬdƌĞĂƐƵƌĞƌͬdĂdžŽůůĞĐƚŽƌ;dͿ͕ĂŶĚƐƵďŵŝƚƐĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞďƵĚŐĞƚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŽĂƌĚŽĨ^ƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĂů͘KŶĐĞƚŚĞďƵĚŐĞƚŝƐĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚ͕ƚŚĞ'ƌĂŶƚŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌ ǁŝůůĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚĞƌŐƌĂŶƚĨƵŶĚƐŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĂǁĂƌĚŝŶŐĂŐĞŶĐLJ͘'ƌĂŶƚĨƵŶĚƐǁŝůů ďĞ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƚŚĞ ĂǁĂƌĚŝŶŐ ĂŐĞŶĐLJ͛Ɛ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ĂůůŽǁĂďůĞ ĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐ ŝŶĐƵƌƌĞĚĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚďLJĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ƌĂǁĚŽǁŶƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐǁŝůůďĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ ƚŝŵĞĨƌĂŵĞƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚďLJƚŚĞĂǁĂƌĚŝŶŐĂŐĞŶĐLJ͘
dŚĞ'ƌĂŶƚ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƐĂ ƌĞĐŽƌĚŽĨŐƌĂŶƚ ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞƐ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚĂŶĚ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ͕ ƌĞĐŽŶĐŝůĞƐŐƌĂŶƚ ƌĞĐĞŝƉƚƐƚŽĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐ͕ĂŶĚĞŶƐƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚŐƌĂŶƚĨƵŶĚƐĂƌĞĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚĞƌĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ ŐƌĂŶƚďƵĚŐĞƚ͕ĂǁĂƌĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘͘ ŝƐďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨ&ƵŶĚƐƚŽ^ƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚƐ
^ƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚƐǁŝůůďĞƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞĚĨŽƌĞůŝŐŝďůĞĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŝŶĐƵƌƌĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ^ƵďͲ ǁĂƌĚ ŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͘ ^ƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚƐ ƐŚĂůů ƐƵďŵŝƚ ƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ >Θ:' ǁŝƚŚ ƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞ ƚŚĂƚĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞĂůůŽǁĂďůĞ͕ƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞ͕ĂůůŽĐĂďůĞ͕ĂŶĚ ŝŶĐƵƌƌĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘
dŚĞ 'ƌĂŶƚ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌ ǁŝůů ƌĞǀŝĞǁ ƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ǀĞƌŝĨLJ ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ:'ŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĐŽƉĞ͕ĂŶĚ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďƵĚŐĞƚƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞ'ƌĂŶƚŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌŵĂLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŽƌĐůĂƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚƉƌŝŽƌƚŽĂƉƉƌŽǀĂů͘ hƉŽŶ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĂů ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͕ ƚŚĞ 'ƌĂŶƚ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌ ǁŝůů ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ƚŚĞ ƉĂLJŵĞŶƚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͘dŚĞƵĚŝƚŽƌͲŽŶƚƌŽůůĞƌͬdƌĞĂƐƵƌĞƌͬdĂdž ŽůůĞĐƚŽƌ;dͿǁŝůůƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƉĂLJŵĞŶƚƐ͘
27 30
 
dŽŶŽƚŝĨLJƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚŶƵŵďĞƌ͕ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ>ŝƐƚŝŶŐEƵŵďĞƌ͕ĂŶĚĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨĨĞĚĞƌĂů ĨƵŶĚƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŽĨƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ͕ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƚĞƉƐǁŝůůďĞĨŽůůŽǁĞĚ͗ x WĂLJŵĞŶƚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐǁŝůů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ ƚŚĞ ĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚŶƵŵďĞƌ͕ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ>ŝƐƚŝŶŐEƵŵďĞƌ͕ĂŶĚ ĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨĨĞĚĞƌĂůĨƵŶĚƐƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞĚ͘
x ŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶĐĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ ƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ ƉĂLJŵĞŶƚƐ ǁŝůů ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨLJ ƚŚĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ĨĞĚĞƌĂů ĂǁĂƌĚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂŶLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘ ^ƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚ
^ƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚƐǁŝůůďĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĂůůĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƐƚĂƚƵƚĞƐ͕ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƚŚĞhŶŝĨŽƌŵ'ƌĂŶƚ 'ƵŝĚĂŶĐĞ͕KDŝƌĐƵůĂƌƐ͕ĂŶĚŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ&ŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů'ƵŝĚĞ͘dŚĞ ƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĂǁĂƌĚŝŶĂŶLJƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚ͘dŚĞƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗
x
ŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĞǀĞƌLJƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚŝƐĐůĞĂƌůLJŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚĂƐĂƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚĂŶĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚ͘
x
ǀĂůƵĂƚĞ ĞĂĐŚ ƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͛Ɛ ƌŝƐŬ ŽĨ ŶŽŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ ǁŝƚŚ ĨĞĚĞƌĂů ƐƚĂƚƵƚĞƐ͕ ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ƚĞƌŵƐĂŶĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚĨŽƌƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ͘
x KǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚ ŽĨ ƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ ƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƌĞǀŝĞǁ ŽĨ ƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ͕ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ ŽĨ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ ŽƵƚĐŽŵĞƐ ĂŶĚ ďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ĂƚƚƌŝďƵƚĂďůĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƵƐĞ ŽĨ ĨƵŶĚƐ͘
x ZĞǀŝĞǁ ƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽǀĞƌŝĨLJĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞĂůůŽǁĂďůĞ ƵŶĚĞƌ ƚŚĞ ĨĞĚĞƌĂů ĂǁĂƌĚ͕ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ďƵĚŐĞƚ ĂŶĚ ƐĐŽƉĞ ŽĨ ǁŽƌŬ͕ ĂŶĚ ĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞůLJ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚ͘
x ZĞǀŝĞǁĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůĂŶĚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƌĞƉŽƌƚƐ͘
x &ŽůůŽǁͲƵƉĂŶĚĞŶƐƵƌĞ ƚŚĂƚ ƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚƐ ƚĂŬĞ ƚŝŵĞůLJĂŶĚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĂĐƚŝŽŶŽŶĂůůĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐŝĞƐ ƉĞƌƚĂŝŶŝŶŐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĨĞĚĞƌĂů ĂǁĂƌĚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ƉĂƐƐͲƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ĞŶƚŝƚLJ ĚĞƚĞĐƚĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂƵĚŝƚƐ͕ŽŶͲƐŝƚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǀŝƐŝƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌŵĞĂŶƐ͘ x /ƐƐƵĞĂŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶĨŽƌĂƵĚŝƚĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐƉĞƌƚĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉĂƐƐͲƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĞŶƚŝƚLJĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďLJϮ&ZϮϬϬ͘ϱϮϭDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ͘ x sĞƌŝĨLJƚŚĂƚĞǀĞƌLJƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚǁŚŽŝƐĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽĞdžƉĞŶĚΨϳϱϬ͕ϬϬϬŽƌŵŽƌĞŝƐĂƵĚŝƚĞĚĂƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ďLJϮ&ZϮϬϬ^ƵďƉĂƌƚ&ƵĚŝƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘
x ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ ǁŚĞƚŚĞƌ ƚŚĞ ƌĞƐƵůƚƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ͛Ɛ ĂƵĚŝƚƐ͕ ŽŶͲƐŝƚĞ ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ ǀŝƐŝƚƐ Žƌ ŽƚŚĞƌ ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŶĞĐĞƐƐŝƚĂƚĞ ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƉĂƐƐͲƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ĞŶƚŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ŽǁŶ ƌĞĐŽƌĚƐ͘
x ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚĂŬŝŶŐĞŶĨŽƌĐĞŵĞŶƚĂŐĂŝŶƐƚŶŽŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚƐĂƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶϮ&ZϮϬϬ͘ϯϯϴ ZĞŵĞĚŝĞƐ͘
^ƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐWƌŽĐĞƐƐ
KŶͲƐŝƚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐŽĨŐƌĂŶƚͲĨƵŶĚĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŵĂLJďĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞh͘^͘ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞŽƌƚŚĞ ŽƵŶƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶĞƌŶĂƌĚŝŶŽ͘ƚƚŚĂƚƚŝŵĞ͕ƚŚĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚĂŐĞŶĐLJǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ ƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ͕ ĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐ͕ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨŝƚĞŵƐĨƵŶĚĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŐƌĂŶƚ ŵĂLJĂůƐŽďĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ͘
28 31
 
dŽ ĞŶƐƵƌĞ ĨƵůů ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚŝƐ ůĞŐŝƐůĂƚŝǀĞ ŵĂŶĚĂƚĞ͕ Ăůů ŐƌĂŶƚ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ƚŝŵĞƐŚĞĞƚƐ͕ŝŶǀŽŝĐĞƐ͕ƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞŽƌĚĞƌƐ͕ĐĂŶĐĞůĞĚĐŚĞĐŬƐ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐŵƵƐƚďĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŝŶĂůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ ĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƚŽƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌŵĂŶĂŐŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĂŐĞŶĐLJ͛ƐĐŚŝĞĨĞdžĞĐƵƚŝǀĞ͘ /ĨŝƚŝƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ ĨƵŶĚƐĂƌĞŶŽƚďĞŝŶŐƵƐĞĚ ĨŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐ͕ŽƌŝĨƉƌŽƉĞƌĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŝƐŶŽƚ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚ͕ƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŝŶƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŵƵƐƚďĞƌĞƚƵƌŶĞĚƚŽƚŚĞh͘^͘ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞ͘dŚĞƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ ĂŐĞŶĐLJŵĂLJĂůƐŽďĞĚĞĞŵĞĚŝŶĞůŝŐŝďůĞĨŽƌĨƵƚƵƌĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ͘ KŶͲ^ŝƚĞDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ
dŚĞŽƵŶƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶĞƌŶĂƌĚŝŶŽ>Θ:'ŵĂLJĐŽŶĚƵĐƚŽŶͲƐŝƚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘dŚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞďĂƐĞĚƵƉŽŶ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ĂŶĚ ƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚ ĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞ ŽĨ ĨƵŶĚƐ͘  dŚĞ ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ ǁŝůů ďĞ ďĂƐĞĚ ƵƉŽŶ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ͕ ƚƌĂĐŬĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƌĞƉŽƌƚƐĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƌĐŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶĐĞ͘dŚŝƐŵĞƚŚŽĚǁŝůůĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚŝŶŐƌĞĂƚĞƐƚ ŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŝŶŵĂŶĂŐŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌĂǁĂƌĚŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŚĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽŽůƐƚŽďĞŝŶĨƵůůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ h͘^͘ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ:ƵƐƚŝĐĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘
/ĨƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚĨŽƌŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͕ƚŚĞƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚĂƚůĞĂƐƚϮϬĚĂLJƐƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƚŚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘dŚĞ ƐƚĂĨĨ ƉĞƌƐŽŶ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌ ŵĂŶĂŐŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚ͕ ƚŚĞ ƐƚĂĨĨ ƉĞƌƐŽŶ ĂƐƐŝŐŶĞĚ ƚŽ ŵĂŶĂŐŝŶŐ ĨŝƐĐĂů ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ ƚŚĞ ĐŚŝĞĨ ĞdžĞĐƵƚŝǀĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ ĂŐĞŶĐLJ͕ ĂŶĚ ĂŶLJ ŽƚŚĞƌ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ƉĞƌƐŽŶƐ ĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJ ŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŽĨŐƌĂŶƚĨƵŶĚƐǁŝůůďĞĂƐŬĞĚƚŽĂƚƚĞŶĚ͘ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶǁŝůůĂůƐŽďĞ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ ĨŽƌ ƌĞǀŝĞǁ͘ ƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͕ ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ŝƚĞŵƐǁŝůů ďĞ ƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚ ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚ͗ ŝŶǀŽŝĐĞƐ͕ ƚŝŵĞƐŚĞĞƚƐ͕ ĐĂŶĐĞůĞĚ ĐŚĞĐŬƐ͕ĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ ƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞĚ͕ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ͕ ĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů ƐƚĂƚƵƐ ƌĞƉŽƌƚƐ͕ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƌĞƉŽƌƚƐĂŶĚŐƌĂŶƚĨŝůĞƐ͘
/Ĩ ƚŚĞƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚŝƐŶŽŶͲĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚǁŝƚŚĂǁĂƌĚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂĐƚŝŽŶƐǁŝůůďĞ ƚĂŬĞŶ͗dŚĞ ŽƵŶƚLJ ŽĨ ^ĂŶ ĞƌŶĂƌĚŝŶŽ ǁŝůů ĂƐƐŝƐƚ ƚŚĞ ƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ƌĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚ ŝƐƐƵĞƐ͕ Ă ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ƚŚĞh͘^͘ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ :ƵƐƚŝĐĞ ĨŽƌĂ ĨĞĚĞƌĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚǁŝůů ďĞ ŵĂĚĞ͕ ĨƵƚƵƌĞ ƉĂLJŵĞŶƚƐ ǁŝůů ďĞ ǁŝƚŚŚĞůĚ ƵŶƚŝů Ăůů ŝƐƐƵĞƐ ĂƌĞ ƌĞƐŽůǀĞĚ͕ ĂŶĚ ĐůŽƐĞƌ ŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚďLJ^ĂŶĞƌŶĂƌĚŝŶŽŽƵŶƚLJǁŝůůďĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘ WƌŽũĞĐƚĐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶŐĂŶĚZĞĐŽƌĚ<ĞĞƉŝŶŐ
ĚĞƋƵĂƚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůŽĨ ĨƵŶĚƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ ĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂŶĚƐƚĂƚĞƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚŐƌĂŶƚ ƐƵďͲĂǁĂƌĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐǁŝůůďĞĂĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚĞĚ͘^ĞƉĂƌĂƚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚƐĂƌĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚĨŽƌĞĂĐŚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŽĂǀŽŝĚ ĐŽŵŵŝŶŐůŝŶŐ ŽĨ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĨƵŶĚƐ ǁŝƚŚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ĨƵŶĚƐ͘ ZĞĐŽƌĚƐ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚ ƐŚĂůů ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ƌĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐ͕ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ ŝŶǀŽŝĐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐ͕ ƉĂLJŵĞŶƚ ƌĞĐŽƌĚƐ͕ ĐŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶĐĞ͕ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƌĞƉŽƌƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂǁĂƌĚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘
KďůŝŐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ
džƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞŽĨ&ƵŶĚƐ
ůů'ƌĂŶƚĨƵŶĚƐŵƵƐƚďĞŽďůŝŐĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ 'ƌĂŶƚĨƵŶĚƐůĞŐĂůůLJŽďůŝŐĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĞŵƵƐƚďĞĞdžƉĞŶĚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƚŝŵĞĨƌĂŵĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ'ƌĂŶƚŽŶƚƌĂĐƚ͕ŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͕Žƌ^ƵďͲǁĂƌĚŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͘:ƵƐƚŝĐĞƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ'ƌĂŶƚĨƵŶĚƐŵƵƐƚďĞ ĞdžƉĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘
ZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ
^ƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽĨĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůĂŶĚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƌĞƉŽƌƚƐǁŝůůďĞĂĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ 'ƌĂŶƚ ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚ͕ ŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͕ Žƌ ^ƵďͲǁĂƌĚ ŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͘ ^ƵďƌĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚƐ ƐŚĂůů ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĚĂƚĂŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJĨŽƌƚŚĞŽƵŶƚLJƚŽ ŵĞĞƚĨĞĚĞƌĂůƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘
29 32
Subrecipient Audits - Uniform Grant Guidance and 0MB Circular A-133 Compliance Subrecipients are required to comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Grant Guidance) for federal awards made on or after December 26, 2014, or with the 0MB Circular A-133 for federal awards made prior to December 26, 2014.

A single or program specific audit is required in any year that a government expends $750,000 or more a year in federal awards. Both the Uniform Grant Guidance and the 0MB Circular A-133 require audits to be completed and submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) no later than nine (9) months after the close of each fiscal year during the term of each grant award. As a condition of the sub-award agreement, the Law and Justice Group will require the subrecipient to submit a copy of the audit, including any corrective action plan within 30 days from the date of submission to the FAC. The Grant Coordinator will review and ensure that the subrecipient audit reports are received and that all audit findings have been resolved. Failure of the subrecipient to have audits performed as required may result in the withholding of new discretionary awards and/or withholding of funds.

Project Closeout
The Grant Coordinator will schedule, monitor, and ensure timely completion of all required closeout activities and final financial reports in conformance with the guidelines required by the awarding agency.

Inventory Control
Subrecipients will maintain an inventory of equipment purchased with grant funds and submit inventory records to the Grants Coordinator if requested. Records shall be retained for a period of three years from the date of the disposition or replacement or transfer at the discretion of the awarding agency. As equipment or other non-expendable property is purchased and received, it will be permanently marked, a property inventory record completed, and the property inventory record will be made part of the permanent grant sub-award file. Disposition of equipment will be done in accordance with the awarding agency's guidelines.

Retention Period
Project records must be maintained for the required period after the awarding agency determines that the grantee has met all the project requirements and the project has been accepted for closeout. Records will be maintained for a minimum of three years. The three-year retention period starts from the date of the submission of the closure of the single audit report which covers the grant period and lasts until completion of any disputes arising prior to the expiration of the three year period, whichever is later.

APPROVED BY:

Brent Martin, Chair
Law and Justice Group
Date
August 3, 2026