The Docket · Government Meeting · DKT-2026-004494

On the agenda: Hesperia Planning Commission on 2026-10-08 6:30 PM - Oct 08, 2026 — data center (Oct 8)

Past ⚠ Agenda Watch Hesperia, California · Thursday, October 8, 2026 — 3 weeks ago

About this record

The published agenda for the October 8, 2026 meeting contains: "data center". The meeting has passed. The agenda stays here as a permanent public record.

WhenThursday, October 8, 2026
Check the agenda document for the meeting time.

WhereHesperia, California

BodyPlanning Commission on 2026-10-08 6:30 PM - Oct 08, 2026

Money$1,000,000 was at stake

On the record“data center”

The agenda — from the public record

Government public record — the text of the published document (large document; partial archive — read the original for the complete record), archived October 22, 2026. Gold highlighting of key terms is ours, not the original’s. Read the original document ↗

141 pages · scroll to read

Page 1 of 141

PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING

Meeting Agenda
Thursday, October 8, 2026
6:30 PM
City Council Chambers
9700 Seventh Ave.,
Hesperia, CA, 92345
Planning Department: (760) 947-1224

Planning Commission Members
Roger Abreo, Chair
Sophie Steeno, Vice Chair
Dale Burke, Commissioner
Earl Hodson V, Commissioner
Timothy Auman, Commissioner
Orlando Acevedo, Director of Development Services
Ryan Leonard, Principal Planner
Robert Hensley, Assistant City Attorney

Page 1

Page 2 of 141

NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Division at (760)
947-1224. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
To leave a Public Comment by phone, call and leave a recorded message at (760)
947-1224 up to 5:30 pm on the day of the scheduled meeting. Planning Commission
meetings may be viewed live or after the event on the City’s website at
www.hesperiaca.gov.

Page 2

Page 3 of 141

Planning Commission

Meeting Agenda - Final

October 8, 2026

AGENDA
HESPERIA PLANNING COMMISSION
9700 Seventh Ave., Council Chambers, Hesperia, CA 92345
As a courtesy, please silence your cell phones, pagers, and other electronic devices while the meeting is
in session. Thank you.

Prior to action of the Planning Commission, any member of the audience will have the opportunity to address the legislative
body on any item listed on the agenda, including those on the Consent Calendar. PLEASE SUBMIT A COMMENT CARD TO
THE COMMISSION SECRETARY WITH THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NOTED.

CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 PM
A.

Invocation

Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

Roll Call

Chair Roger Abreo
Vice Chair Sophie Steeno
Commissioner Dale Burke
Commissioner Earl Hodson V
Commissioner Timothy Auman
D.

Agenda Revisions and Announcements by Planning Secretary

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Please complete a “Comment Card” and give it to the Commission Secretary. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes per
individual. State your name for the record before making your presentation. This request is optional, but very helpful for the
follow-up process.
Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the Commission is prohibited from taking action on oral requests. However, Members
may respond briefly or refer the communication to staff. The Commission may also request the Commission Secretary to
calendar an item related to your communication at a future meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Page 7

Consideration of September 10, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Draft Minutes from the
regular scheduled meeting on September 10, 2026.
Staff Person:

Planning Specialist Leovi Wolsieffer

Attachments:

Meeting Minutes 9-10-26

PUBLIC HEARINGS
City of Hesperia

Page 3

Page 4 of 141

Planning Commission

2. Page 9

Meeting Agenda - Final

October 8, 2026

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit CUP25-00005 to construct a
1,061,780 square foot industrial warehouse building in conjunction with
Tentative Parcel Map No. 21103 (TPM26-00001) to adjust the lot lines of the two
existing parcels, creating two new parcels to accommodate the proposed
development, along with Specific Plan Amendment SPLA25-00003 to change
the zone from Auto Sales Commercial (ASC) to Commercial Industrial
Business Park (CIBP) and Regional Commercial (RC) within the Main Street
and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan and the approval of a Development
Agreement DA26-00001, on 90.1 gross acres of land located on the west side
of Caliente Road between Ranchero Road and Farmington Street (Applicant:
Covington Group, Inc; APNs: 0357-591-58 and 59)
Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-11,
recommending that the City Council make the environmental determination pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by certifying the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR), adopting a statement of overriding considerations and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopt Resolution Nos. PC-2026-12,
PC-2026-13, and PC-2026-14, recommending that the City Council approve
CUP25-00005, SPLA25-00003,TPM26-00001 and DA26-00001.
Staff Person:

Senior Planner Edgar Gonzalez

Attachments:

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Aerial photo
Attachment 2 - General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment 3 - Site Plan
Attachment 4 -Floor Plan
Attachment 5 -Screen Walls
Attachment 6 - Color Elevations
Attachment 7 -Tentative Parcel Map No. 21103
Attachment 8 - Specific Plan Amendment Exhibit
Attachment 9 - Resolution No. PC-2026-11
Exhibit A - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment 10 - Resolution No. PC-2026-12
Attachment 11 - Resolution No. PC-2026-13
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval for CUP25-00005.pdf
Attachment 12 - Resolution No. PC-2026-14.doc
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval for TPM26-00001.pdf
Attachment 13 - Development Agreement.docx

City of Hesperia

Page 4

Page 5 of 141

Planning Commission

Meeting Agenda - Final

October 8, 2026

NEW BUSINESS
3. Page 317

Development Code Update Workshop by Placeworks and Staff
Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive and file a
presentation regarding the Development Code Update and provide comments
and direction to staff.

Attachments:

Staff Report

PLANNING DIVISION REPORT
The Planning staff may make announcements or reports concerning items of interest to the Commission and the
public.
A.

DRC Comments

Major Project Update

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
The Assistant Attorney may make comments of general interest to the City.

DIRECTOR REPORT
The Director may make announcements or reports concerning items of interest to the Commission or the public.

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
The Commission Members may make comments of general interest to the City.

ADJOURNMENT
I, Leovi Wolsieffer, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Hesperia, California do hereby certify that I caused to be
posted the foregoing agenda on Thursday,October 1, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. pursuant to California Government Code §54954.2.

_____________________________
Leovi Wolsieffer ,
Planning Commission Secretary

City of Hesperia

Page 5

Page 6 of 141

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 6

Page 7 of 141

City of Hesperia
Meeting Minutes

City Council Chambers
9700 Seventh Ave.,
Hesperia, CA 92345

Planning Commission

Thursday, September 10, 2026

CALL TO ORDER - 6:35 PM
A.

Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Commissioner Auman led the pledge of allegiance.

Invocation
Chair Abreo led the invocation

Roll Call
Present 4 - Chair Abreo, Commissioner Hodson V, Commissioner Burke & Commissioner Auman.
Absent

1 – Vice Chair Steeno (In late at 7:18pm)

Agenda Revisions and Announcements by Planning Secretary
No revisions were made to the agenda.

JOINT PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Comments opened at 6:38 pm.
There were no white cards.
Public Comments closed at 6:38 pm.

CONSENT CALENDAR
1.
Consideration of August 13, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Draft Minutes from the regular scheduled meeting
on August 13, 2026.
Staff Person: Planning Specialist Leovi Wolsieffer
A motion was made by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Auman, that this item be
approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 4 - Commissioner Hodson V, Commissioner Burke, Chair Abreo, and Commissioner Auman
Nay: 0
Absent: 1 – Vice Chair Steeno

PRESENTATION
2.

Development Code Update Workshop by PlaceWorks and Staff.

Page 7

Page 8 of 141

Planning Commission

September 10, 2026

Meeting Minutes

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT

The Assistant Attorney had nothing to report but let the Commissioners know he is available for questions.

PLANNING DIVISION / DIRECTOR REPORT

Principal Planner Ryan Leonard had no updates. He thanked Cory Witter and Andrew Davidov for their presentation and expressed
that he looks forward to the upcoming workshops. He also noted that another workshop is scheduled to take place at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Director Orlando Acevedo had nothing to report but reminded the Commissioners that they are welcome to reach out to him with
any questions or concerns.

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS

Commissioner Burke had nothing to report.
Commissioner Hodson V had nothing to report.
Commissioner Auman had nothing to report.
Vice Chair Steeno had nothing to report.
Chair Abreo commented on the low community attendance at the workshops and encouraged staff to continue utilizing social media
to increase public awareness and participation in the Development Code Update. He thanked PlaceWorks for their presentation and
work on the update. Chair Abreo also commented on the City’s upcoming digital submittal system and noted that it will make
information easier to access and locate.

ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:01 until the next regular meeting on October 8, 2026

Leovi Wolsieffer,
Planning Commission Secretary

Roger Abreo,
Planning Commission Chair

Page 8

Page 9 of 141

City of Hesperia
STAFF REPORT

DATE:

October 8, 2026

TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

Orlando Acevedo, Director of Development Services

BY:

Ryan Leonard, Principal Planner
Edgar Gonzalez, Senior Planner

SUBJECT:

CUP25-00005, SPLA25-00003, TPM26-00001 (TPM No. 21103), DA26-00001
(Covington Group, Inc.; APNs: 0357-591-58 & -59)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-11,
recommending that the City Council make the environmental determination pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) and adopting a statement of overriding considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and adopt Resolution Nos. PC-2026-12, PC-2026-13, and PC-2026-14
recommending that the City Council approve SPLA25-00003, CUP25-00005, TPM26-00001, and
DA26-00001.
BACKGROUND
Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has been filed to construct approximately 1,061,780
square feet of industrial warehouse space and a 5.5-acre commercial pad to accommodate future
commercial development on approximately 90.1 gross acres of vacant land. Tentative Parcel Map
TPM26-00001 (TPM No. 21103) was filed in conjunction with the CUP to adjust the lot lines of
the two existing parcels, creating two new lots. Lot 1 will accommodate the proposed industrial
development, while Lot 2 will be reserved for future commercial development.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared that analyzed the proposed 1,061,780
square foot industrial warehouse building and the future commercial development analyzed at a
programmatic level based on a conceptual mix of retail, gas station, restaurant, and hotel uses.
A Specific Plan Amendment has also been filed to amend the land use designations for
approximately 90.1 gross acres of the project site within the Main Street Freeway Corridor Specific
Plan. The amendment would change the existing Auto Sales Commercial (ASC) designation to
Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) for the area within the proposed industrial
warehouse building and to Regional Commercial (RC) for the area designated for the future
commercial development.
In addition, a Development Agreement (DA) is proposed which will allow the entitlements to be
effective for 12 years, with a provision allowing an 8-year extension. In return, the developer will
be required to make one-time monetary contributions toward applicable development impact fees
and pay an increased fee to the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) for industrial
development (described in more detail below).

Page 9

Page 10 of 141

Page 2 of 8
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP25-00005, SPLA25-00003, TPM26-00001 (TPM No. 21103) & DA26-00001
October 8, 2026

Location: The proposed project is located west of Caliente Road, south of Ranchero Road and
north of Farmington Street, and east of Verbena Road (Attachment 1).
Current General, Plan, Zoning and Land Uses: The project site is located within the Auto Sales
Commercial (ASC) and Rural Estate Residential (RER) zones of the Main Street and Freeway
Corridor Specific Plan. The properties to the north, across Ranchero Road, are zoned Rural
Estate Residential (RER), Regional Commercial (RC) and Auto Sales Commercial (ASC). The
property to the east, across Caliente Road is zoned Auto Sales Commercial (ASC), with the I-15
freeway located east across Caliente Road along the southern portion of the site. The property to
the south, across Farmington Street, is zoned Regional Commercial (RC). The properties to the
west, across Verbena Road, are zoned Rural Estate Residential (RER) and Auto Sales
Commercial (ASC). The subject site is currently vacant, as are the properties located across the
street to the north and south and the property to the east along the northern portion of the site.
The I-15 freeway is located to the east on the opposite side of Caliente Road along the southern
portion of the site. The Oro Grande wash is located directly behind the proposed project to the
west, with single-family residences located across Verbena Road to the west (Attachment 2).
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
The proposed project consists of an approximately 1,061,780-square-foot industrial warehouse
building generally located in the eastern-central portion of the approximately 90.1 gross acre
project site. The project also includes a 5.5-acre commercial pad intended for future commercial
development, located in the northeastern corner of the site adjacent to Ranchero Road. The
northwestern portion of the project site, which contains the Oro Grande Wash, would remain
undeveloped.
Office space within the industrial warehouse building would total approximately 25,000 square
feet, consisting of approximately 20,000 square feet of office space, including a mezzanine,
located at the southeast corner of the building and an additional 5,000 square feet of office space
located at the northeast corner.
The project site would include a minimum 30-foot-wide drive aisle surrounding the warehouse
building to provide adequate circulation and emergency access, with additional internal drive
aisles providing access to the vehicle parking areas. The site would provide 659 vehicle parking
spaces, with the majority located along the south side of the building and additional parking
provided along the north side. The warehouse building would include 173 truck loading docks and
4 additional loading doors with ramps located at each corner of the building. All loading doors
would be located along the east and west sides of the building. In addition, 325 truck and trailer
parking spaces would be provided along the east and west sides of the building, with the majority
located along the west side and configured as tandem parking (Attachments 3 & 4).
Parking: The parking regulations require a minimum of 514 parking spaces based upon the
requirements listed in Table 1. As proposed, the project meets and exceeds the minimum parking
requirements.

Page 10

Page 11 of 141

Page 3 of 8
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP25-00005, SPLA25-00003, TPM26-00001 (TPM No. 21103) & DA26-00001
October 8, 2026

TABLE 1-PARKING REQUIREMENTS
BUILDING
Proposed
Parking Formula
Building Square
Footage
Warehouse 1,036,780 sq. ft.
20 spaces + 0.40/1,000 sq. ft. of
building over 10,000 sq. ft
Office
25,000 sq. ft.
3.33 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. gross
floor area
TOTAL
1,061,780 sq. ft.

Spaces
Spaces
Required Provided
431
83
514

659

Screening: The proposed industrial warehouse building would be setback approximately 170 to
280 feet from Caliente Road, based on the configuration of the roadway. Within this setback area,
the eastern side of the building would include 82 truck loading docks, followed by a single row of
approximately 93 oversized parking stalls for trucks and trailers. The truck and trailer parking
stalls would be setback approximately 60 to 110 feet from Caliente Road and separated from the
roadway by a landscape planter. As proposed, a 14-foot-high tilt-up concrete screen wall with
pilasters would be constructed along Caliente Road, extending from the northern portion of the
truck court to the southern portion of the truck court. A 6-foot-high landscape berm would be
installed along the base of the wall, resulting in approximately 8 feet of the wall being visible from
Caliente Road. Similar screen walls will be installed along the sides of the western truck court to
provide screening of trucks and trailers from Ranchero Road and Farmington Street. The west
truck court is separated from Verbena Road by the Oro Grande Wash, providing a physical
separation between the truck court and the roadway. In addition, an 8-foot-high tubular steel fence
with perforated mesh will be installed along the western boundary of the truck court to provide
additional screening (Attachment 5).
Access/Roadway Improvements: Access to the industrial warehouse site would be provided by
three driveways: two driveways connecting to Farmington Street and one driveway connecting to
Ranchero Road. The easterly driveway along Farmington Street would be approximately 30 feet
wide and would be limited to passenger vehicle access only. The second driveway provided at
the end of Farmington Street would be approximately 40 feet wide and would accommodate both
passenger vehicles and truck traffic. The driveway along Ranchero Road would be approximately
48 feet wide and would also accommodate both passenger vehicles and truck traffic. A 30-footwide fire lane would be provided around the perimeter of the building to provide adequate
circulation on site and accommodate emergency vehicle access. The future commercial site
would provide two 40-foot-wide driveways, one along Caliente Road and one along Ranchero
Road, to provide adequate access to the future commercial development.
The overall project would be responsible for the construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk and
streetlights along the project frontages, including Caliente Road, Ranchero Road and Farmington
Street. Implementation of the project would also require half-width street improvements along
each roadway. Caliente Road is designated as a 100-foot Arterial Roadway and will include 36
feet of additional pavement along the southern street section and 12 feet of additional pavement
along the northern street section. Ranchero Road is designated as a 120-foot Major Arterial
Roadway and will include 12 feet of additional pavement. Farmington Street is designated as a
70-foot Industrial Collector Roadway and will include 12 feet of additional pavement. In addition,
the project will be responsible for the modification of the existing signal at Caliente Road and
Ranchero Road to accommodate the west leg (eastbound approach) to facilitate project access,
in addition to a northbound left turn lane, northbound right turn lane (with overlap phasing),
southbound left turn lane, eastbound left turn lane, and eastbound shared through-right turn lane.

Page 11

Page 12 of 141

Page 4 of 8
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP25-00005, SPLA25-00003, TPM26-00001 (TPM No. 21103) & DA26-00001
October 8, 2026

In addition, the westbound approach would be restriped to accommodate dual westbound left turn
lanes, a through lane, and right turn lane.
Water and Sewer: An existing 12-inch water line is located within Caliente Road along the
northern portion of the project frontage. The project would extend the existing 12-inch water line
along Caliente Road to the intersection with Farmington Street. An existing 8-inch sewer line is
located within Caliente Road along the northern portion of the project frontage. The project would
construct a new 12-inch sewer line extending from the existing 8-inch sewer line along Caliente
Road to the intersection of Farmington Street.
Drainage: To accommodate drainage during a rainfall event, two underground water quality and
infiltration chambers would be installed, one beneath the eastern truck court and one beneath the
western truck court. Terraces would be added into the manufactured slope positioned west of the
western truck court due to the sloping topography of the site, down to the Oro Grande Wash. The
northwestern portion of the project site, which contains the Oro Grande Wash, would remain
undeveloped. The proposed infiltration basins would be designed to handle the increased runoff
and retain stormwater runoff captured from the developed portions of the project site.
Architecture: The architecture of the proposed warehouse building complies with the architectural
requirements of the Specific Plan. The concrete tilt-up building has been designed with a clean
corporate appearance and incorporates several exterior colors, multiple expansion joints, roof
variation, and architectural detailing to break up the building mass. Prominent glass features with
decorative cornices and formliner texture panels are incorporated throughout the building.
Additional architectural enhancements include: decorative windows, accent panels, metal
awnings, and tower features around the building. (Attachment 6).
The project also satisfies the minimum landscaping requirements. The minimum required
landscape coverage is 10% of the developed site. The proposed site provides 771,816 square
feet (27.4%) of total landscape coverage, with the majority of the landscaping located along the
project site frontage facing Caliente Road, Ranchero Road and Farmington Street.
Development Agreement: The Development Code provides an initial three-year effective period.
However, the permitting and construction of the warehouse building and the commercial portion
of the project will require additional time. Consequently, the developer has negotiated a
Development Agreement (DA) to allow the entitlement applications to be effective for 12 years
initially, with a provision allowing an 8-year extension. In return, to offset the costs of mitigating
environmental impacts and impacts caused by the development to public facilities, the developer
will be required to make a one-time payment of one million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City within
ten (10) business days after certain conditions within the agreement have been satisfied and a
one-time payment of four million dollars ($4,000,000) to the City within ten (10) business days of
receipt of the first grading permit of the proposed industrial building. Furthermore, upon obtaining
the certificate of occupancy for the industrial building, the developer will pay a twenty cent ($0.20)
per square foot increase in the City’s Community Facilities District No. 2022-1 fee, in addition to
paying the existing fee for the Industrial component only (which as of the effective date is fifteen
cents ($0.15) per square foot). The developer will pay a total of thirty-five cents ($0.35) per square
foot for the Industrial component as part of the City’s Community Facilities District No. 2022-1 fee.
The future commercial development shall not be subject to any Community Facilities District fees
under this agreement.

Page 12

Page 13 of 141

Page 5 of 8
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP25-00005, SPLA25-00003, TPM26-00001 (TPM No. 21103) & DA26-00001
October 8, 2026

TPM26-00001 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21103): A Tentative Parcel Map has also been filed to
adjust the lot lines of the two existing lots and create two new parcels. The lot lines of Parcel 1
will be adjusted to follow the footprint of the proposed industrial warehouse development with the
exception of the northwest corner which will be included as part of Parcel 1 and would encompass
approximately 82.1 acres. The lot lines of Parcel 2 will be adjusted to the area along the southwest
corner of Ranchero Road and Caliente Road with approximately 8.5 acres intended for the future
commercial development. The Tentative Parcel Map would also dedicate approximately 31,035
square feet of land to the City and vacate approximately 50,354 square feet of existing right-ofway back to the developer to ensure consistency with the designated street classifications
(Attachment 7).
Specific Plan Amendment: A Specific Plan Amendment has been filed to change approximately
80.3 acres of the project site from Auto Sales Commercial (ASC) to Commercial Industrial
Business Park (CIBP) and Regional Commercial (RC) within the Main Street and Freeway
Corridor Specific Plan. An approximately 71.8-acre portion of Parcel 1, generally following the
footprint of the proposed industrial warehouse building, would be changing the zoning designation
from ASC to CIBP to allow for the development of the industrial warehouse. The remaining portion
of Parcel 1, consisting of approximately 10 acres at the northwest corner of the site within the Oro
Grande Wash, would retain its existing Rural Estate Residential (RER) designation. Parcel 2,
located at the southwest corner of Ranchero Road and Caliente Road, encompasses
approximately 8.5 acres and would be changing the zoning designation from ASC to RC to allow
for a future commercial development.
The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land uses to the northeast, where
established industrial warehouse and commercial uses are located along the west side I-15
Freeway. The proposed industrial warehouse use is consistent with the existing development
character of the area and is appropriate given the site’s proximity to the freeway. The proposed
development would provide a continuation of the existing industrial and commercial uses in the
vicinity and would be compatible with the existing and planned land uses in the area.
The proposal would facilitate the development of an industrial use while maintaining substantial
separation from nearby residential properties. The nearest single-family residential properties to
the west are located on large parcels ranging from approximately 5 to 8 acres, portions of which
are zoned Auto Sales Commercial instead of residential and constrained by the Oro Grande
Wash, limiting the areas suitable for development. As a result, the proposed industrial
development would be located approximately 400 feet from the nearest property line, which
extends into the Oro Grande Wash. However, the existing residences and the developable
portions of the residential properties would be located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed
industrial development. This substantial separation would provide an adequate buffer between
the proposed industrial use and the surrounding residential development. For these reasons, staff
supports the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
Additionally, a portion of the site would be designated Regional Commercial (RC), allowing for a
broader range of retail and commercial services on an approximately 5.5-acre future commercial
pad. The existing Auto Sales Commercial (ASC) designation was primarily intended to
accommodate automobile dealerships and related uses. While the Regional Commercial
designation would continue to allow vehicle sales, it would also provide greater flexibility for a
wider range of retail and commercial uses, creating more opportunities for future development
beyond automobile-related businesses (Attachment 8).

Page 13

Page 14 of 141

Page 6 of 8
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP25-00005, SPLA25-00003, TPM26-00001 (TPM No. 21103) & DA26-00001
October 8, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Given the size and regional importance of this project, CEQA requires that the environmental
impact of the project be analyzed. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for public review
for a period of 30 days from November 17, 2025 thru December 17, 2025, with an EIR Scoping
Meeting held virtually through Zoom link December 3, 2025 with no public attendance and the
Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public period from May 29, 2026 thru July 13, 2026. The
environmental document was circulated to local, state and federal agencies, organizations and
surrounding property owners. Notices were posted with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the
Board and corresponding documents were uploaded to the State Clearinghouse (SCH
#2025110660). Five comment letters were received during the NOP comment period, no
comments were received during EIR Scoping Meeting, and nine comment letters were received
during the Draft EIR comment period. The letters, as well as the responses to them are included
in the Final EIR. The Draft and Final EIR are available for review on the City website and have
been provided to the Commission under separate cover.
The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts of the project and discussed numerous
mitigation measures proposed to address potential impacts of the project. Mitigation measures
presented in the Draft EIR have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program,
which is attached within Attachment 9 and also incorporated by reference in the conditions of
approval (Attachments 11 & 12). The mitigation measures for the project will reduce potentially
significant impacts to Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, the EIR concluded that despite of
mitigation measures, the project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation. Consequently, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, a
statement of overriding considerations must be made in order to approve the project. The
following is a summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts as a result of the project:
Air Quality: With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the industrial operational
emissions would not exceed MDAQMD numerical thresholds for any air pollutant. However, at full
project buildout with industrial and commercial uses, PM10 emissions would continue to exceed
MDAQMD thresholds despite mitigation. A majority of PM10 emissions are derived from vehicle
trips, which cannot be directly regulated by the City or the Project Applicant beyond applicable
regulatory requirements. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce project related
vehicular PM10 emissions to a less than significant level. The project would install EV supply
equipment consistent with California Building Code requirements and provide bicycle storage
consistent with CALGreen standards, which may reduce vehicle emissions over time but cannot
be relied upon to achieve a less than significant threshold. Therefore, operational PM10 emissions
at project buildout are considered significant and unavoidable and would constitute a cumulatively
considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: With implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the project
would generate approximately 22,856.30 MTCO2e/yr at full buildout, exceeding the GHG
significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Over 86 percent of the project's GHG emissions
would be generated by mobile sources, which cannot feasibly be reduced to the threshold level
by the project Applicant or the City. Neither the State of California nor the MDAQMD have adopted
an indirect source rule applicable to the project. Achieving the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold would
effectively require the elimination of all project related vehicle trips or that all vehicles serving the
project be zero-emission sources, which is not feasible under current or reasonably foreseeable
market and regulatory conditions. While California previously adopted the advanced clean fleets

Page 14

Page 15 of 141

Page 7 of 8
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP25-00005, SPLA25-00003, TPM26-00001 (TPM No. 21103) & DA26-00001
October 8, 2026

regulations to phase out combustion engine medium and heavy-duty trucks, those regulations
were abandoned in January 2025 and are not being enforced. The widespread adoption of electric
trucks remains constrained by limited battery range, insufficient charging infrastructure, and
inadequate grid capacity. Requiring a speculative warehouse facility and retail operators to be
served exclusively by electric trucks is not feasible, as such a restriction would be unacceptable
to the vast majority of potential tenants and would render the project unmarketable. Therefore, no
feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the project's GHG emissions to a less than
significant level. The project's GHG emissions represent a significant and unavoidable
cumulatively considerable impact.
Traffic: The project would generate a cumulative VMT of 66.5 that exceeds the City of Hesperia's
significance VMT threshold of 39.0, requiring a 41.3 percent reduction in total VMT to achieve a
less than significant level. No feasible combination of mitigation measures would achieve a
reduction of this magnitude. The California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA)
Handbook's applicable transportation demand management (TDM) measures are estimated to
reduce the project's home-based work VMT by 7.2 percent. However, because the City's VMT
threshold is based on total VMT across all trip types, not just commute trips, and because truck,
visitor, and delivery trips comprise a substantial portion of the project's total VMT, the applicable
measures would result in a net reduction of total VMT well below 7.2 percent. This falls short of
the 41.3 percent reduction required to meet the City's threshold. Although the Project would
implement a TDM program as mitigation, it would not reduce total project VMT to a less than
significant level. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available. Therefore, the project's
VMT impact is significant and unavoidable.
Overriding Considerations: Pursuant to CEQA, the City must balance the benefits of the project
against any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to less
than significant. If the benefits of the Project outweigh these environmental impacts, those impacts
are considered “acceptable.” Since the impact upon Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and Transportation are considered significant and unavoidable, findings for a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be made. The project would provide significant economic and
community benefits by expanding employment opportunities, supporting economic development,
diversifying the City’s industrial and commercial base, and generating additional revenues for the
City. The project is estimated to generate approximately 1,077 jobs associated with industrial
warehouse and future commercial development, providing new employment opportunities. The
project would also utilize its proximity to I-15 freeway and the regional transportation network to
accommodate supply chain-oriented industrial development and facilitate the efficient movement
of goods. In addition, development of the site would generate construction-related economic
activity and ongoing revenues to the City through property and sales taxes. The Project would
also provide infrastructure and circulation improvements necessary to serve the development and
support local transportation needs. Collectively, these economic, employment, infrastructure, and
community benefits support the City's determination that the Project provides substantial benefits
to the City and region.
Conclusion: In summary, although the project includes a proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
the proposed land use and development is consistent with the City’s General Plan and applicable
Specific Plan policies. The project’s impacts, whether less than significant, mitigable, or significant
and unavoidable were known and acknowledged by the City when the General Plan EIR was
adopted. Prior to making a recommendation on the project, the Planning Commission must
consider and recommend that the City Council make the appropriate environmental
determination, including certifying that the Final EIR is complete; that it has been prepared in

Page 15

Page 16 of 141

Page 8 of 8
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
CUP25-00005, SPLA25-00003, TPM26-00001 (TPM No. 21103) & DA26-00001
October 8, 2026

compliance with CEQA; that it reflects the City’s independent judgment; and that all impacts from
carrying out the project have been identified and disclosed to the public. Resolution PC-2026-11
has been prepared to document this determination. Following consideration of the environmental
documentation, the Planning Commission may consider making recommendations to the City
Council regarding the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Development
Agreement and the Tentative Parcel Map.
CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM
Future Development: Facilitate balanced growth to ensure cohesive community development and
pursue economic development.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The development will be subject to payment of development impact fees and will be
required to annex into the City Industrial CFD to pay for the ongoing maintenance of public
infrastructure and services.
ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Aerial Photo
General Plan Land Use Map
Site Plan
Floor Plan
Screen Walls
Color Elevations
Tentative Parcel Map
Specific Plan Amendment Exhibit
Resolution No. PC-2026-11 (Environmental findings to recommend adoption of the EIR
including the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and MMRP)
10. Resolution No. PC-2026-12 (SPLA25-00003)
11. Resolution No. PC-2026-13, with list of conditions (CUP25-00005)
12. Resolution No. PC-2026-14, with list of conditions (TPM26-00001/TPM No.21103)
13. Development Agreeement
14. Draft EIR (Provided on the link - https://www.hesperiaca.gov/1466/Environmental-ReviewDocuments)
15. Final EIR (Provided on the link - https://www.hesperiaca.gov/1466/Environmental-ReviewDocuments)

Page 16

Page 17 of 141

ATTACHMENT 1

SITE

APPLICANT(S): COVINGTON GROUP, INC

LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF CALIENTE ROAD BETWEEN
RANCHERO ROAD AND FARMINGTON STREET

FILE NO(S): CUP25-00005, TPM26-00001,
SPLA25-00003 & DA26-00001
APN(S): 0357-591-58 & -59

PROPOSAL: CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP25-00005 TO CONSTRUCT A
1,061,780 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 21103 (TPM26-00001) TO ADJUST THE LOT LINES OF THE TWO EXISTING PARCELS,
CREATING TWO NEW PARCELS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, ALONG WITH
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SPLA25-00003 TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM AUTO SALES COMMERCIAL
(ASC) TO COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK (CIBP) AND REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
WITHIN THE MAIN STREET AND FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE APPROVAL OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA26-00001, ON 90.1 GROSS ACRES OF LAND.
Page 17
AERIAL
PHOTO

Page 18 of 141

ATTACHMENT 2

SITE

APPLICANT(S): COVINGTON GROUP, INC

LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF CALIENTE ROAD BETWEEN
RANCHERO ROAD AND FARMINGTON STREET

FILE NO(S): CUP25-00005, TPM26-00001,
SPLA25-00003 & DA26-00001
APN(S): 0357-591-58 & -59

Page 19 of 141

ATTACHMENT 3

“ ”

VAN
ACCESS
EV
EV
VAN
ACCESS

℄
VAN
ACCESS

℄

Langan CA, Inc.
11801 Pierce Street, Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92505
T: 951.710.3000
Page 19

www.langan.com
Date: 9/21/2026 Time: 14:52 User: suriarte Style Table: Langan.stb Layout: SITE PLAN Document Code: 722018801-0102-CU001-0101

Page 20 of 141

ATTACHMENT 4

APPLICANT(S): COVINGTON GROUP, INC

FILE NO(S): CUP25-00005, TPM26-00001,
SPLA25-00003 & DA26-00001

LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF CALIENTE ROAD BETWEEN
RANCHERO ROAD AND FARMINGTON STREET

APN(S): 0357-591-58 & -59

Page 21 of 141

ATTACHMENT 5

SCREEN WALLS

APPLICANT(S): COVINGTON GROUP, INC

LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF CALIENTE ROAD BETWEEN
RANCHERO ROAD AND FARMINGTON STREET

FILE NO(S): CUP25-00005, TPM26-00001,
SPLA25-00003 & DA26-00001
APN(S): 0357-591-58 & -59

Page 22 of 141

ATTACHMENT 6

APPLICANT(S): COVINGTON GROUP, INC

LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF CALIENTE ROAD BETWEEN
RANCHERO ROAD AND FARMINGTON STREET

FILE NO(S): CUP25-00005, TPM26-00001,
SPLA25-00003 & DA26-00001
APN(S): 0357-591-58 & -59

COLOR ELEVATIONS
Page 22

Page 23 of 141

ATTACHMENT 7

D
Δ
Δ

SURVEY NOTES

D
Δ

REFERENCES

APPLICANT

UTILITY PURVEYORS

ARCHITECT
Δ

ABBREVIATIONS
CIVIL ENGINEER

EXISTING LINE & CURVE TABLES

PROPOSED R.O.W. LINE & CURVE TABLES

PARCEL TOTALS

LEGEND

D
Δ

D
Δ
Δ

Langan CA, Inc.
3600 Lime Street, Building 2 - Suite 226
Riverside, CA 92501
T: 949.561.9249

Page 23

05/04/2026

www.langan.com
Filename:C:\bms\langan-pw-01\d0779835\722018801-0401-VB101-0101.dwg
Date:5/4/2026 Time:10:57 User:aturner Style Table:Langan.stb Layout:VB101

Page 24 of 141

ATTACHMENT 8

APPLICANT(S): COVINGTON GROUP, INC

LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF CALIENTE ROAD BETWEEN
RANCHERO ROAD AND FARMINGTON STREET

FILE NO(S): CUP25-00005, TPM26-00001,
SPLA25-00003 & DA26-00001
APN(S): 0357-591-58 & -59

Page 25 of 141

ATTACHMENT 9
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-11

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2025110660), ADOPT THE STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS,
AND
ADOPT
A
MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the Project proposes the development of approximately 1,061,780 square feet of
industrial warehouse space and a 5.5-acre commercial pad intended for future commercial
development, on approximately 90.1 gross acres of vacant land. A Conditional Use Permit
CUP25-00005 and Tentative Parcel Map TPM26-00001 (TPM No. 21103) have been filed to
facilitate the development, including the adjustment of existing parcel lines to create two lots,
with Lot 1 designated for the proposed industrial development and Lot 2 reserved for future
commercial development. A Specific Plan Amendment is also proposed to change the existing
Auto Sales Commercial (ASC) designation to Commercial Industrial Business Park (CIBP) for
the industrial development area and Regional Commercial (RC) for the future commercial area.
In addition, a Development Agreement (DA) is proposed to establish a 12-year entitlement
period, with an option for an additional eight-year extension, in exchange for the Developer’s
one-time contributions toward applicable development impact fees, and an increased
Community Facilities District (CFD) fee; and
WHEREAS, the Project would be accessible to Interstate 15, supporting regional movement
and economic growth. Implementation of the Project would advance the City’s economic
development goals by generating approximately 1,077 jobs for the citizens of Hesperia and
neighboring communities, which would increase the City's tax base, would fulfill the growing
demand for distribution and light industrial uses in the region, and would develop the land to the
highest and best allowable use that is compatible with the City's General Plan, and Main Street
and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources
Code $ 21000 et. seq,) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR $ 15000 et. seq.), the City of
Hesperia is the lead agency for the Project as the public agency with general governmental
powers; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hesperia, as lead agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report
("EIR”) pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all adverse environmental impacts of the Project;
and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP") was prepared identifying the scope of
environmental issues and was distributed to numerous state, federal, and local agencies,
organizations, and surrounding property owners. Notices were posted with San Bernardino
County Clerk of the Board and corresponding documents were uploaded to the State
Clearinghouse (SCH #2025110660) from November 17, 2025 thru December 17, 2025, for a
period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375.
Five comment letters were received during the NOP comment period and comments were
addressed within the Draft EIR ("DEIR"); and

Page 25

Page 26 of 141

Resolution No. PC-2026-11
Page 2

WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting for the EIR was held virtually through a Zoom link on
December 3, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City completed the DEIR and circulated it with the Notice of Availability (“NOA")
to numerous state, federal, and local agencies, organizations and surrounding property owners.
Notices were posted with San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board and corresponding
documents were upload to the State Clearinghouse (SCH #2025110660) for a 45-day public
period from May 29, 2026 thru July 13, 2026. Nine comment letters were received during the
public period, and comments were addressed within the Final EIR (“FEIR”); and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Hesperia conducted a
duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were provided the opportunity to
give testimony for or against the issue; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for
its decision on the project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR for the project reflects the City’s independent judgment. The City has
exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21082.1(c)(3) in directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently
reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the
independent judgment of the City for the purposes of making decisions on the merits of the
project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all the
significant environmental effects of the project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible
mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the project's environmental
impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in
accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HESPERIA PLANNING
COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in
this Resolution are true and correct.
Section 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during
the above-referenced October 8, 2026, hearing, including public testimony and written and
oral staff reports, this Commission specifically finds as follows:
a) The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and
considered the Final EIR and all written documentation and public comments
prior to making recommendations on the proposed project; and

Page 26

Page 27 of 141

Resolution No. PC-2026-11
Page 3

b) The Final EIR was prepared and completed in compliance with the provisions
of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines;
and
c) The information and analysis contained in the Final EIR reflects the City’s
independent judgment as to the environmental consequences of the
proposed Project; and
d) The documents and other materials, including without limitation, staff reports,
memoranda, maps, letters, and minutes of all relevant meetings, which
constitute the administrative record of proceedings upon which the Planning
Commission's decision is based are located at the City of Hesperia, Planning
Division, 9700 Seventh Avenue, Hesperia, CA 92345. The custodian of the
records is the Planning Division.
Section 3.
That on the basis of the evidence contained in the administrative record of the
Final EIR, the Planning Commission finds, based on the information submitted, following the
conclusion of the public comment period on the Draft EIR, and following the consultant's
responses thereto, there is no significant new information concerning the project's
environmental effects, feasible mitigation measures, or feasible project alternatives; therefore
there is no need or requirement to recirculate the EIR for additional public comment.
Section 4. That the Planning Commission of the City of Hesperia hereby recommends that
the City Council certify the Final EIR.
Section 5. Exhibit A (Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations) and
Exhibit B (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) of this Resolution provide findings
required under Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines for significant effects of the
Project. Exhibit A of this Resolution provides the findings required under Section 15093 of the
State CEQA Guidelines relating to the acceptable adverse impacts of the project due to
overriding considerations. The City has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological,
and other benefits of the project against the unavoidable environmental risks that may result,
and finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding
Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as
Exhibit B to this Resolution and recommends the Council require the Project to comply with
the mitigation measures contained therein. The Planning Commission finds that these
mitigation measures are fully enforceable on the Project and shall be binding upon the City
and affected parties.
Section 7.

The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Page 27

Page 28 of 141

Resolution No. PC-2026-11
Page 4

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 8th day of October 2026.

_______________________________________
Roger Abreo, Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:

_______________________________________
Leovi Wolsieffer, Secretary, Planning Commission

Page 28

Page 29 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for:

Hesperia Gateway
State Clearinghouse No. 2025110660

Lead Agency
City of Hesperia – Planning Department
9700 Seventh Ave.
Hesperia, CA 92345
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
Tentative Parcel Map 26-00001
Specific Plan Amendment 25-00003
Conditional Use Permit 25-00005
Site Plan Review
Development Agreement 26-00001

September 2026

Page 29

Page 30 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”
Table of Contents
Section

Page

1.0 Introduction and Purpose ..................................................................................................... 4
1.1

Findings Required Under CEQA.................................................................................. 4

1.2

Project Summary ......................................................................................................... 5

1.3

Environmental Review and Public Participation ........................................................... 8

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings ................................................................................. 11
3.0 Environmental Impacts not Requiring Mitigation ................................................................ 12
3.1

Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................12

3.2

Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...........................................................................18

3.3

Air Quality ..................................................................................................................21

3.4

Biological Resources ..................................................................................................24

3.5

Cultural Resources .....................................................................................................30

3.6

Energy........................................................................................................................31

3.7

Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................41

3.8

Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................47

3.9

Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................54

3.10

Land Use and Planning ..............................................................................................65

3.11

Mineral Resources .....................................................................................................71

3.12

Noise ..........................................................................................................................72

3.13

Population and Housing .............................................................................................79

3.14

Public Services ...........................................................................................................80

3.15

Recreation ..................................................................................................................86

3.16

Transportation ............................................................................................................87

3.17

Tribal Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................93

3.18

Utilities and Service Systems .....................................................................................94

3.19

Wildfire .....................................................................................................................102

4.0 Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less-than-Significant ............................... 107
4.1

Aesthetics ................................................................................................................107

4.2

Biological Resources ................................................................................................111

4.3

Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................124

4.4

Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................130

4.5

Tribal Cultural Resources .........................................................................................138

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 30

Page 2

Page 31 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”
5.0 Environmental Impacts That Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation .......... 144
5.1

Air Quality ................................................................................................................144

5.2

Greenhouse Gas Emissions .....................................................................................157

5.3

Transportation ..........................................................................................................167

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations ............................................................................................ 174
6.1

Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .......................................................174

6.2

Growth-Inducing Impacts..........................................................................................175

7.0 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 181
7.1

Alternatives Considered and Rejected......................................................................181

7.2

Alternatives Under Consideration .............................................................................182

8.0 General CEQA Findings .................................................................................................. 188
9.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations .......................................................................... 190
10.0 Additional Facts on Record .............................................................................................. 197
10.1

Custodian of Record.................................................................................................197

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 31

Page 3

Page 32 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The 90.13-acre Project site, as described under Section 1.2.1 below, is in the City of Hesperia,
San Bernardino County, California. The City of Hesperia (the “City”) in approving the Hesperia
Gateway Project (the “Project”) makes the Findings described below. The Findings are based
upon the entire record before the City, as described in Section 1.3, below, including but not limited
to the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project with the City acting as lead
agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”), Notice of Availability (“NOA”), Draft EIR (“Draft
EIR”), Technical Appendices, and Final EIR (“Final EIR”) (containing responses to public
comments on the Draft EIR and textual revisions to the Draft EIR, will be referred to collectively
herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified.

1.1

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA

Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The statute
also provides that the procedures required by CEQA are “intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects.” Finally, Section 21002 indicates that “in the event [that] specific economic,
social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate described in Public Resources Code Section 21002 is implemented, in part, through
the requirement that for projects with one or more significant environmental effects, agencies
must adopt written findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each
significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue
a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is
that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The second
finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. The third finding is
that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” As stated in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093(a), “[i]f the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits,
including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered “acceptable.”
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 32

Page 4

Page 33 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”
1.2

PROJECT SUMMARY

1.2.1 Site Location
The approximately 90.13-acre site is located in the City of Hesperia which is within the
southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, California. The City of Hesperia is surrounded
by the cities of Adelanto and Victorville to the north, the Town of Apple Valley to the east, the
unincorporated community of Phelan to the west, and the San Bernardino National Forest to the
south. The Project site is located approximately 194 feet west of I-15 and 1.55 miles southwest
of Route 395 (US 395).
At the local scale, the Project site is primarily bounded by Caliente Road on the east, Farmington
Street on the south, Oro Grande Wash on the west, and undeveloped lands on the north. The
Project site is comprised of two parcels that total approximately 90.13 gross acres in size
(Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN]: 357-591-58 and 0357-591-59).
Under existing conditions, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped with unimproved private dirt
roads crossing the site. The site lies within a developing portion of the City that contains a mix of
vacant lands, infrastructure corridors, and existing development, reflective of the broader land use
pattern in the southwestern Hesperia area. There is an existing topographic ridge within the
northwestern portion of the property that divides site’s natural drainage pattern towards (west)
and away (east) from the Oro Grande Wash. The Oro Grande Wash is a prominent natural
drainage feature in the Victor Valley, forms the northwestern portion of the Project site (which is
proposed to remain in its natural condition as part of the proposed Project), and conveys
stormwater flows through the area during precipitation events. Vegetation on the Project site
consists of Mojave Mixed woody scrub, rabbitbrush scrub, Tucker oak chaparral, juniper scrub,
Joshua tree woodland, and non-native grassland, and disturbed habitat. Portions of the site are
disturbed or developed as frontage roadway.

1.2.2 Project Overview
The Project proposes the construction and operation of one industrial warehouse building having
up to 1,061,780 square feet (s.f.) of building space and the establishment of a 9.36-gross-acre
parcel with a 5.5-net-acre development pad for future retail uses. The primary components of the
Project are described below.


Parcels 357-591-58 and 0357-591-59 (approximately 90.13 gross acres) would be
reconfigured to facilitate development of the Project, measuring 72.98 net acres. The
Project would allow for the construction and operation of one industrial building
encompassing up to 1,061,780 square feet (s.f.), including 15,000 s.f. of ancillary office
space for a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.38. The Project would provide 330 truck trailer
parking spaces and a total of 659 automobile parking spaces. The industrial warehouse
building is proposed at a maximum of 60 feet in height in a cross-dock design with 91
loading dock doors facing west and 82 loading dock doors facing east.



The 5.5-net-acre retail pad is reasonably assumed in this EIR to be developed with an 84room, three-story hotel, 11,700 s.f. of in-line multi-tenant retail and food and beverage

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 33

Page 5

Page 34 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”
uses, a 16-pump vehicle fueling station associated with a 3,000 s.f. convenience store,
and 3,000 s.f. fast food restaurant use with or without a drive-through lane.

1.2.3 Project Objectives
The underlying purpose and goal of Hesperia Gateway is to facilitate the development of the
currently vacant property, with economically viable, employment-generating commercial and
employment uses that are oriented to and can serve goods movement functions and travelers
along the I-15 corridor. The Project is intended to support local economic development by
introducing uses that capitalize on the site’s regional freeway accessibility while providing
employment opportunities within the City. The Project would achieve its underlying purpose and
goal through the following objectives.
A. Diversify the mix of developed land uses in the City of Hesperia by introducing a
combination of industrial, goods movement–related, and commercial uses along the I-15
corridor that serve both local and I-15-oriented demand.
B. Provide a complementary combination of industrial and commercial uses that function
together as an integrated development, allowing commercial uses to serve the day-to-day
needs of on-site employees, industrial use operator(s), and visitors, thereby reducing
external vehicle trips.
C. Develop supply chain-oriented industrial use opportunities in close proximity to truck
routes and I-15 in order to reduce truck travel distances on local roadways and improve
goods movement efficiency.
D. Expand economic development, facilitate job creation, and increase the local tax base for
the City of Hesperia by accommodating and diversifying facilities needed to support the
goods movement supply chain and complementary commercial activities.
E. Attract new employment-generating businesses to the City of Hesperia to promote a more
balanced jobs–housing relationship, thereby reducing the need for residents to commute
outside the Victor Valley for employment.
F. Develop industrial and commercial buildings with architectural design, site layout, and
operational characteristics that are compatible with existing and planned development in
the surrounding area and consistent with applicable City of Hesperia standards and the
Hesperia Main Street and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan’s design guidelines.
G. Utilize existing and planned infrastructure efficiently, including roadway access and
utilities, in order to minimize the need for off-site improvements and support phased
development over time.
H. Preserve the Oro Grande Wash and associated drainage corridor by maintaining this area
in an undeveloped state to the extent feasible.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 34

Page 6

Page 35 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”
1.2.4 City of Hesperia Actions Covered by the EIR
The following discretionary and administrative actions are required of the City, as Lead Agency,
to implement the Project. The EIR prepared for the Project covers all discretionary and
administrative approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project, whether or
not they are explicitly listed. They include:






Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 26-00001
Specific Plan Amendment (SPLA) 25-00003
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 25-00005
Site Plan Review
Development Agreement (DA) 26-00001

1.2.5 Approvals From Other Agencies
The California Public Resource Code (Section 21104) requires that all EIRs be reviewed by
responsible and trustee agencies (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and Section
15086(a)). As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, “the term ‘Responsible Agency’
includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power
over the project.” A “Trustee Agency” is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 as “a state
agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in
trust for the people of the State of California.”
The anticipated agencies expected to use the EIR are described below. However, the EIR can be
used by any Responsible or Trustee Agency, whether identified in the EIR or not, as part of their
decision-making processes in relation to the Project.
Public Agency
Approvals and Decisions
City of Hesperia Discretionary Approvals (Proposed Project)
City Council (with the Planning Commission  Reject or certify the Final EIR along with appropriate
serving as a recommending body)
CEQA Findings.
 Approve, conditionally approve, or not approve
TPM 26-00001, SPLA 25-00003, CUP 25-00005
and associated Site Plan Review and Development
Agreement 26-00001.
Subsequent City of Hesperia Approvals
 Issue CUP(s) for development on the retail
City of Hesperia Subsequent
development pad.
Implementing Jurisdictional Approvals
 Site Plan Approvals for development on the retail
development pad.
 Issue Grading Permits.
 Issue Building Permits.
City of Hesperia Subsequent
 Approve Road Improvement Plans.
Implementing Ministerial Approvals
 Issue Encroachment Permits.
 Accept public right-of-way dedications.
 Authorize nighttime construction activities.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 35

Page 7

Page 36 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”
Public Agency

Approvals and Decisions
 Approve connections to the sanitary sewer
collection system.
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
 Issuance of a California Department of Fish and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Wildlife (CDFW) western Joshua Tree Incidental
Take Permit ITP.
 Issuance of a Construction Activity General
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control
Construction Permit.
Board
 Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
 Issuance of Permits to Construct and Permits to
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
Operate, for certain pieces of mechanical
District
equipment that may be needed such as back-up
emergency generators.
San Bernardino County Flood Control  Approval of stormwater drainage improvements.
District
 Approval of proposed water system connections
CSA 70J
and improvements.

1.3

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the City’s
decision makers and the public are fully informed about the potential significant environmental
effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly
reduced; and to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes
in the Project using mitigation measures which have been found to be feasible.
To do this, the City, acting as Lead Agency under CEQA, undertook the following:


Circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the California Office of Land Use and
Climate Innovation (the “State Clearinghouse”), Responsible Agencies, Trustee
Agencies, and other interested parties on November 17, 2025, for a 30-day review
period between November 17, 2025 through December 17, 2025;



The NOP was posted on the City’s website on November 17, 2025;



The NOP was posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk’s office on November 17,
2025;



Held a publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting via virtual meeting participation on Zoom,
which was open to public attendance on December 3, 2025, to solicit comments from
the public on the environmental issue areas that should be analyzed in the EIR;



Sent a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) and electronic
copies of the Draft EIR to the California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation,
State Clearinghouse, on May 29, 2026;

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 36

Page 8

Page 37 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”


Mailed via certified mail a copy of the NOA to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee
Agencies, and other interested parties and organizations to inform recipients that the
Draft EIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on May 29, 2026, and
ending on July 13, 2026;



The NOA was posted on the City’s website and at the San Bernardino County Clerk’s
office on May 29, 2026;



The
Draft
EIR
was
posted
on
the
City’s
website
https://www.hesperiaca.gov/1466/Environmental-Review-Documents
during
public review period for the Draft EIR;



Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day
comment period on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR;



Provided the Final EIR, including individual responses to agencies that commented on
the Draft EIR on September 28, 2026;



Held a Planning Commission hearing on October 8, 2026; and



Will hold a future City Council hearing

at
the

The Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of those items listed in CEQA Section
21167.6(e), along with other items contained within the City’s files that are relevant to the
consideration of the Project. The Record of Proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project
consists of the following documents, at a minimum and without limitation, which are herein
incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Findings:


The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the
Project;



The Draft EIR for the Project and all technical appendices and documents cited, relied
upon or incorporated by reference;



All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public
during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR and the City’s responses to
those comments;



The Draft EIR for the Project and all technical appendices and documents cited, relied
upon or incorporated by reference;



The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project;



All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the Project prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to
the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s
action on the Project;

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 37

Page 9

Page 38 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”


All documents submitted to the City by public agencies, organizations or members of
the public in connection with the Draft EIR;



Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings,
and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project;



Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions,
public meetings, and public hearings;



All findings and resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, all documents,
cited or referred to therein and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to
the adoption of those resolutions;



Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, State,
and local laws and regulations;



Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above; and
any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA Section
21167.6(e).

All the documents identified above and all the documents which constitute the Record of
Proceedings for the City’s actions related to the Project pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6(e) are located at the City of Hesperia Planning Department, 9700 Seventh Ave.
Hesperia, CA 92345. Questions should be directed to Edgar Gonzalez, Senior Planner.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 38

Page 10

Page 39 of 141

“EXHIBIT A”
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., a professional consulting firm. The professional
qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR
Consultant by City staff, the thorough and independent peer review of the EIR, including
comments and responses by City staff and its consultants, and the review and careful
consideration of the EIR by the City, including comments and responses; all demonstrate that the
EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead
Agency.
Based on the NOP, Technical Appendix A to the Draft EIR, and the responses to the NOP, the
EIR analyzed sixteen (16) potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result
from implementation of the Project. These environmental topics were analyzed in the EIR and
include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and
Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation, Tribal Cultural
Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the Draft EIR, as well as any and
all other information in the record, the City hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance
with CEQA Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 39

Page 11

Page 40 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the Project are less-than-significant and therefore do not require the imposition
of mitigation measures.

3.1

AESTHETICS

Project impacts for Thresholds a, b, and c do not result in significant impacts, and related findings
are discussed below.

3.1.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 4.1.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Hesperia General Plan does not designate specific scenic vistas within the City’s boundary
but, generally, considers the Mojave River, the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountain ranges,
the surrounding Victor Valley, washes, bluffs, hillsides, and the natural desert environment to be
scenic resources. As depicted on Draft EIR Figure 4.1-1, distant views of the San Bernardino
Mountain ridgelines, approximately 4.9 miles to the south, and the San Gabriel Mountain
ridgelines, approximately 10.0 miles to the southwest, are possible on clear days from the Project
site and roads surrounding the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-11)
It should be noted that the northwestern portion of the Project site contains a portion of the Oro
Grande Wash, which is identified as a visual resource in the City’s General Plan. However, due
to the generally flat topography in the vicinity of the Project site and the lower elevation of the
Wash compared to surrounding developed areas, prominent views of the Oro Grande Wash are
not possible from public ROWs fronting or near the Project site. Further, as required by the City’s
Wash Protection Overlay, the Project would not construct any permanent structures within the
Wash. Therefore, the Oro Grande Wash and public views of the Wash would not be adversely
impacted by implementation of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-11)
Regarding construction activities associated with the Project, because views to the mountains
beyond the Project site are at considerable distances, the Project’s temporary construction
activities, which would entail excavation and earth-moving activities and the temporary
introduction of construction vehicles and equipment to the area, have no potential to block or
obscure a scenic vista as seen from I-15 or a local public road. There are no pieces of construction
equipment so large that scenic mountain vistas could be blocked, obscured, or substantially and
adversely affected as seen from public roads and viewing points surrounding the Project site;
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 40

Page 12

Page 41 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
therefore, the Project’s temporary short-term construction activities would not have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista. Construction-related impacts would be less than significant.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.1-11)
Pertaining to the Project’s proposed developed condition, the architectural elevations for the
proposed industrial warehouse building are depicted in EIR Section 3.0 and show a variable
roofline with a maximum height of approximately 60 feet. Although architectural plans are not
presently available for the future retail buildings, pursuant to Main Street and Freeway Corridor
Specific Plan (MSFCSP) Chapter 9.B.4.3, Development Standards, the buildings would have a
maximum height of 65 feet. Implementation of the industrial warehouse building and future retail
buildings would introduce other vertical features to the Project site (walls, fences, landscaping,
etc.) that would be shorter than the buildings and would have substantially less physical mass
than the buildings. In some instances, the industrial warehouse building, the future retail buildings,
or these buildings combined may intermittently obstruct mountain views in the distance as drivers
travel along I-15 or as drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists approach the Project site or travel
adjacent to the Project site along Caliente Road and Ranchero Road. Views toward the mountains
in the distance across the Project site as experienced by travelers on these roads typically are of
short duration due to travel speeds, and viewer sensitivity is considered low-to-moderate because
as the passing landscape becomes familiar, vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and bicyclists using
roadway corridors typically focus their attention on the roadway, roadway signs, and surrounding
traffic. Intermittent view obstruction is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.1-11 through 4.1-12)
Looking across the Project site from the intersection of Ranchero Road and Caliente Road where
a person may be stopped at the intersection, or on I-15 where traffic may be slowed or stopped,
views of the distant mountains would remain visible above the rooflines of the proposed buildings.
Also, development of the Project in the foreground of a scenic vista would not block the vista or
substantially change the vista and therefore is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.1-12)

3.1.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.1.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts with respect to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

There are no designated or eligible State scenic highways within the immediate vicinity of the
Project site. As shown in Draft EIR Figure 4.1-2, Scenic Highways Map, the nearest officially
designated State scenic highway is the Angeles Crest Highway (Route 2) extension from
Interstate 210 (near La Cañada Flintridge) to the boundary of Los Angeles and San Bernardino
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 41

Page 13

Page 42 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
County (near Wrightwood), which is approximately 13.1 miles west of the Project site. The view
from the Project site to the eligible State scenic highway is blocked by the San Gabriel Mountains.
Due to the distance of Angeles Crest Highway (Route 2) to the Project site and the presence of
intervening development and topography, the Project site does not offer views of scenic resources
from this road segment. Therefore, because the Project site is not visible from a State scenic
highway, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No impact would
occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-12)

3.1.3 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would not, in a non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. The Project
would not, in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.1.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

According to mapping information by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with data
available from the United States Census Bureau (USCB) and the 2020 Census, the Project site
is not located within an urbanized area. As such, the analysis below addresses the Project’s
potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings as
seen from public viewing areas, which are limited to I-15 and local public roads. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.1-12 through 4.1-13)
The analysis presented below separately addresses the proposed industrial warehouse building
and future development of the proposed retail pad, but the conclusion considers both components
together for a comprehensive evaluation of the Project. It should be noted that the northwestern
portion of the Project site contains a portion of the Oro Grande Wash, which is identified as a
visual resource in the City’s General Plan. However, due to the generally flat topography of the
area in the vicinity of the Project site, and the lower elevation of the Wash compared to
surrounding developed areas, prominent views of the Oro Grande Wash are not possible from
public ROWs abutting and near the Project site. Also, as required by the City’s Wash Protection
Overlay, the Project would not construct any permanent structures within the Wash. Therefore,
the Oro Grande Wash and public views of the Wash would not be adversely impacted by
implementation of the Project, and the Project would not degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site associated with the Oro Grande Wash. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 42

Page 14

Page 43 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
B.

Industrial Warehouse

As previously illustrated on Draft EIR Figure 3-4, the industrial warehouse building would be
constructed of concrete tilt-up panels and low-reflective glass. The building’s exterior color palette
would be comprised of various shades of white, gray, and blue colors; windows would feature
blue-gray glazing. Decorative building elements include a varied roofline, horizontal offsets,
window mullions, and canopies. Landscaping would occur around the perimeter of the site, along
fronting public roadways, on manufactured slopes, in the passenger vehicle parking areas, and
near the office entrances to the building. From the public ROW along Caliente Road and I-15,
views of loading docks on the eastern façade of the building would be fully screened from public
view by concrete screen walls ranging from 8 to 12 feet in height as measured at the exterior of
the wall and 14 feet as measured at the interior side of the wall, and a landscaped manufactured
slope. The westerly truck court would be separated from the Oro Grande Wash by an 8-foot-high
tubular steel fence with mesh screening and a manufactured slope. The architectural façade
visible above the screen wall is proposed to be articulated. The building’s exterior design materials
and colors have been selected to be coordinated and compatible. The building’s walls would be
of concrete material, which has high durability and low maintenance requirements. The roof form
is designed to be flat with rooftop equipment screened by rooftop parapets. The design of the
industrial warehouse building as shown in the Project’s application materials, inclusive of its
architectural and screening elements, would ensure that the building would not substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project site or its surroundings and would
not create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Impacts would therefore be less
than significant individually and when combined in consideration of the retail pad development
described below. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13)

Retail Pad

Although architectural plans are not presently available for the future retail buildings, pursuant to
the MSFCSP requirements for commercial developments, the buildings would be required to be
of high-quality design and materials. While there is no mandated architectural style, MSFCSP
Chapter 10, Section 10.C, Architectural Design Standards and Guidelines, encourages the use
of various architectural features, such as varied roof or parapet heights and/or recessed or
extended building walls, and the avoidance of monotonous facades. The future building designs
for the development of the retail pad would also be required to comply with the minimum building
setbacks set by the MSFCSP (Chapter 9.B.4). Pursuant to the MSFCSP’s requirements for the
RC Zone, future buildings on the retail pad would not exceed a maximum building height of 65
feet (MSFCSP Section 9.B.4.3). Further, based on the Project Applicant’s conceptual site plan for
the retail pad, the contemplated buildings would likely be one story other than the hotel. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.1-14)
Pursuant to MSFCSP Section 9.B.4.7, Parking and Loading, loading facilities would be required
not to be located at the front of buildings or in public areas. In cases when it is not possible to
locate loading facilities at the rear of buildings, loading docks and doors are allowed to be located
along the sides of buildings, provided they would not dominate the façades and would be
screened from the public areas of the development. In addition, pursuant to MSFCSP Section
9.B.4.8, Open Space and Landscaping, the landscaping plans would be required to comply with
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 43

Page 15

Page 44 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
the provisions of Hesperia Municipal Code (HMC) Section 16.20, Article XII, Landscape
Regulations, with the exception that the landscaping plans would be required to provide a
minimum of ten (rather than five) percent on-site landscaping, including that required in setback
areas. The MSFCSP also provides guidance that landscaping design should also consist of
planting types and locations that protect sensitive uses from excessive solar exposure, glare, and
undesirable views (MSFCSP Section 10.D.2). Compliance with applicable regulations of the
MSFCSP would ensure quality, quantity, and functional aspects of landscaping and landscape
screening and create aesthetically pleasing views between the Project site and Ranchero Road,
I-15, and along Caliente Road abutting the retail pad site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-14)
Mandatory adherence to MSFCSP guidelines and applicable provisions of the HMC would ensure
that the future retail buildings would not degrade the quality of existing public views or create an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Impacts would be less than significant individually
and when combined in consideration of the industrial warehouse development described above.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.1-14)
Future Site Plan Reviews for retail uses on the 5.5-acre development pad will be subject to CEQA
review at the time those applications are submitted. To the extent that future retail development
is consistent with the project description, assumptions, and design standards evaluated in this
EIR, this EIR may serve as a basis for tiered or streamlined review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15152 and 15168, as applicable. Whether additional environmental review is required
will be determined by the City at the time of each future discretionary application, based on the
specific project proposed and whether new significant impacts or substantially more severe
impacts would result beyond those already analyzed in this EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-14)

3.1.4 Cumulative impacts
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to
aesthetics.



Finding

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to aesthetics are discussed in detail in Section
4.1.6 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not
result in significant cumulative impacts related to aesthetics; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction
with other planned development in the area within the same viewsheds. The ground-level
viewshed of the Project site extends to the immediate site vicinity, as the Project site is a vacant
undeveloped property directly surrounded by roads and vacant land. To the north, west, and
south, the ground-level viewshed extends across properties of vacant land. The ground-level
viewshed of the Project site to the east is not possible within the public ROW. (Draft EIR, p. 4.118)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 44

Page 16

Page 45 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
The Project site is located within a relatively flat valley floor surrounded by rugged hills and
mountains. In the far distance on clear days, views are possible from the Project site and from
the roads surrounding the Project site of the San Bernardino Mountains, approximately 4.9 miles
to the south, and the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 10.0 miles to the southwest. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.1-18)
Cumulative Effects to Scenic Vistas
The Project site is relatively flat and does not contribute to any prominent scenic vistas. Although
views of the surrounding mountains at distances of between 4.9 and 10.0 miles are available in
the Project area, such views are readily available throughout the cumulative study area including
in the ground-level viewshed and horizon viewshed and are not unique to the Project site or the
vicinity of the Project site. Development of the Project would be required to comply with the
applicable policies of the HMC and MSFCSP, which limit building heights and other physical
features to heights that would not impede on a scenic vista. Furthermore, other existing and
reasonably foreseeable planned development in the cumulative study area with the potential to
intermittently obstruct horizon views in visual foregrounds would also be required to comply with
the applicable policies of the HMC and MSFCSP. Because of the low-profile nature of urban
development compared to the heights of the mountains, there is no cumulative development in
the valley floor that would block, obscure, or substantially and adversely affect mountain views as
seen from public streets around the Project site and other public streets and public viewing areas
across the valley. Because opportunities would remain for scenic mountain views after
development of the Project and after the development of cumulative projects in the ground-level
and horizon viewsheds, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable effect on
scenic vistas. Views of the mountains would remain available to the public traveling on public
roads adjacent to and near the Project site. Because the public would have opportunities to
experience mountain views on the horizon, regardless of development in the ground-level
foreground, the cumulative impact to scenic vistas would be less than significant and the Project’s
contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-18)
Cumulative Effects to Views from a State Scenic Highway
There are no designated or eligible State scenic highways within the immediate vicinity of the
Project site. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is the Angeles Crest Highway
(Route 2) extension from Interstate 210 (near La Cañada Flintridge) to the boundary of Los
Angeles and San Bernardino County (near Wrightwood), which is approximately 13.1 miles west
of the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to a cumulatively
significant impact to damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway. Thus, no impact
would occur on a direct or cumulatively considerable basis. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-19)
Cumulative Effects Associated with Degradation of Visual Character or Quality of Public Views
The surrounding area of the Project site contains undeveloped vacant land and residential land
uses. Although the Project would result in a change to the existing visual character of public views
of the site and its surroundings, the industrial warehouse building would not comprise aesthetically
offensive uses, as the building would consist of typical construction, would be landscaped with
groundcover, shrubs, and trees, and would screen loading docks from public view with concrete
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 45

Page 17

Page 46 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
screen walls. The future retail buildings would also be required to comply with the applicable
requirements in the MSFCSP and HMC that address visual quality, such as those pertaining to
architecture and landscaping, to create aesthetically pleasing views of the Project site that would
not degrade the existing visual quality of the surrounding area. Accordingly, the Project would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur on a cumulatively considerable
basis. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-19)
Cumulative Light or Glare Effects
With respect to potential cumulative light impacts, the Project would be required to comply with
the HMC and MSFCSP. In turn, other development projects in the City would be required to
comply with the applicable provisions of the HMC and MSFCSP. Mandatory compliance with
regulatory requirements combined with the Project’s proposed design features that reduce light
would ensure that impacts are less than cumulatively significant and that the contribution of the
Project to light effects would be less than cumulatively considerable. With respect to potential
cumulative glare impacts, implementation of the industrial warehouse building would not create a
new source of substantial glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
However, because the HMC and MSFCSP do not prohibit the use of reflective materials or
finishes on commercial buildings, and because the architectural materials of the future retail
buildings are unknown at this time, there is a potential that reflective materials could be
incorporated into the design of the future retail buildings. However, although the future retail
buildings and cumulative developments may incorporate building materials with the potential to
create glare, only limited building materials such as glass would have the potential to create glare
impacts, and such impacts if any have no reasonable potential to be cumulatively significant.
Accordingly, impacts due to glare would be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p.
4.1-19)

3.2

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

Project impacts for Agriculture and Forestry Resources do not result in significant impacts.
Findings are discussed below.

3.2.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 46

Page 18

Page 47 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Substantial Evidence

According to information available from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP),
and although the site is not presently developed, the entire Project site is designated as “Urban
and Built-Up Land.” According to the California Department of Conservation, “Urban and Built-Up
Land” is classified as “land which is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1
unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Accordingly, the Project is not
designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland).
Because the Project site is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance, there is no potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), to non-agricultural use; therefore, no impact would
occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-9)

3.2.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 5.4.1 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

According to the California Department of Conservation, the Project site is not located on land
that is subject to a Williamson Act contract. Under existing conditions, the Project site is zoned
Auto Sales Commercial (ASC) and Rural Estate Residential (RER), with a portion of the site
covered by a Wash Protection Overlay. In addition, no land zoned for agricultural use or
Williamson Act contract is located adjacent to the Project site. Because under existing conditions,
the Project site does not consist of agricultural uses and is not under a Williamson Act contract,
and no lands adjacent to the site are zoned for agricultural use, implementation of the proposed
Project has no potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract; therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-10)

3.2.3 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code Section 51104(g)).



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 5.4.1 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 47

Page 19

Page 48 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Substantial Evidence

Under existing conditions, the Project site is zoned Auto Sales Commercial (ASC) and Rural
Estate Residential (RER), with a portion of the site covered by a Wash Protection Overlay; the
land is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production by the
City’s General Plan. Therefore, there is no potential for implementation of the proposed Project
to conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland
zoned Timberland Production; thus, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-10)

3.2.4 Threshold D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 5.4.1 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

As noted above under Threshold c, the Project site does not consist of forest land and is not
designated as forest land; therefore, there is no potential for implementation of the proposed
Project to result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; thus, no
impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-10)

3.2.5 Threshold E
Impact Statement: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

As noted above under Thresholds a through d, under existing conditions, the site does not consist
of agricultural uses or forest use and is not zoned for agricultural use or forest lands; therefore,
there is no potential for implementation of the proposed Project to result in the conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no
impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-10)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 48

Page 20

Page 49 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
3.3

AIR QUALITY

Project impacts for Threshold c and d do not result in significant impacts. Findings are discussed
below.

3.3.1 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations during construction.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold c during construction; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

During construction and operation, the Project has the potential to expose nearby sensitive
receptors to air pollutant concentrations that may impact human health. Sensitive receptors are
defined as occupied residential homes, schools, health care facilities, and other areas where
humans sensitive to air pollution reside for extended periods of time. The following provides an
analysis of the potential of the Project to result in or contribute to CO “hot spots,” or to result in
cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-44)

CO “Hot Spot” Analysis

The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) has not established its own
guidelines for carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot analysis. Since the MDAQMD guidelines are based
on South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology, it is appropriate to
apply the SCAQMD criteria when analyzing CO hotspots within the MDAQMD. A CO hotspot is
defined as a localized concentration of CO exceeding the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or
the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. At the time the most recent CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993)
was published by SCAQMD, the air basin was designated as non-attainment, requiring projects
to perform hotspot analyses to ensure they did not worsen the existing conditions. Over the last
two decades, background CO concentrations have been substantially reduced due to regulatory
controls on tailpipe emissions, which have culminated in the air basin achieving attainment status
for CO. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-44)
The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan’s (AQMP) findings underscore that CO hotspots are
highly unlikely due to the reduced background concentrations and the effectiveness of California's
air quality management strategies. The substantial reduction in CO levels from the vehicle fleet
and the State’s attainment status for CO further diminish the need for detailed microscale hotspot
analyses, reinforcing that existing monitoring and regulatory frameworks adequately address
potential air quality concerns. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-44 through 4.2-45)
In 2003, the SCAQMD as part of its AQMP development process, prepared modeling to determine
the potential for CO hotspots at the four busiest intersections in the air basin. As summarized in
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 49

Page 21

Page 50 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
the 2003 AQMP, even at one of the busiest intersections at that time, only 0.7 ppm of CO is
attributable to vehicular traffic and the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to ambient background
conditions. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.2-3, the background 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations
are well below the applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). The 2003 AQMP’s findings
underscore that CO hotspots are highly unlikely due to the reduced background concentrations
and the effectiveness of California's air quality management strategies. The substantial reduction
in CO levels from the vehicle fleet and the state’s attainment status for CO further diminish the
need for detailed microscale hotspot analyses, reinforcing that existing monitoring and regulatory
frameworks adequately address potential air quality concerns. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-45)
As such, Project-related traffic at roadway intersections within the Project area would not cause
or contribute to a CO hotspot since the background concentrations are low and any contribution
from Project traffic would be negligible. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-45)

Project-Related DPM Source Cancer and Non-Cancer Risks

A Project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) (Draft EIR Technical Appendix B2) was
prepared for the Project based on MDAQMD guidelines to produce conservative estimates of risk
posed by exposure to DPM. As discussed previously, nearby sensitive receptors evaluated as
part of the HRA are depicted in Draft EIR Figure 4.2-1. Provided below is a summary of the results
of the HRA for the Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor (MEIR), Maximally Exposed Individual
Worker (MEIW), and Maximally Exposed Individual School Child (MEISC), as well as a summary
of construction and operational cancer and non-cancer risks. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-45)

Construction Impacts

The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction diesel particulate matter
(DPM) source emissions is Location R2 which represents the existing residence at 6980 Oak
View Ct, approximately 601 feet east of the Project site. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental
cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source DPM emissions is estimated at 2.15 in one
million. As such, cancer risks at the MEIR associated with the Project are less than the MDAQMD
significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated
to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. The MEIR would experience
the highest concentrations of DPM during Project construction due to its location and
meteorological conditions at the site. Because all other modeled receptors would experience
lower concentrations of DPM during Project construction, all other receptors in the vicinity of the
Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified
herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent
land uses as a result of Project construction activity. All other receptors during construction activity
would experience less risk than what is identified for this location. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-45 through
4.2-46)

Operational Impacts

Residential Exposure Scenario
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational DPM and gasoline source
emissions is Location R2 which represents the existing residence at 6980 Oak View Ct,
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 50

Page 22

Page 51 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
approximately 601 feet east of the Project site. The maximum incremental cancer risk attributable
to Project operational-source DPM and gasoline dispensing emissions at the nearest residential
receptor is estimated at 0.81 in one million which would not exceed the MDAQMD’s significance
threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be ≤0.01
which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other modeled receptors
would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM and gasoline dispensing and therefore less
risk than the MEIR identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health
or cancer risk to nearby residences. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-46)
Worker Exposure Scenario
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational DPM and gasoline source
emissions is Location R7 which represents the worker receptor at 11412 Fashion Ct,
approximately 1,640 feet east of the Project site. The maximum incremental cancer risk
attributable to Project operational-source DPM and gasoline dispensing emissions at the nearest
worker receptor is estimated at 0.03 in one million which would not exceed the MDAQMD’s
significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated
to be ≤0.01 which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the
Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby workers. (Draft EIR, p.
4.2-46)
School Exposure Scenario
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational DPM and gasoline source
emissions is Location R8 which represents the Oak Hills High School located approximately
10,030 feet east of the Project site. The maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project
operational-source DPM and gasoline dispensing emissions at the nearest school receptor is
estimated at 0.01 in one million which would not exceed the MDAQMD’s significance threshold of
10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be ≤0.01 which would
not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a
significant human health or cancer risk to nearby school children. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-46)

Summary of Construction and Operational DPM Source Emissions

The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction and operational DPM
and gasoline source emissions is Location R2 which represents the existing residence at 6980
Oak View Ct, approximately 601 feet east of the Project site. At the MEIR, the maximum
incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source and operational-source DPM
and gasoline dispensing emissions is estimated at 2.57 in one million, less than the MDAQMD
significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated
to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not
cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project
construction and operational activity. All other receptors during construction and operational
activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-46
through 4.2-47)
Accordingly, Project construction and operational cancer and non-cancer health risk impacts
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-47)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 51

Page 23

Page 52 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
3.3.2 Threshold D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses (livestock and
farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting
operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not
propose or require land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor
sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the
application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary
storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the Project’s (long-term operational) uses.
Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The
construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would
cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-47)
With respect to the operation of a gas station within the Project site, gasoline dispensing activities
may also generate odors associated with gasoline fumes. The gas pumps and underground
storage tanks would include requirements based on MDAQMD Rule 461 vapor recovery systems
that would control Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) vapor releases during refueling and would
minimize driver and employee exposure to gasoline odors and fumes. Thus, gasoline odors are
not expected to adversely affect adjacent land uses. While restaurants may result in some odors
from the cooking process, these odors are not typically considered objectionable. It is expected
that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular
intervals in compliance with current solid waste regulations. The Project would also be required
to comply with MDAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors
and other emissions (such as those leading to odors) associated with construction and operations
activities of the Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p.
4.2-47)

3.4

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Project impacts for Biological Resources Thresholds b, c, and f do not result in significant impacts.
Findings are discussed below.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 52

Page 24

Page 53 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
3.4.1 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.3.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Jurisdictional Resources

Waters of the United States

The Project’s maximum disturbance area has no connection to a traditional navigable waterway
and would therefore not be considered Water of the United States (WOTUS). Therefore, because
no impacts to WOTUS would occur as a result of implementation of the Project, impacts would
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-24)

Waters of the State

No wetlands or riparian plant communities are present within the Project’s maximum disturbance
area. Feature 1 qualifies as a Waters of the State (WOTS), subject to regulation under California
Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 1600 and CWC Section 13260. However, Feature 1 occurs
outside of the Project’s maximum disturbance area and would not be impacted by the
implementation of the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-24)

Sensitive Natural Communities

The Project site contains one sensitive vegetation community: Joshua tree woodland. However,
the 2.13 acres of Joshua tree woodland occurs outside of the Project’s maximum disturbance
area and therefore would not be disturbed by implementation of the Project. The Project site does
not contain any other sensitive vegetation communities. As such, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-24)

3.4.2 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 53

Page 25

Page 54 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.3.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Due to the lack of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils in the Project’s limits of disturbance,
wetland conditions do not exist. Therefore, because no State or federally protected wetlands
occur within the Project’s disturbance footprint, implementation of the Project would have no
potential to have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means; thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.3-24)

3.4.3 Threshold F
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation plan.

Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold f; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Project is not located within any formally adopted Natural Community Conservation Planning
(NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The Project is within the Draft West Mojave Plan
area. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a Record of Decision for the West Mojave
Plan in 2006, however, the West Mojave Plan has not been formally adopted. The West Mojave
Plan applies to projects on federal land; therefore, the Project would not be processed under it.
Additionally, the Project would not conflict with the conservation criteria associated with the West
Mojave Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-26)
Because implementation of the Project would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan, no impact would occur as a result of implementation of the Project; thus, no
mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-26)

3.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
Impact Statement: The temporary direct and/or indirect impacts of the Project would not result
in significant cumulative impacts related to riparian habitat, state or federally protected wetlands,
and habitat conservation plan, natural, community conservation plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 54

Page 26

Page 55 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Findings

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to biological resources are discussed in detail
in Section 4.3.6 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that development of the proposed Project would
not result in significant cumulative impacts related to riparian habitat, state or federally protected
wetlands, and habitat conservation plan, natural, community conservation plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction
with other development projects and planned development within the High Desert region of San
Bernardino County. This study area was selected for evaluation because it encompasses a broad
region with similar biological, and climatic conditions with commonalities for similar biological
resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-26 through 4.3-27)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 55

Page 27

Page 56 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
Anthropogenic activities have significantly diminished habitat quality within the Project site,
making it largely unfavorable for desert tortoise habitation. Based on the degraded site conditions
and the absence of suitable habitat features, the potential for individual desert tortoises to occur
on the Project site is considered very low, and implementation of the Project is not anticipated to
directly harm individual desert tortoises or adversely impact local or regional populations. The
Project site is located within the western Mojave Desert, where desert tortoise populations have
declined due to cumulative habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, predation, and the ongoing
conversion of open lands to development. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects in the vicinity of the Project site have contributed, or would contribute, to the incremental
loss and degradation of desert tortoise habitat across the region. However, due to the Project
site’s degraded site condition, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the regional decline of the desert tortoise or the loss of desert tortoise habitat.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-27 through 4.3-28)
The Project would involve removal of desert scrub habitat on the Project site. However, historic
and ongoing disturbances including off-highway vehicle activity, unauthorized trails, and illegal
dumping have compacted soils and reduced native cover, yielding a disturbed desert landscape
of generally low habitat quality for the Mohave ground squirrel (MGS). Based on the absence of
MGS detections and the degraded condition of the Project site, implementation of the Project is
not expected to directly harm individual MGS or adversely affect local or regional MGS
populations. The Project site is located within the historic range of the MGS, a California Species
of Special Concern whose populations have experienced regional declines attributable to
cumulative habitat loss, fragmentation, and the ongoing conversion of open lands to development.
Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the Project site have
contributed, or would contribute, to the incremental loss and degradation of MGS habitat across
the region. While the Project would result in the permanent removal of desert scrub habitat within
the MGS range, the low habitat quality of the Project site, the absence of documented MGS
occupancy, and the heavily disturbed existing condition of the site collectively indicate that the
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on MGS would be less than cumulatively
considerable. Therefore, the Project's cumulative impact on the MGS is less than significant.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.3-28)
Due to the limited recorded occurrences in the Project region and the limited nesting and foraging
opportunities on the heavily disturbed Project site, Crotch's bumble bee has a low potential to
occur on the Project site, even as a transient. Implementation of the Project is not anticipated to
directly harm individual Crotch's bumble bees or adversely impact local or regional populations.
Crotch's bumble bee is a California Species of Special Concern whose range has contracted due
to habitat loss, pesticide exposure, disease, and competition from non-native species. Other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the Project site have contributed,
or would contribute, to the incremental loss and degradation of pollinator habitat across the region.
While the Project would result in the permanent removal of desert scrub vegetation that could
provide some incidental foraging value, the very low potential for Crotch's bumble bee to occur
on the Project site, combined with the site's disturbed condition and limited floral resources,
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 56

Page 28

Page 57 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
indicates that the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on Crotch's bumble bee would be
less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project's cumulative impact on Crotch's
bumble bee is less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-28)
Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community
The Project would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Although the
Oro Grande Wash traverses the northwestern portion of the Project site, this area would remain
undeveloped as part of the proposed Project, and no direct or indirect impacts to the wash or its
associated habitat are anticipated. Because the Project would not result in direct or indirect
impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, the Project would not contribute
to cumulative losses of such resources in the region. Therefore, the Project's cumulative impact
on riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities is less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.328 through 4.3-29)
State or Federally Protected Wetlands
Because no wetlands would be impacted by the Project, there is no potential for implementation
of the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable impact to State or federally protected
wetlands. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-29)
Movement of any Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife, Wildlife Corridors, or Native
Wildlife Nursery Sites
Given the constraints on wildlife movement under existing conditions, and the determination that
the Project site does not include water that supports any known migratory fish or established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or a known native wildlife nursery site,
implementation of the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Thus, impacts would
be less than cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-29)
Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
Although implementation of the Project would impact WJT and California juniper, the Project
would comply with local policies and ordinances by implementing appropriate mitigation measures
and acquiring the appropriate permits required as discussed previously. Thus, no cumulatively
considerable impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-29)
Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved
Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan
Because implementation of the Project would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan, no cumulatively considerable impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-29)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 57

Page 29

Page 58 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
3.5

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Project impacts for Cultural Resources Threshold c does not result in significant impacts and
related findings are discussed below.

3.5.1 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would not have the potential to disturb human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.4 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Project site does not contain a cemetery, and no known formal cemeteries are located within
the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Field surveys conducted on the Project site did not
identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath
the surface of the site. Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be
unearthed during ground excavation activities including grading and trenching associated with
Project construction. If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction
contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5
“Disturbance of Human Remains.” According to § 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are
discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human
remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native
American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code § 5097.98, whenever
the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county
coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely
descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of
the owner of the land, or their authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the
Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for
the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human
remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants must complete their inspection and
make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to
the site. According to Public Resources Code § 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate
disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and
disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native
American burials. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and
Public Resources Code § 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human
remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Project would be
less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-13)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 58

Page 30

Page 59 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
3.5.2 Cumulative impacts
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to
the discovery of human remains.



Findings

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to cultural resources are discussed in detail in
Section 4.4.5 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would
not result in significant cumulative impacts related to the discovery of human remains; therefore,
no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction
with other development projects and planned development within the High Desert region of San
Bernardino County. This study area was selected for evaluation because it encompasses a broad
region with similar geological, biological, and climatic conditions with commonalities for similar
cultural resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-13)

Human Remains

As discussed under the analysis of Threshold c above, mandatory compliance with the provisions
of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code § 5097 et seq.,
would
ensure that Project impacts to human remains would remain below a level of significance.
Because
other cumulative developments also would be subject to compliance with California Health and
Safety Code § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097 et seq., the impacts to human remains
are evaluated as less than significant on a cumulatively considerable basis. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-14)

3.6

ENERGY

Project impacts for Energy Thresholds a and b do not result in significant impacts. Findings are
discussed below.

3.6.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project
construction or operation.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.4 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 59

Page 31

Page 60 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Substantial Evidence

Energy Use During Construction

Construction Power Costs and Electricity Usage

The analysis herein is focused on the energy implications of the construction process, specifically
the power cost from on-site electricity consumption during construction of the Project. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.5-8)
For purposes of analysis in the Project’s Energy Analysis (Draft EIR Technical Appendix E) and
herein, construction of Phase 1 (Industrial) will begin April 2027 and last through March 2028.
Construction of Phase 2 (Retail) will begin April 2028 and last through March 2029. The
construction schedule utilized in the analysis, shown in Draft EIR Table 3-1 of Section 3.0, Project
Description, represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario. The duration of construction activity and
associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet
as required per CEQA Guidelines. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-8)
The 2025 National Construction Estimator identifies a typical power cost per 1,000 s.f. of
construction per month of $2.85, which was used to calculate the Project’s total construction
power costs. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.5-3, Construction Power Cost, the total power cost
of on-site electricity usage during the building construction of the Project is estimated to be
approximately $35,160.25. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-8)
The total Project construction electricity usage is the summation of the products of the power cost
(estimated in Draft EIR Table 4.5-3) by the utility provider cost per kilowatt hours (kWh) of
electricity. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-9)
Southern California Edison’s (SCE) general service rate schedule was used to determine the
Project’s electrical usage. As of October 1, 2025, SCE’s general service rate is $0.23 per kWh of
electricity for industrial and retail uses. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.5-4, Construction Electricity
Usage, the total electricity usage from on-site Project construction related activities is estimated
to be approximately 152,871 kWh. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-9)

Project Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates

Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over
the course of Project construction. A summary of construction equipment assumptions by phase
is provided in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. Consistent with industry standards and
typical construction practices, each piece of equipment listed will operate up to a total of eight (8)
hours per day, or more than two-thirds of the period during which construction activities are
allowed pursuant to the code. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-10)
Project construction activity timeline estimates, construction equipment schedules, equipment
power ratings, load factors, and associated fuel consumption estimates are presented in Draft
EIR Table 4.5-5, Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimate. The aggregate fuel
consumption rate for all equipment is estimated at 18.5 horsepower hour per gallon (hp‐hr‐gal.),
obtained from California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2018 Emissions Factors Tables and cited
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 60

Page 32

Page 61 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
fuel consumption rate factors presented in Table D‐24 of the Moyer Guidelines. For the purposes
of this analysis, the calculations are based on all construction equipment being diesel‐powered
which is consistent with industry standards. Diesel fuel would be supplied by existing industrial
and retail fuel providers serving the Project area and region.1. As presented in Draft EIR Table
4.5-5, Project construction activities would consume an estimated 135,309 gallons of diesel fuel.
Project construction would represent a “single‐event” diesel fuel demand and would not require
on‐going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose. (Draft EIR, p. 4.510)

Construction Trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled

Construction generates on-road vehicle emissions from vehicle usage for workers, hauling, and
vendors commuting to and from the site. The number of workers, hauling, and vendor trips are
presented below in Draft EIR Table 4.5-6, Construction Trips and VMT. It should be noted that for
vendor trips, specifically, CalEEMod only assigns vendor trips to the Building Construction phase.
Vendor trips would likely occur during all phases of construction as shown in Draft EIR Table 4.56; however, as a conservative measure, the CalEEMod defaults for vendor trips have been utilized
for off-site construction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-12)

Construction Worker Fuel Estimates

With respect to estimated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Project, the construction worker
trips would generate an estimated 1,738,427 VMT during the 11 months of construction. Based
on CalEEMod methodology, it is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from light-duty-auto
vehicles (LDA), 25% are from light-duty-trucks (LDT12), and 25% are from light-duty-trucks
(LDT23). Data regarding Project related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod
defaults utilized within the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (Final EIR Technical Appendix
B1). (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-13)
Vehicle fuel efficiencies for light-duty-auto vehicles (LDA), light-duty-trucks (LDT1), and light-dutytrucks (LDT2) were estimated using information generated within the 2021 version of the EMFAC
developed by CARB. EMFAC2021 is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate
emission rates, fuel consumption, and VMT from motor vehicles that operate on highways,
freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by the CARB to project changes in
future emissions from on-road mobile sources. EMFAC2021 was run for the LDA, LDT1, and
LDT2 vehicle class within the California sub-area for the 2027 through 2029 calendar years. Data
from EMFAC2021 is shown in Appendix 4.2 of the Project’s Energy Analysis (Draft EIR Technical
Appendix E). (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-13)

1 Based on Appendix A of the CalEEMod User’s Guide, Construction consists of several types of off-road equipment.

Since the majority of the off-road construction equipment used for construction projects are diesel fueled, CalEEMod
assumes all of the equipment operates on diesel fuel.
2 Vehicles under the LDT1 category have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 6,000 lbs. and equivalent
test weight (ETW) of less than or equal to 3,750 lbs.
3 Vehicles under the LDT2 category have a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 61

Page 33

Page 62 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Draft EIR Table 4.5-7, Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates, provides an estimated
annual fuel consumption resulting from Project construction worker trips. As shown in Draft EIR
Table 4.5-7, it is estimated that 58,681 gallons of fuel would be consumed related to construction
worker trips during full construction of the Project. It should be noted that construction worker trips
would represent a “single‐event” gasoline fuel demand and would not require on‐going or
permanent commitment of fuel resources for this purpose. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-13)

Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates

With respect to estimated VMT, the construction vendor/hauling trips (vehicles that deliver
materials to the site during construction) would generate an estimated 263,462 VMT along area
roadways for the Project over the duration of construction activity. It is assumed that 50% of all
vendor trips are from medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT), 50% of vendor trips are from heavyheavy duty trucks (HHDT), and 100% of hauling trips are from HHDTs. These assumptions are
consistent with the CalEEMod defaults utilized within the Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA).
Vehicle fuel efficiencies for MHDTs and HHDTs were estimated using information generated
within EMFAC2021. EMFAC2021 was run for the MHDT and HHDT vehicle classes within the
California sub-area for the 2027 through 2029 calendar years. Data from EMFAC2021 is shown
in Appendix 4.2 of the Project’s Energy Analysis (Draft EIR Technical Appendix E). (Draft EIR, p.
4.5-16)
As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.5-8, Construction Vendor and Hauling Fuel Consumption
Estimates, it is estimated that 36,498 gallons of fuel will be consumed related to construction
vendor/hauling trips during full construction of the Project. It should be noted that Project
construction vendor/hauling trips would represent a “single‐event” diesel fuel demand and would
not require on‐going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.5-16)

Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures

Starting in 2014, CARB adopted the nation’s first regulation aimed at cleaning up off-road
construction equipment such as bulldozers, graders, and backhoes. These requirements ensure
fleets gradually turn over the oldest and dirtiest equipment to newer, cleaner models and prevent
fleets from adding older, dirtier equipment. As such, the equipment used for Project construction
would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards. It should also be noted
that there are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the
use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or
equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies).
Equipment employed in the construction of the Project would therefore not result in inefficient
wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-18)
Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulation regarding
retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction equipment. Additionally,
CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle
idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air
Contaminants. Compliance with anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in a more
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 62

Page 34

Page 63 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or
unnecessary consumption of energy. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and
equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-18)
Additional construction‐source energy efficiencies would occur due to required California
regulations and best available control measures (BACM). For example, California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of
construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful
consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Section 2449(d)(3)
requires that grading plans shall reference the requirement that a sign shall be posted on‐site
stating that construction workers need to shut off engines at or before five minutes of idling.” In
this manner, construction equipment operators are required to be informed that engines are to be
turned off at or prior to five minutes of idling. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through
periodic site inspections conducted by City of Hesperia building officials, and/or in response to
citizen complaints. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-18 through 4.5-19)
A full analysis related to the energy needed to form construction materials is not included in this
analysis due to a lack of detailed Project-specific information on construction materials. At this
time, an analysis of the energy needed to create Project-related construction materials would be
extremely speculative. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-19)
In general, the construction processes promote conservation and efficient use of energy by
reducing raw materials demands, with related reduction in energy demands associated with raw
materials extraction, transportation, processing, and refinement. Use of materials in bulk reduces
energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as well as
the transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced
demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill
operations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-19)

Summary of Construction Energy Demands

The estimated power cost of on-site electricity usage during the building construction of the
Project is assumed to be approximately $35,160.25, as summarized on Draft EIR Table 4.5-3.
Additionally, based on the assumed power cost, it is estimated that the total electricity usage
during construction, after full Project build-out, is calculated to be approximately 152,871 kWh, as
summarized on Draft EIR Table 4.5-4. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-19)
Construction equipment used by the Project would result in single event consumption of
approximately 135,309 gallons of diesel fuel, as summarized on Draft EIR Table 4.5-5.
Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed
because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or
energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB
emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-19)
CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles
to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 63

Page 35

Page 64 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
to unproductive idling of construction equipment. BACMs inform construction equipment
operators of this requirement. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site
inspections conducted by City of Hesperia building officials, and/or in response to citizen
complaints. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-19)
Construction worker trips for full construction of the Project would result in the estimated fuel
consumption of 58,681 gallons of fuel, as summarized on Draft EIR Table 4.5-7. Additionally, fuel
consumption from construction vendor and hauling trips (MHDTs and HHDTs) would total
approximately 36,498 gallons, as summarized on Draft EIR Table 4.5-8. Diesel fuel would be
supplied by the City and regional industrial and retail vendors. Indirectly, construction energy
efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved using bulk purchases, transport and use
of construction materials. The 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) released by the
California Energy Commission (CEC) has shown that fuel efficiencies are getting better within on
and off-road vehicle engines due to more stringent government requirements. As supported by
the preceding discussions, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered
inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-19 through 4.5-20)

Energy Use During Project Operations

Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation
energy demands (energy consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the Project
site), fuel demands from operational equipment, and facilities energy demands (energy consumed
by building operations and site maintenance activities). (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20)

Transportation Energy Demands

Energy that would be consumed by Project‐generated traffic is a function of total VMT and
estimated vehicle fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site. The VMT per vehicle
class can be determined by evaluating the vehicle fleet mix and the total VMT. As with worker
and vendors trips, operational vehicle fuel efficiencies were estimated using information
generated within EMFAC2021 developed by CARB. EMFAC2021 was run for the San Bernardino
(MD) area for the 2028 and 2029 calendar years. Data from EMFAC2021 is shown in Appendix
4.2 of the Project’s Energy Analysis (Draft EIR Technical Appendix E). (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20)
As summarized in Draft EIR Table 4.5-9, Total Project-generated Traffic Annual Fuel
Consumption, the Project Buildout would result in 41,183,077 annual VMT and an estimated
annual fuel consumption of 2,121,467 gallons of fuel. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20)

On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Fuel Demands

It is common for industrial buildings to require the operation of exterior cargo handling equipment
in the truck court areas. For the Project, on-site modeled operational equipment includes up to
four 175 horsepower (hp), natural gas-powered cargo handling equipment – port tractor operating
at 4 hours a day for 365 days of the year. It should be noted that a mitigation measure required
under the topic of Air Quality requires the equipment to be zero-emission. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-21)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 64

Page 36

Page 65 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Project operational activity estimates and associated fuel consumption estimates are based on
the annual EMFAC 2021 offroad emissions for the 2029 operational year and were used to derive
the total annual fuel consumption associated on-site equipment. As presented in Draft EIR Table
4.5-10, On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates, Project on-site
equipment would consume an estimated 18,568 gallons of diesel fuel. It should be noted that a
mitigation measure required under the topic of Air Quality requires the equipment to be zeroemission. The fuel consumption estimates shown below are presented solely for full disclosure
purposes. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-21)

Emergency Generator Fuel Demands

It is anticipated that the Project would utilize one 300-hp diesel-powered emergency backup
generator and one diesel-powered fire pump for the industrial warehouse building only. For
analytical purposes, it is anticipated that the emergency generator and fire pump would operate
for a maximum time of 1 hour per day and 50 hours per year for maintenance and testing
purposes. As presented in Draft EIR Table 4.5-11, Emergency Engine Fuel Consumption
Estimates, emergency engine operation for maintenance and testing purposes would consume
an estimated 1,883 gallons of diesel fuel per year. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-22)

Building Energy Demands

Project building operational activities would result in the consumption of electricity which would
be supplied to the Project by SCE. As summarized in Draft EIR Table 4.5-12, Project Annual
Operational Energy Demand Summary, the Project would result in 6,334,758 kWh/year of
electricity demand and 22,649,867 kBTU/year of natural gas. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-22)

Operational Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures

Energy efficiency/energy conservation attributes of the Project would be complemented by
increasingly stringent State and federal regulatory actions addressing vehicle fuel economies and
vehicle emissions standards; and enhanced building/utilities energy efficiencies mandated under
California building codes (e.g., Title 24, California Green Building Standards Code). (Draft EIR, p.
4.5-23)
The Project would also not result in a substantial increase in demand for transmission service,
resulting in the need for new or expanded sources of energy supply or new or expanded energy
delivery systems or infrastructure (other than site-adjacent and on-site connects to local utilities).
(Draft EIR, p. 4.5-23)

Enhanced Vehicle Fuel Efficiencies

Project annual fuel consumption estimates presented previously represent likely potential
maximums that would occur for the Project. Under subsequent future conditions, average fuel
economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can be expected to improve as older, less fuelefficient vehicles are removed from circulation, and in response to fuel economy and emissions
standards imposed on newer vehicles entering the circulation system. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-23)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 65

Page 37

Page 66 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and State regulatory actions, and related
transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels,
hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Location of the
Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region,
acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-23)

Summary of Project’s Operational Energy Demands

Transportation Energy Demands
Annual vehicular trips and related VMT generated by the operation of the Project would result in
a fuel demand of 2,121,467 gallons of fuel, as summarized on Draft EIR Table 4.5-9. Fuel would
be provided by current and future industrial and retail vendors. Trip generation and VMT
generated by the Project are consistent with other industrial and retail uses of similar scale and
configuration, as reflected respectively in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (12th Ed., 2025); and CalEEMod. As such, Project operations would not result
in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor excess and wasteful vehicle energy
consumption compared to other industrial and retail uses. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-24)
It should be noted that the State strategy for the transportation sector for medium and heavy-duty
trucks is focused on making trucks more efficient and expediting truck turnover rather than
reducing VMT from trucks. This is in contrast to the passenger vehicle component of the
transportation sector where both per-capita VMT reductions and an increase in vehicle efficiency
are forecasted to be needed to achieve the overall State emissions reductions goals. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.5-24)
Heavy-duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled on the technology side
and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines.
The first battery-electric heavy-heavy duty trucks are being evaluated and MDAQMD is looking to
integrate this new technology into large-scale truck operations. The following State strategies
reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from the medium and heavy-duty trucks: (Draft EIR,
p. 4.5-24)


CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy focuses on reducing GHGs through the transition to
zero and low emission vehicles and from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.



CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan establishes a goal to improve freight
efficiency by 25 percent by 2030, deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment
capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission
freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.



CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement (Goods Movement
Plan) in California focuses on reducing heavy-duty truck-related emissions focus on
establishment of emissions standards for trucks, fleet turnover, truck retrofits, and
restriction on truck idling. While the focus of Goods Movement Plan is to reduce criteria
air pollutant and air toxic emissions, the strategies to reduce these pollutants would
also generally have a beneficial effect in reducing GHG emissions.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 66

Page 38

Page 67 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


CARB’s On-Road Truck and Bus Regulation (2010) requires diesel trucks and buses
that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks
and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012.
Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January
1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or
equivalent.



CARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation requires SmartWay tractor
trailers that include idle-reduction technologies, aerodynamic technologies, and lowrolling resistant tires that would reduce fuel consumption and associated GHG
emissions.

Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and State regulatory actions, and related
transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels,
hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. As supported by
the preceding discussions, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered
inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-25)
On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Fuel Demands
It is common for industrial buildings to require the operation of exterior cargo handling equipment
in the building’s truck court areas. On-site cargo handling equipment used by the Project would
result in approximately 18,568 gallons of diesel fuel. On-site equipment use of fuel would not be
atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s
proposed operations that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project on-site equipment would
conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel
efficiencies. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-25)
Emergency Generator Fuel Demands
The Project is expected to include the installation of one diesel-powered emergency generator
and one diesel-powered fire pump. Operation of these engines for maintenance and testing
purposes is estimated to result in annual fuel demand of approximately 1,883 gallons. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.5-25)
Facility Energy Demands
Project facility operational energy demands are estimated at 6,334,758 kWh/year of electricity
demand and 22,649,867 kBTU/year of natural gas for the Project, which would be supplied by
SCE and Southwest Gas. The Project proposes conventional industrial and retail uses reflecting
contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project
does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would
be comparable to other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-25)
Implementation of the Project would increase the demand for electricity at the Project site and
petroleum consumption in the region during operation. However, the electrical consumption
demands of the Project during operation would conform to the State’s Title 24 and to CALGreen
standards, which implement conservation measures. Further, the Project would not directly
require the construction of new energy generation or supply facilities and providers of electricity
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 67

Page 39

Page 68 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
are in compliance with regulatory requirements that assist in conservation, including requirements
that electrical providers achieve State-mandated renewal energy production requirements. With
compliance with Title 24 conservation standards and other regulatory requirements, the Project
would not be wasteful or inefficient or unnecessarily consume energy resources during
construction or operation and would result in a less than significant impact with respect to
consumption of energy resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-25 through 4.5-26)
Lastly, the Project would comply with the applicable Title 24 standards. Compliance itself with
applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient,
wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-26)

3.6.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.4 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Construction

The Project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in
construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of
electricity for temporary buildings used during construction, lighting, and other sources. California
Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road
diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the Air Resources Board (ARB). The Project
would be required to comply with these regulations. There are no policies at the local level
applicable to energy conservation specific to the construction phase. Thus, the construction of
the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore,
construction-related energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-26)

Operation

California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) established a goal of renewable energy for local
providers to be 44% by 2024. Similarly, the State is promoting renewable energy targets to meet
the 2022 Scoping Plan greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The Project would result in
approximately 6,334,758 kWh/year of electricity demand and 22,649,867 kBTU/year of natural
gas. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-26)
The Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted
energy efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 68

Page 40

Page 69 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
standards. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply
to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. For example, the
Title 24 Lighting Power Density requirements define the maximum wattage of lighting that can be
used in a building based on its square footage. Title 24 standards, widely regarded as the most
advanced energy efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for
lighting, water heating, and air conditioning in the proposed building and promote energy
conservation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-26)
Compliance with the aforementioned mandatory measures would ensure that the Project would
not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, operational energy efficiency
and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.5-27)

3.6.3 Cumulative impacts
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to
energy.



Findings

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to energy are discussed in detail in Section
4.5.5 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not
result in significant cumulative impacts related to energy; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The proposed Project and other development projects would be required to comply with the same
applicable federal, State, and local regulatory measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption
and the conservation of energy. Accordingly, the Project would not cause or contribute to a
significant cumulatively considerable impact related to conflicts with a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-27)

3.7

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Project impacts for Geology and Soils Thresholds a, b, and e do not result in significant impacts.
Findings are discussed below.

3.7.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, and/or death involving:
i.

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other.

ii.

Substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42).

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 69

Page 41

Page 70 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
iii.

Strong seismic ground shaking.

iv.

Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

Landslides.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Sections 4.6.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Seismic-Related Hazards

As previously indicated in Subsection 4.6.1, the Project site is not located within a fault zone or
within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and the possibility of significant fault rupture on
the site is considered to be low. Because the Project is not located in the immediate vicinity of a
known earthquake fault and there is no reasonable potential of significant fault rupture on the site,
impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13)
As with most properties in southern California, the Project site is located in a seismically active
area and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the
Project. The risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in
the area. The Project is required to be constructed in accordance with the California Building
Standards Commission (CBSC) and the City Building Code. The CBSC and the City Building
Code are designed to preclude significant adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground
shaking. Additionally, the Geotechnical Investigation (Draft EIR Technical Appendix F) prepared
for the Project includes site-specific recommendations to attenuate seismic-related hazards.
Mandatory compliance with the CBSC, the City Building Code, and the recommendations of the
site-specific Geotechnical Investigation would ensure that potential effects associated with strong
seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13)

Liquefaction Hazards

As previously indicated in Subsection 4.6.1, the Project site is not located within a Countydesignated liquefaction hazard zone. In addition, the subsurface conditions encountered at the
Project site are not considered to be conducive to liquefaction. Based on the lack of a historic
high ground water table within the upper approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, and the
mapping performed by the County, Langan determined that liquefaction would not be considered
a design concern for the Project site; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.6-13)

Landslides

Regional geologic maps indicate that mapped landslides are not located at or near the site;
therefore, there is no potential for the Project to exacerbate an existing landslide condition. The

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 70

Page 42

Page 71 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
closest reported landslide occurred approximately 5.21 miles southwest of the Project site. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.6-13 through 4.6-14)
As part of the Project’s development, manufactured slopes would be established on the Project
site to create flat development pads, with the slopes serving as a transition to adjacent existing
grades. Manufactured slopes would occur along the north side of Farmington Street, the west
side of Caliente Road, and on the western and northern sides of the development, between the
development pads and the Oro Grande Wash. Slope heights would range from a few feet adjacent
to public streets to approximately 110 feet at the transition between the development pads and
the wash. Manufactured slopes may be susceptible to instability during a seismic event if not
properly designed, constructed, and maintained. To ensure stability of the permanent fill slopes
up to 110 feet in height on the western and northern perimeters of the development pads,
including during a seismic event, slope inclination is designed to be a maximum of 2:1
(horizontal:vertical). The engineered manufactured slope is designed with keyways, back-cuts,
and surface drainage benches and the fill soils would be benched into firm native materials with
the slope face compacted. Surface drainage at the top of the slope would drain away from the
slope to minimize the potential for erosion. Additionally, the Project’s proposed buildings are
required to be set back from the top of slope face in accordance with the CBSC. With engineered
construction of the manufactured fill slopes in accordance with CBSC requirements and the
recommendations provided by Langan in the Project’s Geotechnical Report (Draft EIR Technical
Appendix F), the proposed manufactured slopes are assured to be stable and the potential of the
Project to cause substantial adverse effects associated with landslide potential would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-14)

3.7.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.6.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

As summarized in Draft EIR Table 4.6-1, the soils on the Project site are susceptible to erosion.
Thus, implementation of the Project has the potential to result in soil erosion. The analysis below
summarizes the likelihood of the Project to result in substantial soil erosion during temporary
construction activities and long-term operation of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-14)

Construction-Related Impacts

Proposed grading and construction activities at the Project site would expose underlying soils and
disturb surficial soils. Exposed soils would be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high
winds due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of these erodible materials to

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 71

Page 43

Page 72 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
wind and water. Specifically, the majority of the Project site contains soils that have the potential
for high wind erosion but low to moderate potential for water erosion. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-14)
Pursuant to the requirements of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
the Project Applicant is required to obtain a NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (NPDES Permit). Compliance with
the NPDES Permit is required for projects that result in more than one acre of ground disturbance,
including through clearing, grading, excavating, stockpiling, and removing or replacing existing
facilities. Project construction activities would be subject to the NPDES permit, requiring the
preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during
construction activities. The Project’s construction contractors would be required to comply with
the SWPPP, which would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Mandatory compliance with the
SWPPP would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements during construction activities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-14 through 4.6-15)
The Project also would be required to comply with the City’s requirements and regulations,
including those provided in the City’s Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), prepared as part
of the City’s MS4 permit compliance. An MS4 is the stormwater conveyance or system of
conveyances (roads with drainage systems, storm drains, gutters, channels, catch basins, etc.)
that are owned or operated by the City and designed for collecting or conveying stormwater. A
requirement of the City’s SWMP is that post-development peak storm water runoff discharge
rates shall not exceed the estimated pre-development rate, with the objective of protecting
downstream properties. Additional requirements of the SWMP include maximization of vegetation
and employing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to decrease erosion of slopes and channels.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.6-15)
Additionally, proposed construction activities would be required to comply with MDAQMD Rule
403, which would reduce the amount of particulate matter in the air and minimize the potential for
wind erosion. Rule 403 requires that certain construction practices be followed that limit dust and
dirt from leaving the construction site, such as watering controls to prevent equipment from
tracking dirt off-site and cessation of grading during high wind conditions. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-15)
In summary, with mandatory compliance to the requirements noted in the Project’s SWPPP and
the City’s SWMP, as well as mandatory compliance to applicable regulatory requirements
including but not limited to the HMC and MDAQMD Rule 403, the potential for water and/or wind
erosion impacts during Project construction would be reduced to less than significant levels. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.6-15)

Long-Term Operational Impacts

Following construction, wind and water erosion on the Project site would be minimized, as the
disturbed areas would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces, and drainage would
be controlled through an on-site storm drain system. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-15)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 72

Page 44

Page 73 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
On-site stormwater for the industrial warehouse development is designed to be captured through
a series of storm drain systems and directed to the two proposed underground infiltration
chambers, located beneath the eastern and western truck courts. The on-site subsurface
chambers to be installed as part of the Project’s design would be designed to function as
infiltration basins that would reduce downstream flows to be less than or equal to existing
conditions, and to promote groundwater infiltration. The chambers would be sized to address the
increased runoff and fully retain the 100-yr storm event. The chambers are expected to capture
the entire on-site runoff volume and enable it to be infiltrated or released into the existing 4’x4’
reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert adjacent to the southwestern corner of the proposed
intersection of Ranchero Road and Caliente Road. The proposed chambers also would remove
pollutants from all runoff and filter the water to meet the water quality standards of the Lahontan
RWQCB prior to discharge. The proposed infiltration chambers’ attenuation of water runoff from
the portion of the Project site developed with the industrial warehouse use would preclude the
potential for erosion on and off the Project site. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-15 through 4.6-16)
The retail development pad would be soil compacted and hydroseeded for erosion control as part
of the Project’s first phase of development. In a compacted and hydroseeded condition, these
measures would substantially reduce the potential for erosion from wind or stormwater runoff,
resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Future development of buildings on the retail pad would
be subject to Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 16.12 of the HMC, at which time site-specific
drainage and erosion control features would be evaluated for compliance with municipal
standards and requirements of the Lahontan RWQCB. Compliance with these requirements
would ensure that erosion and sedimentation are adequately controlled. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16)
With mandatory regulatory compliance, surface runoff leaving the developed portions of the
Project site including the industrial warehouse development area and the retail pad development
area, would be minimal following development. As such, the Project has no reasonable potential
to result in or contribute to erosion hazards. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.
4.6-16)

3.7.3 Threshold E
Impact Statement: The Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in Section 4.6.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The public sewer system that would provide service to the proposed Project is owned and
maintained by the Sewer Division of the Hesperia Water District. Wastewater produced by the
Project would be conveyed via new sewer laterals to the City’s collection and conveyance system
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 73

Page 45

Page 74 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
to be treated at the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority. No septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the Project. Accordingly, no impact would
occur.

3.7.4 Cumulative impacts
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to
geologic hazards and soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.



Findings

Potential cumulative geology and soils impacts of the Project related to geologic hazards and soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.6 of the Draft EIR. The City
finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative
impacts related to these topics; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

This cumulative impact analysis considers construction and operation of the proposed Project in
conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the Project
site as well as full General Plan buildout in the City of Hesperia and other jurisdictions in the
region. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-19)
Geologic Hazards
With the exception of erosion hazards and potential impacts to paleontological resources,
potential effects due to geology and soils are inherently restricted to the areas proposed for
development and would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with other existing,
planned, or proposed development. That is, thresholds including fault rupture, seismic ground
shaking, liquefaction, landslides, collapsible soils, expansive soils, and other geologic hazards
would involve effects to (and not from) the proposed development and are specific to on-site
conditions. Accordingly, addressing these potential hazards for the proposed development would
involve using measures to conform to existing requirements, and/or site-specific design and
construction efforts that have no relationship to, or impact on, off-site areas. Because of the sitespecific nature of these potential hazards and the measures to address them, there would be no
connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects to or from other properties.
Cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-19)
Soil Erosion or the Loss of Topsoil
As discussed under Threshold b, during both near-term construction and long-term operation,
features would be incorporated into the design of the Project to ensure that significant erosion
hazards do not occur. Other developments within the cumulative study area would be required to
comply with similar requirements, such as the need to obtain an NPDES permit and mandatory
compliance with the resulting SWPPPs and the City’s SWMP. All projects in the cumulative study
area also would be required to demonstrate that features have been incorporated to ensure that
development does not result in substantial increases in the amount or rate of runoff under longterm operating conditions, which could in turn increase soil erosion. Further, all projects in the
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 74

Page 46

Page 75 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
cumulative study area also would be required to comply with MDAQMD Rule 403 as well as the
HMC sections related to erosion and sedimentation, which would preclude water- and windrelated erosion hazards during construction. Therefore, because the Project would result in less
than significant erosion impacts, and because other projects within the cumulative study area
would be subject to similar requirements to control erosion hazards during construction and longterm operation, cumulatively considerable impacts associated with wind and water erosion
hazards are evaluated as less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-19 through 4.6-20)

3.8

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Project impacts for Hazards and Hazardous Materials Thresholds a through g do not result in
significant impacts. Findings are discussed below.

3.8.1 Threshold A and B
Impact Statement: The Project would not have the potential to create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Impact Statement: The Project would not have the potential to create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the environment.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Thresholds a and b are discussed in detail in Section
4.8.4 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not
result in significant impacts related to Threshold a and b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Impact Analysis for Existing Site Conditions

As indicated above under Subsection Error! Reference source not found., and based on the
results of the Project’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), the Project site does not
contain any evidence of Recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Historical recognized
environmental conditions (HRECs), Controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs), or
Business environmental risks (BERs). The debris that was observed on the Project site would be
removed and properly disposed of in accordance with all applicable local, State, and federal
guidelines. As such, there are no conditions associated with the existing condition of the Project
site or surroundings that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. Accordingly, no
impact would occur associated with the existing conditions of the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.814)

Impact Analysis for Temporary Construction-Related Activities

Heavy equipment such as dozers, excavators, and tractors would be operated on the Project site
during construction of the Project. This heavy equipment likely would be fueled and maintained
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 75

Page 47

Page 76 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
by petroleum‐based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are
considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints,
adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be used
on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous
materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the
public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be
no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the Project than
would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to
comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport,
use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including, but not limited to,
requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), as well as the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) pertaining to water quality as discussed in Subsection 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project
would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. Accordingly,
impacts would be less than significant during temporary construction-related activities. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.8-14 through 4.8-15)

Impact Analysis for Long-Term Operation

The future occupants of the proposed warehouse and future retail uses are not yet known.
However, the Project Applicant expects that the buildings would be occupied by High-Cube
Fulfillment Warehouse (Sort Facility) and future retail development evaluated for an 84-room
hotel, 11,700 s.f. of in-line multi-tenant retail and food and beverage uses, a 16-pump vehicle
fueling station associated with a 3,000 s.f. convenience store, and 3,000 s.f. fast food restaurant
use with or without a drive-through lane. Operational activities would include overnight lodging
and potentially social gatherings at the hotel, and patrons visiting the retail uses, food and
beverage uses and fueling station for commercial services. It is possible that hazardous materials
could be used during the course of daily operations for future building users. (Draft EIR, p. 4.815)
State and federal Community-Right-to-Know laws allow public access to information about the
amounts and types of chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws also are in place that require
businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies
the proposed buildings on the Project site and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in
Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) would require a
permit from the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division in order
to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to
comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which
requires immediate reporting to the San Bernardino County Fire Department and the State Office
of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material,
regardless of the amount handled by the business. In addition, any business handling at any one
time, greater than 500 pounds of solid, 55 gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous
material, is required, under Assembly Bill 2185 (AB 2185), to file a Hazardous Materials Business
Emergency Plan (HMBEP). A HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 76

Page 48

Page 77 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material.
The intent of the HMBEP is to satisfy federal and State Community Right-To-Know laws and to
provide detailed information for use by emergency responders. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-15)
If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the future buildings on the Project
site, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal,
State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, emission, and disposal of hazardous
substances (as described above). With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project is not
expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project
increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with HMC
Chapter 8.04, Solid Waste Management, which establishes specific requirements for the storage
of hazardous materials. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 through 4.8-16; Final EIR, pp. 3-11 through 3-12)
In regard to the evaluated future retail use as a fueling station, hazardous materials (i.e., gasoline,
diesel, diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), and biodiesel fuels, and oil) would be used during the course
of daily operations at the Project site. Additionally, because the Project evaluated future retail
uses including a fueling station, various standard conditions to minimize hazardous materials
impacts related to fueling stations would be applicable to the Project. These standard conditions
are monitored by the State-designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) managing
hazardous materials programs within the City of Hesperia and throughout San Bernardino County.
In addition to other programs and requirements that may be applicable, as determined by the
CUPA, the following programs may also apply to the fueling station: Certificate of Disclosure of
Hazardous Substances (Business Emergency Plan), Hazardous Waste Generator Permit, and
Underground Storage Tank Permit. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-16)
With mandatory regulatory compliance, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with
long-term operation of the Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-16)

Summary

Under existing conditions, during temporary construction-related activities, and under long-term
operation of the Project, with mandatory compliance with Federal, State and local regulations,
impacts would be less than significant; thus, no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-16)

3.8.2 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.8.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 77

Page 49

Page 78 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Substantial Evidence

There are no existing schools located within 0.25-mile of the Project site. The nearest school is
Oak Hills High School, located approximately 1.9 miles east of the Project site. As described
above under the analysis of Thresholds a and b, the use of and transport of hazardous substances
or materials to and from the Project site during temporary construction and long-term operational
activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that
would preclude substantial public safety hazards. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-16)
Because there are no existing or proposed schools located within 0.25-mile of the Project site,
there is no potential for the Project to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-16)

3.8.3 Threshold D
Impact Statement: The Project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
not have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.4 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Based on the results of the Project’s Phase I ESA (Draft EIR Technical Appendix H), the Project
site is not located on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-17)

3.8.4 Threshold E
Impact Statement: The Project site is within two miles of an airport and the Project site is
identified as within an airport influence area. The Project would not result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in Section 4.8.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Project site is not within an airport land use plan. The Hesperia Airport is located
approximately 5.9 miles to the east of the Project site. According to the Hesperia Airport
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 78

Page 50

Page 79 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Project site does not occur within the Airport Safety Zone
(AS), the Airport Approach and Transitional Zone (AAT), or the Airport Notice Area (AN) for
Hesperia Airport (San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission [SBCALUC], 1991);
therefore, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is not applicable to the proposed Project.
Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.8-17)

3.8.5 Threshold F
Impact Statement: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in Section 4.8.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold f; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

As previously indicated, the City Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) describes how the City would
respond to large-scale emergencies and disasters in the community. The Project site does not
contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route (Draft EIR,
p. 4.8-17).
During construction and long-term operation of the Project, adequate emergency access for
emergency vehicles would be required to be maintained along public streets that abut the Project
site as part of a construction management plan. Furthermore, improvements planned as part of
the Project are not anticipated to adversely affect traffic operations in the local area. As part of
the City’s discretionary review process, the City reviewed the Project’s application materials for
consistency with the HMC to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be
available to and from the Project site and that circulation on the Project site was adequate for
emergency vehicles. Furthermore, there are no components of the proposed Project that would
interfere with the City’s EOP. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not
impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-17)

3.8.6 Threshold G
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold g are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.4 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold g; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 79

Page 51

Page 80 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Substantial Evidence

The Project site is located within both a very high fire hazard severity zone and a high fire hazard
severity zone. The Project would be developed in a manner consistent with the jurisdictional
requirements for fire protection and would generally decrease the fire hazard in the local area by
transitioning the site from a vacant property with scattered unirrigated vegetation to a developed
property with irrigated landscaping and buildings having fire protection and sprinkler systems. Per
the landscape regulations outlined in the HMC Chapter 16, City Development Code, the Project
would be required to incorporate materials and landscaping that is appropriate to the high-desert
climate and water-efficient. All plant materials would be consistent with Hesperia’s approved plant
list. With adherence to the City development standards intended to address the threat of wildfires,
impacts regarding exposing people or structures either directly or indirectly to significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-18)

3.8.7 Cumulative impacts
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to
hazards and hazardous materials.



Findings

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to hazards and hazardous materials are
discussed in detail in Section 4.8.5 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the
proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Because the issue of hazards and hazardous materials tends to be site-specific in nature, the
cumulative study area includes existing and planned developments within a one-mile radius of
the Project site. A one-mile radius is appropriate for most of the thresholds identified herein
because that is the standard distance used in regulatory database searches of properties that
may generate or store toxic materials. With respect to cumulatively considerable impacts to public
airport facilities, the cumulative study area would include the Project site and surroundings, as
well as other properties located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the Hesperia Airport.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.8-18)
Routine Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials / Release of Hazardous Materials into
the Environment
As discussed under the analysis of Thresholds a and b, the Project site does not contain any
RECs, HRECs, CRECs, or BERs under existing conditions. As such, the Project would not result
in any cumulatively considerable impacts due to existing site contamination. With respect to
construction activities, the Project would be subject to compliance with all applicable federal,
State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous
construction‐related materials, including but not limited to requirements imposed by the EPA and
DTSC, as well as the Lahontan RWQCB pertaining to water quality. Other cumulative
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 80

Page 52

Page 81 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
developments similarly would be subject to applicable federal, State, and local laws and
regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials.
As such, cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, under longterm operating conditions, future businesses on site that involve the storage or use of hazardous
materials or substances would be subject to applicable federal, State, and local requirements
related to hazardous materials. Other businesses within the cumulative study area of the Project
would similarly be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local requirements
related to hazardous materials. With mandatory regulatory compliance, potential hazardous
materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project are determined to be less
than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-18 through 4.8-19)
Hazardous Emissions within 0.25-Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
There are no existing schools located within 0.25-mile of the Project site. The use of and transport
of hazardous substances or materials to and from the Project site during construction and longterm operational activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local
regulations that would preclude substantial public safety hazards. Other cumulative developments
similarly would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations.
Accordingly, hazardous materials impacts affecting nearby schools would be less than significant
on a cumulatively considerable basis. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-19)
Hazardous Materials Site Compiled Pursuant to Environmental Code Section 65962.5
The Project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5; therefore, the Project has no potential to contribute to substantial,
cumulatively considerable effects related to the development of contaminated sites listed on
regulatory databases. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-19)
Airport Land Use Plan or Airports
The Project site is not within an airport land use plan. The Hesperia Airport is located
approximately 5.9 miles to the east of the Project site. According to the Hesperia Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Project site does not occur within the Airport Safety Zone
(AS), the Airport Approach and Transitional Zone (AAT), or the Airport Notice Area (AN) for
Hesperia Airport; therefore, the CLUP is not applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, the
Project has no potential to result in cumulatively-considerable impacts due to airport-related
hazards. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-19)
Emergency Response or Emergency Evacuation Plans
As discussed under the analysis of Threshold f, the Project site does not contain any emergency
facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. Additionally, Project construction
activities are not anticipated to adversely affect operations of existing local roadways in the area.
Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to any cumulatively considerable
impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts would not occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-19)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 81

Page 53

Page 82 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Wildland Fires
As discussed above under Threshold g the Project site is located within an area identified as
being subject to wildland fire hazards. The Project site would be developed in a manner consistent
with jurisdictional requirements for fire protection and would generally decrease fire hazards in
the local area. Other developments within the area also are subject to the jurisdictional
requirements for fire protection and would generally decrease fire hazards in the local area by
reducing vegetative fuel and installing irrigated landscaping and fire protection and sprinkler
systems as part of any new structural development. As such, within the cumulative context of the
Project vicinity, fire hazards are anticipated to decline over time. The Project has no potential to
contribute to cumulatively significant impacts associated with wildland fire hazards. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.8-19 through 4.8-20)

3.9

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Project impacts for Hydrology and Water Quality Thresholds a through e do not result in significant
impacts and related findings are discussed below.

3.9.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 1300 [Water Quality] et seq., of
the CWC), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as
the CWA) require the preparation of comprehensive water quality control plans for all waters
within the State of California. As previously described, the Project site is within the jurisdiction of
the Lahontan Region of the State RWQCB. The Lahontan Region Basin Plan is designed to
preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. In
addition, the Basin Plan incorporates all applicable State and RWQCB plans and policies and
other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. Specifically, the Basin Plan:


Designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters;



Sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect
the designated beneficial uses and conform to the State's anti-degradation policy; and,

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 82

Page 54

Page 83 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region. (Draft EIR, p.
4.9-13)

The CWA requires all states to conduct water quality assessments of water resources to identify
water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Water bodies that do not meet water quality
standards are placed on a list of impaired waters pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d)
of the CWA. The Project site is located within the Mojave River Watershed and receiving waters
for the Project site’s drainage are the Mojave River (from the Mojave Forks Reservoir Outlet to
Upper Narrows) and the Oro Grande Wash. The nearest waters identified as being impaired due
to Section 303(d) of the CWA are the Mojave River from the reservoir outlet to Upper Narrows
(which is impaired by fluoride, sodium, and sulfates), and the Mojave River from the Upper
Narrows to the Lower Narrows (which is impaired by fluoride, manganese, dissolved oxygen,
sodium, sulfates, and total dissolved solids). Installation of infiltration basins is included as part of
the Project and would remove pollutants from all runoff to meet the water quality standards of the
CWA. The Project would not contribute to any of the listed impairments pursuant to Section
303(d). (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-13 through 4.9-14)
A specific provision of the CWA applicable to the Project is CWA Section 402, which authorizes
the NPDES permit program that covers point source pollution discharging to a water body. The
NPDES program requires operators of a construction site one acre or larger to obtain
authorization to discharge storm water under an NPDES construction storm water permit. A
discussion of the potential for the Project to result in water quality impacts during construction and
long-term operation is presented below. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-14)

Potential Water Quality Impacts from Temporary Construction Activities

Construction of the Project would involve clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, building
construction, and landscaping activities. Construction activities would generate potential water
quality pollutants such as silt, debris, chemicals, paints, solvents, and other chemicals with the
potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the
potential to occur during construction of the Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance
measures. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-14)
Construction of the Project would involve substantial ground disturbance during clearing and
grading of the site. The proposed grading activities would generate silt which could be carried offsite during a heavy rainfall event. Should such an event occur in the absence of any preventative
measures to contain silt and other soils on-site, erosion and/or siltation downstream could result.
The City of Hesperia is a co-permittee under the San Bernardino County Municipal NPDES MS4
Phase II Stormwater permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit requires the City to implement a
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Program in accordance with the regional SWMP for
the Mojave River Watershed. To comply with the regulatory requirements of the SWMP, the HMC
Section 8.30.210, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan” requires that all applicants for projects
involving construction activities must submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for
approval by the City. The City will not issue grading or building permits until the ESCP for the
Project is approved. The ESCP is required to document the BMPs that will be implemented during
Project construction activities to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, construction site
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 83

Page 55

Page 84 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
pollutants from leaving the site during all phases of construction. Erosion control, sediment
control, and general good housekeeping BMPs are required to be specified in the ESCP and
implemented year-round as appropriate based on construction activities. Typical BMPs that are
implemented at construction sites to protect water quality include the implementation of straw bale
barriers, plastic sheeting/erosion control blankets, and outlet protection measures. Mandatory
compliance with the SWMP and ESCP would ensure that implementation of the Project would not
result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during
construction activities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-14 through 4.9-15)

Potential Water Quality Impacts from Post-Development Activities

As previously described in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, with development of the Project
site as proposed, on-site stormwater would be captured through underground infiltration basins
in the warehouse development area and a temporary surface infiltration basin on the retail
development pad until permanent storm water infrastructure is installed as part of the retail pad’s
future development. The on-site basins would be sized to address the increased runoff and fully
retain the 100-yr storm event. Because the proposed infiltration basins would be sited and
designed to handle the increased runoff and retain stormwater runoff captured from the developed
portions of the Project site, the Project has no potential to violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality. Impacts
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-15)
With respect to groundwater quality, all first-flush runoff generated on the developed portions of
the Project site would be conveyed to infiltration basins and then be allowed to infiltrate into the
groundwater table. The proposed basins would remove pollutants from all runoff and filter the
water to meet the water quality standards of the Lahontan RWQCB. Catch basin inserts would
also be provided for pre-treatment in order to capture trash and debris prior to discharging into
the infiltration basins. The proposed infiltration basins and catch basin inserts would ensure that
runoff generated on the developed portions of the Project site would not substantially degrade
groundwater quality, thereby resulting in less than significant impacts to groundwater quality.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.9-15)

3.9.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 84

Page 56

Page 85 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Substantial Evidence

Potable water service to the Project site would be provided by CSA 70J, and the Project would
not involve direct groundwater extraction via existing or proposed groundwater wells. Although
CSA 70J obtains the entirety of its water supply from local groundwater wells within the Mojave
River Groundwater Basin, the CSA 70J 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
demonstrates that the total projected water supplies available to the CSA 70J during normal,
single-dry, and multiple-dry water years over the next 20 years will be sufficient to meet the
projected water demands within its service area (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-15).
The projected additional demand for the Project is approximately 86 acre-feet per year (AFY).
The Water Supply Assessment notes that this demand exceeds CSA 70J’s projected growth
allocation within its service area in the CSA 70J 2020 UWMP. However, CSA 70J is supplied by
the Mojave Water Agency (MWA), and the Project site was included in the MWA 2020 UWMP.
However, this exceedance does not indicate a water supply deficiency. First, the MWA functions
as the wholesale water provider for the region. The 2020 UWMP bases its projected water
demand estimates on extensive data on existing land use and water demands, as well as
projected land uses based on the General Plans of jurisdictions within the MWA service area. The
Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the MSFCSP; therefore, it can
be reasonably concluded that the Project’s water demand is accounted for within the MWA’s
regional demand projections, and that MWA has sufficient regional water supplies to serve the
Project’s demand during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years through the 2020
UWMP’s planning horizon. As such, the Project would not result in a substantial decrease in
groundwater supplies and would not otherwise impede sustainable groundwater management of
the groundwater basin, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-15 through
4.9-16)
On-site captured stormwater would be conveyed to infiltration basins that would have sufficient
storage volume to address the full 100-year storm runoff volume, which would retain and fully
infiltrate water quality volume on-site. All runoff would be captured by the on-site infiltration basins,
which would capture, treat, and attenuate the stormwater runoff. Therefore, although new
impervious surfaces would be introduced at the site, the inclusion of stormwater control features
that allow for on-site detention and infiltration would minimize the amount of runoff discharged off
site and continue to permit groundwater recharge on the site. Accordingly, buildout of the Project
with these design features would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-16)

3.9.3 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 85

Page 57

Page 86 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Development of the site would entail grading to construct flat development pads, which has the
potential to alter the site’s drainage pattern. Provided below is an evaluation of the potential of
the Project to result in erosion or siltation; result in flood hazards on- or off-site; exceed the
capacity of stormwater drainage systems; result in substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; and result in impediments to or redirection of flood flows. Draft EIR Figure 4.9-3, Proposed
Conditions – Hydrology, illustrates the post-development drainage conditions on the Project site.
Please refer to the discussion and analysis of Thresholds a and e for a discussion of potential
water quality impacts, which would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-16)

Erosion and Siltation

Construction-Related Erosion Potential

Construction of the Project would involve substantial ground disturbance during clearing and
grading of the site. The proposed grading activities would generate silt which could be carried offsite during a heavy rainfall event. Should such an event occur in the absence of any preventative
measures to contain silt and other soils on-site, erosion and/or siltation downstream could result.
The City of Hesperia is a co-permittee under the San Bernardino County Municipal NPDES MS4
Phase II Stormwater permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit requires the City to implement a
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Program in accordance with the regional SWMP for
the Mojave River Watershed. To comply with the regulatory requirements of the SWMP, the HMC
Section 8.30.210, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan” requires that all applicants for projects
involving construction activities must submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for
approval by the City. The City will not issue grading or building permits until the ESCP for the
Project is approved. The ESCP is required to document the BMPs that will be implemented during
Project construction activities to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, construction site
pollutants from leaving the site during all phases of construction. Erosion control, sediment
control, and general good housekeeping BMPs are required to be specified in the ESCP and
implemented year-round as appropriate based on construction activities. Typical BMPs that are
implemented at construction sites to protect water quality include the implementation of straw bale
barriers, plastic sheeting/erosion control blankets, and outlet protection measures. Mandatory
compliance with the SWMP and ESCP would ensure that implementation of the Project would not
result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during
construction activities. Therefore, short-term water quality impacts associated with temporary
construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p.
4.9-17)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 86

Page 58

Page 87 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
2.

Post-Development Erosion Impact

The NPDES MS4 Phase II Stormwater Permit requires the City of Hesperia to implement a PostConstruction Storm Water Management Program in accordance with the regional SWMP. This
Program sets limits of pollutants being discharged into waterways and requires all new
development to incorporate structural and non-structural BMPs to improve water quality. To meet
the requirements of the SWMP, the City requires the incorporation of Low Impact Development
(LID) features into new development projects, as specified in the Mojave River Watershed
Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The Project Applicant would
be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to demonstrate compliance
with the NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne
pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. As identified within
the Project-specific Preliminary WQMP (Draft EIR Technical Appendix I2), the Project has been
designed to include onsite structural-source control BMPs, as well as operational-source controls.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.9-17)
Structural-source control BMPs include, but are not limited to, storm drain system stenciling and
signage, efficient irrigation system and landscape design, and slope protection. Non-structural
source control BMPs include, but are not limited to, litter/debris control program, employee
training, catch basin inspection program and vacuum sweeping of paved areas including the
warehouse’s loading dock areas. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-17 through 4.9-18)
Following development of the Project site as proposed, all runoff generated on the site would be
conveyed to infiltration basins that are sized to accommodate a design storm event over the entire
Project site following development of the site. The Project design incorporates the required site
assessment and planning, site design control measures, source control measures, and treatment
control measures to ensure stormwater runoff flows leaving the Project site would not carry
substantial amounts of sediment. Therefore, the Project has no potential to contribute runoff to
off-site areas that may increase erosion hazards off site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18)
Based on the foregoing analysis, with the design of the Project’s infiltration basins and
implementation of the required ESCP and SWMP during construction activities, Project impacts
to water quality, including erosion and siltation, during both construction and long-term operation,
would be less than significant; thus, no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18)

Flooding

The Project is designed to capture all runoff generated on the Project site and retain the runoff in
infiltration basins for either infiltration into the groundwater table or regulated release into the
existing 4’x4’ reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert adjacent to the southwestern corner of the
proposed intersection of Ranchero Road and Caliente Road. The stormwater drainage system is
adequately sized as documented in Draft EIR Technical Appendix I1, and there is no potential for
the Project during either construction or long-term operation to result in flooding or to significantly
contribute to flooding hazards. Additionally, the Project’s proposed development area is not
located within a flood zone. As such, the Project has no potential to substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; therefore,
no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 87

Page 59

Page 88 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
C.

Stormwater Drainage Capacity

The Project is designed to capture all runoff generated on the Project site’s development areas
and retain the runoff in infiltration basins for either infiltration into the groundwater table or
regulated release into the existing 4’x4’ RCB culvert. The drainage facilities proposed on-site have
been designed with sufficient capacity to accommodate runoff generated on site. Refer to the
Project’s Preliminary Hydrology Report included as Draft EIR Technical Appendix I1. As such, the
Project has no potential to exceed the capacity of any existing or proposed stormwater drainage
systems; thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18)

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows

The Project site is located within Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06071C6475H, mapped
within Zone X (Unshaded), which are areas determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual
chance floodplain. In addition, all runoff generated from the Project site’s development areas
would be conveyed into proposed infiltration basins for infiltration into the groundwater table.
Therefore, the Project would not result in any substantial increase in flood boundaries, levels, or
frequencies from the Project site or within the Oro Grande Wash. As such, the Project would not
impede or redirect flood flows; therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-18 through 4.9-19)

3.9.4 Threshold D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to inundation.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 4.9.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

As previously indicated under the analysis of Threshold c, according to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the Project site is located within FIRM No. 06071C6475H, mapped
within Zone X (Unshaded), which are areas determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual
chance floodplain. All runoff generated from the developed portions of the Project site would be
conveyed to underground or aboveground infiltration basins. As discussed above, design of the
basins would ensure the Project would provide effective control, infiltrate water into the
groundwater table, and direct treated water to a storm water drainage system. As such, the Project
would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to receiving waters. There is
no potential for the developed portions of the Project site to become flooded or for the Project to
contribute to off-site flooding events. As such, the Project would not risk release of pollutants due
to inundation from floods; therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 88

Page 60

Page 89 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
The Project site has no potential to be impacted by tsunamis or seiches. As such, there is no
reasonable potential for the Project to contribute to the release of water pollutants during tsunami
or seiche events. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19)
The Project site is located approximately 60 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. As such, the
Project has no potential to be affected by tsunamis; therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.9-19)
A seiche is an underwater wave that oscillates through a body of water, which may be triggered
by earthquakes or landslides. In general, seiches are small (generally a few inches) and are
present in larger lakes as a result of the depth, temperature, and contours of the body of water.
Due to the lack of an on-site body of water or other bodies of water within close proximity to the
site that have the potential to result in site inundation, there is no reasonable potential for the
Project site to be impacted by seiches. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19)

3.9.5 Threshold E
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
As previously indicated in Subsection Error! Reference source not found., the Project site is
located within the Alto Subarea of the Mojave River Groundwater Basin. The Alto Subarea is
adjudicated and exempt from the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA); as such, MWA has not adopted a groundwater management plan, and no regional
groundwater management plan currently exists for the Mojave River Groundwater Basin. The
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) classifies the Upper Mojave River Valley
Groundwater Subbasin as a very low-priority basin. As such, the Project has no potential to
conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan, and no
impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-19 through 4.9-20)
As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a, the Project site is located within the jurisdiction of
the Lahontan RWQCB. Water quality information for the Mojave River Watershed is contained in
the Basin Plan. As previously indicated under the analysis of Threshold a, Project construction
activities would be subject to the NPDES permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit requires the City to
implement a Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Program in accordance with the
regional SWMP for the Mojave River Watershed. To comply with the regulatory requirements of
the SWMP, the HMC Section 8.30.210, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan” requires that all
applicants for projects involving construction activities must submit an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan (ESCP) for approval by the City. The City will not issue grading or building permits
until the ESCP for the Project is approved. The ESCP is required to document the BMPs that will
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 89

Page 61

Page 90 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
be implemented during Project construction activities to prevent, to the maximum extent
practicable, construction site pollutants from leaving the site during all phases of construction.
Erosion control, sediment control, and general good housekeeping BMPs are required to be
specified in the ESCP and implemented year-round as appropriate based on construction
activities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-20)
In addition, the Project site has been designed to capture all runoff generated on the Project site.
Runoff generated on the Project site would be conveyed to underground or aboveground
infiltration basins. Design of the infiltration basins would ensure the Project would provide effective
control and would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to receiving waters.
As such, the Project has no potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan. No impact would occur as a result of implementation of the Project. (Draft EIR, p.
4.9-20)

3.9.6 Cumulative impacts
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to
hydrology and water quality.



Findings

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to hydrology and water quality are discussed
in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed
Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality;
therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
This cumulative impact analysis considers construction and operation of the proposed Project in
conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the Project
site as well as full General Plan buildout in the City of Hesperia and other jurisdictions in the
region. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-20)
Surface and Groundwater Quality
As discussed under the analysis of Threshold a, the Project would result in less than significant
impacts to surface and groundwater quality during construction because the Project Applicant
would be required to obtain a NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit for construction activities. The
NPDES MS4 Permit requires the City to implement a Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
Program in accordance with the regional SWMP for the Mojave River Watershed. To comply with
the regulatory requirements of the SWMP, the HMC Section 8.30.210, “Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan” requires that all applicants for projects involving construction activities must submit
an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for approval by the City. The City will not issue
grading or building permits until the ESCP for the Project is approved. The ESCP is required to
document the BMPs that will be implemented during Project construction activities to prevent, to
the maximum extent practicable, construction site pollutants from leaving the site during all
phases of construction. Erosion control, sediment control, and general good housekeeping BMPs
are required to be specified in the ESCP and implemented year-round as appropriate based on
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 90

Page 62

Page 91 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
construction activities. As such, construction-related surface water and groundwater quality
impacts, would be less than cumulatively considerable. With respect to long-term impacts to water
quality, the Project is designed to capture all runoff generated on the Project site and retain the
runoff in infiltration basins for either infiltration into the groundwater table or regulated release into
the existing 4’x4’ RCB culvert. Other cumulative developments would similarly be required to
incorporate measures to treat water quality pollutants of concern. Accordingly, cumulatively
considerable impacts to surface and groundwater quality would not occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-20
through 4.9-21)
Sustainable Groundwater Management
As indicated under the analysis of Threshold b, the Project would be served with potable water
by CSA 70J, which is supplied by MWA, and the Project would not entail any direct groundwater
extraction. Additionally, the MWA 2020 UWMP demonstrates that MWA has sufficient water
supplies during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years over the next 20 years, and the
UWMP accounts for the water demand of the Project. As such, the Project would not result in a
substantial decrease in groundwater supplies and would not otherwise impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin. The Project also would not interfere with groundwater
recharge, as the majority of runoff generated on-site would be allowed to infiltrate directly into the
ground. Accordingly, cumulatively considerable impacts to groundwater quality and supplies
would not occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-21)
Drainage Patterns
As discussed under the analysis of Threshold c, the Project generally would maintain the existing
topography of the Project site, except as necessary to facilitate proper drainage and sewer flows.
Development of the site would, however, introduce impervious surfaces on the site. The Project
Applicant would be required to comply with the Basin Plan and obtain an NPDES Permit for
construction activities. The NPDES MS4 Permit requires the City to implement a Construction
Site Stormwater Runoff Control Program in accordance with the regional SWMP for the Mojave
River Watershed. To comply with the regulatory requirements of the SWMP, the HMC Section
8.30.210, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan” requires that all applicants for projects involving
construction activities must submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for approval
by the City. The City will not issue grading or building permits until the ESCP for the Project is
approved. The ESCP is required to document the BMPs that will be implemented during Project
construction activities to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, construction site pollutants
from leaving the site during all phases of construction. Erosion control, sediment control, and
general good housekeeping BMPs are required to be specified in the ESCP and implemented
year-round as appropriate based on construction activities. Additionally, the Project, along with
other future developments, would be required to comply with the City’s SWMP. Under long-term
operational conditions, large portions of the Project site would consist of impervious surfaces, with
areas of pervious surfaces largely confined to landscaped areas. Thus, the potential for erosion
hazards on-site would be substantially decreased as compared to existing conditions.
Furthermore, all runoff from the Project site would be retained by the proposed infiltration basins,
which would either infiltrate into the groundwater table or be released as regulated flows into the
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 91

Page 63

Page 92 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
existing 4’x4’ RCB culvert. The Project would incorporate the required site assessment and
planning, site design control measures, source control measures, and treatment control measures
to ensure stormwater runoff flows leaving the Project site would not carry substantial amounts of
sediment. Thus, the Project has no potential to contribute to erosion or siltation hazards under
long-term operating conditions. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-21 through 4.9-22)
As also discussed under the analysis of Threshold c, the Project has no potential to substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or
offsite, create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems, or impede or redirect flood flows. As such, cumulatively
considerable impacts would not occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-22)
Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones
As indicated under the analysis of Threshold d, the developed portion of the Project site would
not be subject to inundation by floods, and there is no reasonable potential for tsunamis or seiches
to impact the site. As such, cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the release of
pollutants due to site inundation would not occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-22)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 92

Page 64

Page 93 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
As discussed under the analysis of Threshold e, there is no adopted groundwater management
plan in the Project area, and as such the Project has no potential to result in cumulativelyconsiderable impacts due to a conflict with or obstruction of a sustainable groundwater
management plan. Additionally, and as more fully discussed under the analysis of Threshold a,
the Project would result in less than significant impacts to surface and groundwater quality during
construction because the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the Basin Plan and
obtain a NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit for construction activities. The NPDES MS4 Permit
requires the City to implement a Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Program in
accordance with the regional SWMP for the Mojave River Watershed. To comply with the
regulatory requirements of the SWMP, the HMC Section 8.30.210, “Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan” requires that all applicants for projects involving construction activities must submit an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for approval by the City. The City will not issue
grading or building permits until the ESCP for the Project is approved. The ESCP is required to
document the BMPs that will be implemented during Project construction activities to prevent, to
the maximum extent practicable, construction site pollutants from leaving the site during all
phases of construction. Erosion control, sediment control, and general good housekeeping BMPs
are required to be specified in the ESCP and implemented year-round as appropriate based on
construction activities. Other cumulative developments within the cumulative study area also
would be required to comply with the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit and would be required
to implement BMPs during construction activities to preclude water quality impacts that could
conflict with the Basin Plan. As such, construction-related surface water and groundwater quality
impacts, would be less than cumulatively considerable. With respect to long-term impacts to water
quality, the Project would not discharge any surface waters from the developed portion of the
Project site and the proposed aboveground infiltration basins would address erosion and other
water quality pollutants of concern. Other cumulative developments would similarly be required
to incorporate measures to treat water quality pollutants of concern. Accordingly, the impacts of
the Project due to a conflict with the Basin Plan would be less than cumulatively considerable.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-22 through 4.9-23)

3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Project impacts for Land Use and Planning Thresholds a and b do not result in significant impacts.
Findings are discussed below.

3.10.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not physically divide an established community.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 4.10.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 93

Page 65

Page 94 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Substantial Evidence

Under existing conditions, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped with unimproved private dirt
roads crossing the site. The Oro Grande Wash runs southwest to northeast through the northwest
portion of the subject property. As shown on Draft EIR Figures 2-3 and 2-5, the Project site is
bordered by Caliente Road on the east, Farmington Street on the south, Oro Grande Wash on
the west, and undeveloped lands on the north. The Ranchero Road interchange with I-15 is to
the northeast. Ranchero Road functions as a key arterial roadway serving regional traffic and
facilitating access to industrial, commercial, and residential areas within the City. The Project site
is located approximately 194 feet west of I-15 and 1.55 miles southwest of Route 395 (US 395).
(Draft EIR, p. 4.10-8)
Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project site are illustrated on Draft EIR Figure 2-3 and
described above in Error! Reference source not found.. With the exception of roadways,
remaining land that abuts the Project site is vacant undeveloped land. Because the only
residential uses occur to the west of the Project site, which are already separated from the Project
site by vacant land, and because the Project site does not afford any public access under existing
conditions (e.g., public roads or trails), the Project has no potential to physically divide an
established community. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-8)

3.10.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.10.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The applicable land use and planning documents pertaining to land use policy are the City of
Hesperia General Plan and MSFCSP and SCAG’s Connect SoCal. The Project’s consistency with
the MDAQMD AQMP is addressed under EIR Subsection 4.2, Air Quality. In addition, the Project’s
consistency with the City of Hesperia Climate Action Plan (CAP) is addressed in EIR Subsection
4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As discussed in EIR Subsection 4.2, although the Project would
conflict with the MDAQMD AQMP, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the
Project’s impacts due to air quality emissions to the maximum feasible extent. This impact already
is disclosed as significant and unavoidable in EIR Subsection 4.2, and there would be no
additional impacts due to a conflict with the AQMP beyond what is already evaluated and
disclosed in Subsection 4.2. As indicated in EIR Subsection 4.7 although the Project would not
conflict with the City of Hesperia CAP, however, would have a significant cumulatively
considerable contribution of GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. (Draft EIR, p. 4.109)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 94

Page 66

Page 95 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
1. MSFCSP Land Use and Zoning Consistency
The Project entails the proposed development of approximately 72.98 acres of the 90.13-acre
site with industrial and commercial land uses. The other approximately 28.32 acres of the property
would remain undeveloped, generally encompassing the northwestern portion of the site and
containing a segment of the Oro Grande Wash. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-9)
The Project includes the proposed development of one industrial warehouse building having up
to 1,061,780 square feet (s.f.) of building space and the establishment of a 9.36-gross-acre parcel
with a 5.5-net-acre development pad for future retail uses. The industrial warehouse building is
proposed at a maximum of 60 feet in height in a cross-dock design with 91 loading dock doors
facing west and 82 loading dock doors facing east. The future user of the industrial warehouse
building is presently unknown but based on the building size, design, and Project Applicant’s
intent for its use, this EIR reasonably assumes that the building would operate as a high cube
fulfillment warehouse sort facility. This use is permitted under the Hesperia MSFCSP’s
Commercial/Industrial Business Park (CIBP) zone and under the proposed Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) application, which seeks to classify the proposed building under the MSFCSP’s
conditionally permitted use listed as “warehousing and wholesale distribution centers – greater
than 200,000 square feet in size.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-9)
On the 5.5-acre commercial development pad, no specific development project is presently
proposed. However, the Project Applicant has supplied a conceptual site plan that illustrates how
the commercial pad would likely be developed based on the MSFCSP’s development standards,
design guidelines, and the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the MSFCSP’s Regional
Commercial (RC) zone. As shown on Draft EIR Figure 3-1, the 5.5-net-acre retail pad is
reasonably assumed in this EIR to be developed with an 84-room, three-story hotel, 11,700 s.f.
of in-line multi-tenant retail and food and beverage uses, a 16-pump vehicle fueling station
associated with a 3,000 s.f. convenience store, and 3,000 s.f. fast food restaurant use with or
without a drive-through lane. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-9 through 4.10-10)
As disclosed in Section 3.0. Project Description, required entitlements to develop the proposed
Project within the MSFCSP include the following:


Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 26-00001) would adjust lot lines to form two lots, Lot 1
for the industrial development and Lot 2 for the retail development. In addition,
portions of frontage public road rights-of-way would be dedicated and vacated to form
appropriate right-of-way widths for Ranchero Road, Caliente Road, and Farmington
Street.



Specific Plan Amendment 25-00003 (SPLA 25-00003) entails a proposed zoning
classification change for the Project site within the MSFCSP from the existing
classification of Auto Sales Commercial (ASC) to the proposed classification of
Commercial/Industrial Business Park (CIBP) on the portion of the Project site
proposed to be developed with industrial uses and to a Regional Commercial (RC)
classification on the portion of the Project site proposed to be developed with retail
uses.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 95

Page 67

Page 96 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Conditional Use Permit (CUP 25-00005). Under the MSFCSP, “warehousing and
wholesale distribution centers – greater than 200,000 square feet in size” are
conditionally permitted in the CIBP zoning classification. As such, a CUP is proposed
to allow for the Project’s proposed 1,061,780 s.f. industrial warehouse building.



Site Plan Review. In association with proposed CUP 25-00005, the Project’s
proposed industrial warehouse building is subject to the City of Hesperia’s Site Plan
Review process. All new development in the MSFCSP’s CIBP zone is subject to the
approval of a Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 16.12, Article II (Site Plans and
Revised Site Plans) of the Hesperia Municipal Code (HMC). The industrial warehouse
building’s Site Plan Review materials are analyzed in this EIR at project-level detail.



Development Agreement (DA 26-00001). The Project includes a proposed
Development Agreement (DA), which is a legally binding contract between the City of
Hesperia and the Project Applicant that establishes the terms, conditions, and timing
for the Project’s development. Development Agreements are authorized under
California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and are typically used to provide
certainty and predictability regarding the development process for both the local
jurisdiction and the property owner. The proposed DA does not commit the Project
Applicant to make any physical improvements or to operate the Project differently than
described herein.

The northwestern portion of the site would remain classified as RER, and the Wash Protection
Overlay (WPO) would not be modified. With approval of SPLA 25-00003 and (CUP 25-00005),
the Project would be fully consistent with the MSFCSP land use designations and zoning
classifications for the property. Moreover, impacts associated with the proposed land uses have
been evaluated throughout this EIR. Where significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures
are identified to reduce impacts to the maximum feasible extent. Based on the foregoing analysis,
the proposed Project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and
impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-10 through 4.10-11)

2. City of Hesperia General Plan Policy Consistency
Draft EIR Table 4.10-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the proposed
Project with respect to the relevant goals and policies of the City of Hesperia General Plan. As
shown, the Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and would not
result in significant land use and planning conflicts in the context of compliance with applicable
environmental plans, policies, and regulations beyond those identified in other sections of this
EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-11)

MSFCSP Policy Consistency

The Project site is located within the MSFCSP. Draft EIR Table 4.10-2, Specific Plan Consistency
Analysis, provides an analysis of the Project with respect to the relevant goals and policies of the
MSFCSP. As shown, the Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the MSFCSP and
would not result in significant land use and planning conflicts in the context of compliance with
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 96

Page 68

Page 97 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
applicable environmental plans, policies, and regulations beyond those identified in other sections
of this EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-25)
There are no other land use plans, land use policies, or land use regulations applicable to the
Project site. Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect; thus, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-28)

4. Connect SoCal
SCAG’s 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS),
referred to as “Connect SoCal” seeks to improve mobility, promote sustainability, facilitate
economic development, and preserve the quality of life for the residents in the region. The longrange visioning plan balances future mobility and housing needs with goals for the environment,
the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice, and public health. Many of the
goals included in Connect SoCal are directed and programmatic regional planning efforts are not
pertinent to the proposed Project. Regardless, provided below is analyses of the Project’s
relationship with pertinent Connect SoCal regional planning policies. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-28)


Mobility: The Project entails an industrial and commercial development along the I15 corridor and the placement of these land use types along the freeway corridor
reduces travel distance between economic centers and regional travel routes.
Mitigation Measure TRANSP MM-1 requires the Project to prepare and implement a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The Project would be
responsible for fair share costs towards the transportation improvements detailed in
Section 8.0 of the Traffic Analysis (Draft EIR Technical Appendix K2). The Project is
also subject to the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, thus contributing to
a safe, multimodal network. Additionally, the Project would include roadway
improvements along its frontages with existing and planned public roads to facilitate
Project development. The Project would expand facilities for goods movement in the
local area and would construct or contribute fees towards regional transportation
improvements.



Communities: The Project would provide employment-generating land uses (i.e.,
industrial and commercial uses) on land long-planned for this land use type by the City
of Hesperia General Plan, with close access to the Ranchero Road on- and off-ramps
at I-15. The Project would help the City of Hesperia better meet its jobs/housing
balance and provide economic opportunity along the I-15 corridor.



Environment: As discussed in EIR Subsection 4.5, Energy, the Project would be
designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy
efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency
standards. The roof of the industrial warehouse building would be solar-ready, and a
rooftop photovoltaic system(s) would be installed in compliance with the CALGreen
Code. The Project would also provide parking and EV infrastructure that would further

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 97

Page 69

Page 98 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
promote fuel-efficient vehicles. Compliance with applicable federal and State
regulations and requirements, including the provisions of the Title 24 Building Energy
Standards, would reduce the Project’s resource consumption and help promote
sustainable development.


Economy: The Project is an employment-generating industrial and commercial
development proposed on property that has been long-planned for these uses by the
City of Hesperia General Plan. The Project’s industrial warehouse design includes EV
readiness features such as chargers for passenger vehicles and an electrical room
and conduit located and sized to accommodate future EV truck technological
advancements (refer to the Mitigation Measures in EIR Subsection 4.2, Air Quality).
With proximate access to I-15 at the Ranchero Road on- and off-ramps, the Project is
sited in a location that is well-placed for movement of goods across the region. From
a regional transportation perspective, the Project site is located approximately 194 feet
west of I-15, which is a primary north–south transportation corridor connecting
Southern California to Las Vegas and beyond.

The Project would not conflict with applicable policies in the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS (Connect
SoCal), which was adopted in part for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. Impacts associated with Connect SoCal consistency would be less than significant. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.10-29)

3.10.3 Cumulative impacts
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to
land use and planning.



Findings

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to land use and planning are discussed in
detail in Section 4.10.5 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed
Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to land use and planning;
therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

This cumulative impact analysis for land use and planning considers development of the Project
site in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site as well as full
General Plan buildout in the City of Hesperia and other jurisdictions in the region. (Draft EIR, p.
4.10-29)
Divide an Established Community
As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a because the Project site is already physically
separated from neighboring developed properties under existing conditions, development of the
Project site as proposed would not physically divide any established community. Accordingly,
there is no potential for the Project to cause or contribute to the division of an established
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 98

Page 70

Page 99 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
community and Project impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1030)
Conflict with any Land Plan, Policy, or Regulation
The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect Other developments within the City similarly would be required to demonstrate compliance
with the General Plan, MSFCSP, and other land use plans, policies, or regulations. Thus,
significant direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts would be less than cumulatively
considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-29)

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for Mineral Resources Thresholds a and b do not result in significant impacts and
findings are discussed below.

3.11.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 5.4.2 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The entire Project site is classified as within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3a, which is defined
as an area containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance.
No active surface mining operations are occurring adjacent or near the site. Hesperia lies within
the San Bernardino Production-Consumption region, which is a California Department of
Conservation-designated Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ). According to the City’s General Plan,
mineral resources potentially containing concrete aggregate resources consistent with the
majority of the Barstow and Victorville areas have been identified in the City by the State Division
of Mines and Geology. These resources are not considered to be significant due to the vast
availability of similar deposits in the region. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-11)

3.11.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use
plan.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 99

Page 71

Page 100 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 5.4.2 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

3.12 NOISE
Project impacts for CEQA Noise Thresholds a (construction and on-site operational noise), b and
c do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.

3.12.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate substantial temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels for construction and on-site operational noise in the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a (construction and on-site operational noise)
are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of
the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a (construction
and on-site operational noise); therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The three components of the proposed Project that would generate noise are the construction
process, on-site operational activities, and off-site traffic, as evaluated below. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1119)

Construction Noise

The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual recognizes that construction
projects are accomplished in several different stages and outlines the procedures for assessing
noise impacts during construction. Each stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the
work to be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own
noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 100

Page 72

Page 101 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
have higher impact noise levels than others. Construction activities on the Project site would
proceed in five stages: 1) site preparation; 2) grading; followed by two phase of 3) building
construction, 4) paving; and 5) architectural coating. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-19)
As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.11-7, Error! Reference source not found., the construction noise
levels are expected to range from 49.7 to 58.1 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.11-19)

Construction Noise Analysis – Daytime

To evaluate whether the Project would generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at
the nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq
is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The
construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations would satisfy the reasonable
daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown in Draft
EIR Table 4.11-8, Construction Noise Compliance. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project
construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1119)

Construction Noise Analysis – Nighttime Pour Activities

Nighttime concrete pouring activities may occur as a part of Project’s building construction
activities. Nighttime concrete pouring activities are often used to support reduced concrete mixer
truck transit times and lower air temperatures than during the daytime hours and are generally
limited to the actual building pad areas. Since the nighttime concrete pours would take place
outside the hours permitted by Section 16.20.125[E][3] of the City’s Municipal Code, the Project
Applicant would be required to obtain authorization for nighttime work from the City of Hesperia.
Any nighttime construction noise activities shall satisfy the FTA residential 70 dBA L eq noise limit
outlined in Draft EIR Table 4.11-3. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-21)
To estimate the noise levels due to nighttime concrete pour activities, sample reference noise
level measurements were taken during a nighttime concrete pour at an unrelated construction
site. Urban Crossroads, Inc. collected short-term nighttime concrete pour reference noise level
measurements during the noise-sensitive nighttime hours between 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. at
27334 San Bernardino Avenue in the City of Redlands. The reference noise levels describe the
expected concrete pour noise sources that may include concrete mixer truck movements and
pouring activities, concrete paving equipment, rear mounted concrete mixer truck backup alarms,
engine idling, air brakes, generators, and workers communicating/whistling. To describe the
nighttime concrete pour noise levels associated with the construction of the Project, the analysis
relies on reference sound pressure level of 67.7 dBA Leq at 50 feet represented by a sound power
level (Lw) of 100.3 dBA Lw. While the Project noise levels would depend on the actual duration of
activities and specific equipment fleet in use at the time of construction, the reference sound
power level of 100.3 dBA Lw is used to describe the expected Project nighttime concrete pour
noise activities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-21)
As shown on Draft EIR Table 4.11-9, Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Compliance, the noise levels
associated with the nighttime concrete pour activities are estimated to range from 34.4 to 42.8
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 101

Page 73

Page 102 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
dBA Leq and would satisfy the FTA nighttime exterior noise level thresholds at all the receiver
locations. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction nighttime concrete pour noise
activity are considered less than significant at all receiver locations with prior authorization for
nighttime work from the City of Hesperia. Appendix 10.2 of Draft EIR Technical Appendix J
includes the CadnaA nighttime concrete pour noise model inputs. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-21)

On-Site Operational Noise

The operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the
expected typical daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. To present the potential worstcase noise conditions, the analysis assumes the Project would be operational 24 hours per day,
seven days per week. Consistent with similar warehouse and industrial uses, the Project’s
warehouse business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed building, except
for traffic movement, parking, as well as loading and unloading of trucks at designated loading
bays. On the commercial retail pad, various limited outdoor activities are expected to occur such
as vehicle fueling at the gas station and customers arriving and departing. As shown on Draft EIR
Figure 4.11-3, Operational Noise Source Locations, the on-site Project-related noise sources are
expected to include: loading dock activity, tractor trailer storage activity, truck movements, activity
at a potential pool associated with the hotel, trash enclosure activity, roof-top air conditioning
units, parking lot vehicle movements and gas station activity. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-22)

Operational Noise Impact Analysis – Stationary Noise

Using reference noise levels to represent the Project operations that include loading dock activity,
tractor trailer storage activity, truck movements, pool activity, trash enclosure activity, roof-top air
conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements and gas station activity, operational source
noise levels were calculated that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Projectrelated noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations.
Draft EIR Table 4.11-10, Operational Noise Level Compliance, shows the Project operational
noise levels during the daytime hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m, and nighttime hours. The
daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 41.0 to
51.5 dBA Leq and the nighttime noise levels are expected to range from 40.8 to 51.5 Leq.
Operational noise levels would be below the daytime (60 Leq) and nighttime (55 Leq) thresholds
and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-22)

Operational Noise Level Increases

To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are
combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations
that may be potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. The difference between
the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the
existing ambient noise environment. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations
when Project-source noise is added to the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions are
presented on Draft EIR Table 4.11-11, Daytime Project Operational Noise Increases, and Draft
EIR Table 4.11-12, Nighttime Operational Noise Increases. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-23)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 102

Page 74

Page 103 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Draft EIR Table 4.11-11 shows that the Project would generate daytime operational noise
increases ranging from 0.0 to 1.5 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Draft EIR Table 4.1112 shows that the Project would generate nighttime operational noise increases ranging from 0.1
to 4.5 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases
would not exceed the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Draft EIR
Table 4.11-3. Therefore, Project related operational noise level increases at the sensitive receiver
locations would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-24)

Off-Site Traffic Noise Analysis

The analysis below addresses potential off-site traffic noise generated from the Project. To
evaluate off-site noise increases that could result from Project-related traffic on the roadway
system, noise levels were modeled for the following scenarios, with full analytical results found in
Draft EIR Technical Appendix J (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-24)









Existing without Project
Existing with Project (Buildout)
Opening Day 2028 without Project
Opening Day 2028 with Project (Phase 1)
Opening Day 2029 without Project
Opening Day 2029 with Project (Buildout)
Future 2050 without Project
Future 2050 with Project (Buildout)

Existing with Project (Buildout) Conditions

An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project is
included to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Project’s traffic study.
This condition is provided solely for informational purposes and would not occur, since the Project
would not be fully developed and occupied under existing conditions. Draft EIR Table 4.11-13,
Existing With Project Traffic Noise Increases, shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level
impacts would range from 0.0 to 3.6 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site
traffic noise presented in Draft EIR Table 4.11-3, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway
segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to Project-related traffic
noise levels under the Existing with Project condition. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-25)

Opening Day 2028 with Project (Phase 1) Conditions

Draft EIR Table 4.11-14, 2028 With Project Traffic Noise Increases, shows that the Project offsite traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 2.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance
criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Draft EIR Table 4.11-3, land uses adjacent to the
study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to
Project-related traffic noise levels under the 2028 with Project condition. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-25
through 4.11-26)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 103

Page 75

Page 104 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
3.

Opening Day 2029 with Project (Buildout) Conditions

Draft EIR Table 4.11-15, 2029 With Project Traffic Noise Increases, shows that the Project offsite traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 2.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance
criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Draft EIR Table 4.11-3, land uses adjacent to the
study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to
Project-related traffic noise levels under the 2029 with Project condition. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-26)

Future 2050 with Project (Buildout) Conditions

Draft EIR Table 4.11-16, 2050 With Project Traffic Noise Increases, shows that the Project offsite traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 1.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance
criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Draft EIR Table 4.11-3, land uses adjacent to the
study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to
unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels under the 2050 with Project conditions. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.11-27)

3.12.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the
equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground
vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. (Draft EIR, p.
4.11-28)
Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided in Draft EIR Table 4.11-5 and
the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA, it is possible to
estimate the Project vibration impacts. Draft EIR Table 4.11-17, Project Construction Vibration
Levels, presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations. At
distances ranging from 215 to 1,754 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration
velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.000 to 0.008 PPV in/sec. Based on maximum
acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction
vibration levels would fall below the building damage thresholds at all the receiver locations.
Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts would be less than significant during typical
construction activities at the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-28)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 104

Page 76

Page 105 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
3.12.3 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area
to excessive noise levels due to airport noise.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.11.6 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Hesperia Airport is located approximately 5.9 miles to the east of the Project site. The Project
site is not within an airport land use plan; the Project site does not occur within the Airport Safety
Zone (AS), the Airport Approach and Transitional Zone (AAT), or the Airport Notice Area (AN) of
the Hesperia Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan; therefore, the Hesperia Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan is not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.11-29)

3.12.4 Cumulative impacts
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to
noise (construction-related or on-site operational noise).



Findings

Potential cumulative noise impacts of the Project related to construction and on-site operation are
discussed in detail in Section 4.11.7 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the
proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to noise; therefore, no
mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The cumulative study area for the issue of noise includes the Project site vicinity as well as areas
adjacent to roadways evaluated by the Project’s Traffic Analysis prepared for the Project (Draft
EIR Technical Appendix K2). (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-29)

Construction Noise

The analysis under Threshold a, indicates that the proposed Project would not generate
substantial amounts of construction-related noise that could adversely affect nearby sensitive
receptors. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project and other construction
projects in the area may overlap, resulting in cumulative periodic noise increases in the local area.
However, construction noise impacts primarily affect the areas immediately adjacent to a
construction site. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-29 through 4.11-30)
Although there are other projects in the area that may be under construction at the same time as
the proposed Project, short-term noise resulting from simultaneous construction on the Project
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 105

Page 77

Page 106 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
site and other sites would not be cumulatively considerable in consideration of the less than
significant noise levels generated from Project-related construction activities. It is not reasonably
foreseeable that combined cumulative construction noise levels of multiple concurrent projects
would exceed the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold at the nearby receiver
locations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-30)
In addition, HMC Section 16.20.125 establishes the noise level standards for stationary noise
sources and establishes noise level limits for affected land uses. For noise sensitive residential
properties, the maximum exterior noise level shall not exceed 60 dBA Leq during the daytime hours
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
Because construction activities are typically limited to weekdays, during daylight hours, the direct
and cumulative construction noise impacts are considered a nuisance or annoying, rather than a
significant impact upon surrounding land uses. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-30)

Stationary Noise

The analysis presented for Threshold a addresses the Project’s contribution of noise to existing
cumulative noise sources (i.e., ambient noise) in the Project area. As previously shown in Draft
EIR Table 4.11-10, the Project’s noise contribution would not be perceptible to noise-sensitive
receptors in the Project area during daytime or nighttime hours. Therefore, the Project’s
permanent stationary noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1130)

Traffic Noise

The analysis presented under Threshold a evaluates the Project’s traffic noise contribution along
study area roadways with consideration of Opening Day 2028 (Phase 1), Opening Day 2029
(Buildout), and Future 2050 (Buildout) cumulative development. As summarized in Draft EIR
Table 4.11-13 through Draft EIR Table 4.11-16, the Project’s traffic noise contributions along
study area roadways would not exceed applicable significance thresholds and, therefore, would
not be cumulatively considerable under near- or long-term conditions. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-30)

Groundborne Vibration and Noise

During construction, the Project’s peak vibration impacts would occur during the grading phase
when large pieces of equipment, like bulldozers, are operating on-site. (During the non-grading
phases of Project construction, when smaller pieces of equipment are used on-site, vibration from
the Project would be minimal.) Typical Project construction vibration levels would fall below the
building damage thresholds at all of the noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Projectrelated vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities
at the Project site. As such, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are
unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but would occur rather only during
the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter.
Although there are other projects in the area that may be under construction at the same time as
the proposed Project, short-term vibration resulting from simultaneous construction on the Project
site and other sites would not be cumulatively considerable in consideration of the less than
significant vibration levels generated from Project-related construction activities. It is not
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 106

Page 78

Page 107 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
reasonably foreseeable that combined cumulative vibration levels of multiple concurrent projects
would exceed the vibration significance threshold at the nearby receiver locations. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.11-30 through 4.11-31)

Airport Noise

The Project would not involve the construction, operation, or use of any public airports or public
use airports. There are no conditions associated with implementation of the Project that would
contribute airport noise or exposure of additional people to unacceptable levels of airport noise.
Accordingly, the Project would have no potential to cumulatively contribute to impacts associated
with noise from a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip, or to expose persons residing
or working in the Project area to excessive airport-related noise levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-31)

3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Project impacts for Populations and Housing Thresholds a and b do not result in significant
impacts and findings are discussed below.

3.13.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 5.4.3 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

As disclosed in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, using the employment density factors
identified in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Employment Density
Study, which identifies a rate of one (1) employee per 1,195 s.f. of building area for industrial
warehouse uses, the proposed industrial warehouse is estimated to create jobs for approximately
889 employees (1,061,780 s.f. ÷ 1,195 s.f./employee = 888.5 employees). Using an employee
density factor of 0.53 employees per hotel room, the 84-room hotel is expected to create jobs for
45 employees (0.53 x 84 = 44.5). Also, using derived rates for retail and gas station uses, 143
employees are expected to be employed by the multi-tenant, fast food, and gas station uses.
Thus, in total, 1,077 persons are expected to be employed at the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 5-11)
The Project would result in the construction of an industrial warehouse building and a retail area
that would generate employment opportunities in the area. It is anticipated that the employment
base for both the construction and operational phases of the Project would come from the existing
population in the City of Hesperia and surrounding area. According to the California Employment
Development Department, the City of Hesperia’s civilian labor force contains approximately
42,800 persons with approximately 39,600 people employed and an unemployment rate of
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 107

Page 79

Page 108 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
approximately 7.7 percent (approximately 3,300 persons). Furthermore, approximately 28.7
percent of Hesperia residents commute outside of the City for work. Accordingly, the Project
region already contains an ample supply of potential employees under existing conditions, and
the labor demand of the Project – estimated to be 1,077 employees - is not expected to draw
substantial numbers of new residents to the area. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-11 through 5-12)
There are no components of the Project that would reasonably result in indirect or unplanned
population growth because the land use of the surrounding area is planned for industrial or
commercial uses by the City’s General Plan. Accordingly, no significant indirect impacts
associated with population growth would result from any Project-related improvements because
the Project and its required improvements would not induce substantial growth on surrounding
properties. (Draft EIR, p. 5-12)
Based on the foregoing analysis, neither the Project nor any Project-related component would
result in substantial, direct, or indirect population growth that would cause a significant direct or
indirect impact to the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. 5-12)

3.13.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 5.4.3 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped; therefore, implementation of the Project
would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing and
would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact
would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-12)

3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Project impacts for Public Services Threshold a does not result in significant impacts and findings
are discussed below.

3.14.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 108

Page 80

Page 109 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection; Police Protection; Schools;
Parks; or Other Public Facilities.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 4.12.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence

Fire Protection Services

The SBCFPD provides fire protection, first response emergency, and medical services within the
City. Although fire protection services are available to the Project site under existing conditions,
the Project site is vacant and undeveloped. Therefore, implementation of the Project would place
an additional demand on existing SBCFPD resources to service the site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-6)
The Project would be required by the City to conform to all mandatory local, State, and federal
laws, ordinances, and standards relating to fire safety. The industrial warehouse building would
be equipped with an Early Suppression, Fast Response (ESFR) fire sprinkler system. ESFR
systems incorporate high volume, high-pressure sprinkler heads to provide necessary fire
protection. While most other sprinkler systems are intended to control the growth of a fire, an
ESFR sprinkler system is designed to suppress a fire. To suppress a fire does not necessarily
mean that the system will extinguish the fire but rather it is meant to “knock” the fire back down to
its point of origin. ESFR systems provide buildings with a high margin of fire safety and also allow
more time for emergency responders to reach a fire incident before a fire spreads from its point
of origin. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-6)
HMC Section 15.04.030 requires automatic fire sprinklers to be installed in retail buildings and
hotels with 5,000 or more square feet of floor area and two or more stories in height. In addition,
access routes to the Project site are required to be maintained throughout construction and
buildout of the Project. As required by the HMC and the Fire Code, the Project site is designed to
accommodate fire truck access by providing fire lanes. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-6)
Development of the Project would place additional demand on existing SBCFPD resources and
personnel by adding combustible materials to the site as part of Project implementation. The
Project could result in an increased number of emergency and public service calls due to the
presence of new structures, and associated traffic, employees, and visitors. However, demand
on services is not considered an impact under CEQA unless such demand causes physical
changes in the environment, such as the need to construct a new or physically altered fire station.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-6 through 4.12-7)
The Project is required to adhere to HMC Chapter 16.12.076, which requires development
applicants to pay public facility fees to address service demands of new development on the City’s
existing fire protection facilities. Payment of the required Public Facility Development Impact Fee
would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public
services, including fire protection services, which may be applied to fire facilities and/or equipment
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 109

Page 81

Page 110 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
to offset the incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services that would be created
by the Project. Any new or physically altered facilities that could possibly be implemented using
this funding is speculative and beyond the scope of analysis required to be conducted in this EIR
for the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7)
Although implementation of the Project would place demand on fire protection services, it would
not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Because
implementation of the Project would not result in environmental impacts associated with fire
protection facilities, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7)

Police Protection Services

SBCSD provides police protection services within the Project area. Implementation of the Project
and the introduction of structures to the Project site could result in an incremental increase in
demands on service to address potential criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, vandalism,
etc. However, police protection services are not “facility-driven,” meaning that the provision of
such services are not heavily reliant on facilities in order to effectively patrol a beat. An expansion
of, or intensification of development within a patrol beat does not necessarily result in the need
for additional facilities if police officers and patrol vehicles are equipped with adequate
telecommunications equipment in order to communicate with police headquarters. Thus, the
Project would not directly result in the need for any new or expanded facilities for police protection
services. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7)
Although the Project would not directly result in the need for new or expanded police protection
facilities, the Project would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection
services. The Project is required to adhere to HMC Chapter 16.12.076, which requires
development applicants to pay Development Impact Fees to address the impacts of new
development on the City’s existing services and facilities, including police protection. Payment of
the required fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of
additional police protection services, which may be applied to police facilities and/or equipment
to offset the incremental increase in the demand for police protection services that would be
created by the Project. Any new or physically altered facilities that could possibly be implemented
using this funding is speculative and beyond the scope of analysis required to be conducted in
this EIR for the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-7 through 4.12-8)
Although implementation of the Project would place demand on police protection services, it
would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Because
implementation of the Project would not result in environmental impacts associated with police
protection facilities, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8)

School Services

The Project does not propose any type of residential use or other land use that may directly
generate a school-aged population. Because no residential uses are proposed as part of the
Project, the Project would not result in a direct demand for new or expanded school services in
the local area; thus, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 110

Page 82

Page 111 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Notwithstanding, it is a reasonable assumption that the Project’s building users would employ
residents living in the area, which could potentially place additional demand on public educational
services and school facilities if households with school-aged children choose to reside in the
school district due to the availability of these jobs. Although the SJUSD may need to construct
new school facilities to meet growing public education demands within its attendance boundaries,
the Project would not directly or measurably cause or contribute to the need for new or expanded
school facilities. Although the Project would not result in a direct increase in the demand for school
services, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute fees to the SJUSD pursuant to the
Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998. Pursuant to the Act and Government Code Section
65995, payment of school impact fees constitutes full and complete mitigation for any Projectrelated indirect effects to school services. Accordingly, no physical environmental impacts
associated with school services would occur as a result of implementation of the Project. Any new
or physically altered school facilities that could possibly be implemented using this funding is
speculative and beyond the scope of analysis required to be conducted in this EIR for the
proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8)
Although implementation of the Project may place an indirect demand on school services, it would
not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities. Because implementation of
the Project would not result in environmental impacts associated with school facilities, no impact
would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9)

Parks

The Project does not propose any residential uses or other land use that may directly or indirectly
generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that they would experience physical change or cause the need
to construct or physically alter a park or other recreation facility. The Project’s workforce may
utilize park facilities during their lunch hour or workday breaks, however, not to any reasonable
extent that would cause physical deterioration. The Project, as well as other development projects
in the City, would be required to pay Development Impact fees that the City uses to improve public
facilities, including parks; thus, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9)

Other Public Facilities

The Project would not directly or indirectly substantially increase the residential population in the
City and therefore is not expected to result in a demand for other public facilities/services,
including libraries, community recreation centers, post offices, public medical facilities, and animal
shelters. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect other public
facilities or require the construction of new or modified public facilities and no impact would occur.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9)
The Project is required to adhere to HMC Chapter 16.12.076, which requires development
applicants to pay Development Impact Fees to address usage demands from new development
on the City’s existing facilities. Payment of the required development impact fees would ensure
that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of other public facilities. Accordingly,
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 111

Page 83

Page 112 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
no physical environmental impacts associated with the other public facilities would occur from
Project implementation. Any new or physically altered public facilities that could possibly be
implemented using development impact fee funding is speculative and beyond the scope of
analysis required to be conducted in this EIR for the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9)

3.14.2 Cumulative impacts
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to
public services (Fire Protection; Police Protection; Schools; Parks; or Other Public Facilities).



Findings

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant
cumulative impacts related to public services; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The cumulative impact analysis considers construction and operation of the proposed Project in
conjunction with other development projects in the service areas for SBCFPD, SBCSD, SJUSD,
and HUSD for fire protection, police protection, and school services, as land uses outside the
service area for these agencies would have no potential to contribute to Project-related
cumulatively considerable impacts. The cumulative study area for park facilities is a radius of two
miles from the Project site, which is a reasonable distance to travel for park use from origin to
destination. The cumulative study area for library services is the buildout of the City of Hesperia,
as the Hesperia Branch Library is intended to serve residents within the City of Hesperia. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.12-10)
Fire Protection Services
Although new fire protection facilities ultimately may be needed in the SBCFPD service area to
serve full buildout of the City of Hesperia, the proposed Project in and of itself would not trigger
the need for a new fire station or physical alterations to existing fire stations. Additionally, the
Project would result in an incremental increase in requests for service, which would affect the
ability of the Fire Department to provide acceptable levels of service. These effects include an
increased number of emergency and public service calls due to the development of an industrial
and retail uses, increased traffic volumes, and an incremental increase in the local workforce.
However, the proposed Project and all cumulative developments within the City of Hesperia or
surrounding areas would be required to contribute Development Impact Fees to address the
impacts of each development on the City’s existing fire protection facilities. Mandatory fee
contributions by the Project Applicant and cumulative developments would ensure that adequate
funding is provided to the SBCFPD for the acquisition of additional facilities, equipment, and
personnel, as needed. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-10)
It is not possible to identify environmental impacts that may be associated with the development
of any new or physically altered fire protection facilities until a specific proposal and design for the
facility is prepared by the SBCFPD. Accordingly, cumulative impacts due to the construction of
new or expanded fire protection facilities are too speculative for evaluation in this EIR (CEQA
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 112

Page 84

Page 113 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Guidelines § 15145). Environmental effects of such fire protection facilities and any associated
mitigation would be identified through a future CEQA process required in association with any
future proposals for new or expanded fire protection facilities put forth by the SBCFPD.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-10)
Police Protection Services
Although the Project site would be adequately served by police facilities, the additional demand
for services generated by the Project, when considered in conjunction with other on-going
development throughout the City of Hesperia, has the potential to adversely affect service
response times. However, the proposed Project and all cumulative developments within the City
of Hesperia or surrounding areas would be required to contribute Development Impact Fees to
address the impacts of each development on the City’s existing police protection facilities.
Mandatory fee contributions by the Project Applicant and cumulative developments would ensure
that adequate funding is provided to the SBCSD for the acquisition of additional sheriff protection
facilities, equipment, and personnel, as needed. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-10 through 4.12-11)
It is not possible to identify environmental impacts that may be associated with the development
of any new or physically altered police station facilities until a specific proposal and design for the
facility is prepared by the SBCSD. Accordingly, cumulative impacts due to the construction of new
or expanded sheriff’s stations are too speculative for evaluation in this EIR (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15145). Environmental effects of such police protection facilities and any associated
mitigation would be identified through a future CEQA process required in association with any
future proposals for new or expanded police protection facilities put forth by the SBCSD.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-11)
School Services
The proposed Project does not propose land uses that involve residential development; therefore,
the Project would not result in a direct demand for school services or new or expanded school
facilities. Although the Project may indirectly result in an increase in school-aged children within
the SJUSD, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute fees as required by SB 50.
Other cumulative developments, including both residential and non-residential developments,
would similarly be required to contribute fees pursuant to SB 50. Pursuant to SB 50, payment of
school impact fees constitutes full and complete mitigation for Project-related impacts to school
services. As such, and with mandatory fee payment, the Project’s impacts to school services and
facilities would be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-11)
Parks
The Project does not propose any residential uses or other land use that may directly or indirectly
generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that they would experience physical change or cause the need
to construct or physically alter a park or other recreation facility. The Project’s workforce may
utilize park facilities during their lunch hour or workday breaks, however, the Project as well as
other development projects in the area, would be required to pay Development Impact fees; thus,
impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-11)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 113

Page 85

Page 114 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
The proposed Project and all cumulative developments within the City of Hesperia or surrounding
areas would be required to contribute Development Impact Fees to address the impacts of each
development on the City’s parks. Mandatory fee contributions by the Project Applicant and
cumulative developments would ensure that adequate funding is provided. In addition, the Project
and all cumulative developments in the City would contribute property taxes. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1211)
Other Public Facilities
The Project would not directly substantially increase the residential population in the City and
therefore is not expected to result in a demand for other public facilities/services. The proposed
Project and all cumulative developments within the City of Hesperia or surrounding areas would
be required to contribute Development Impact Fees to address the impacts of each development
on the City’s existing public facilities. Mandatory fee contributions by the Project Applicant and
cumulative developments would ensure that adequate funding is provided. In addition, the Project
and all cumulative developments in the City would contribute property taxes. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1212)
Accordingly, cumulative impacts due to the construction of new or expanded other public facilities
are too speculative for evaluation in this EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15145). Environmental effects
of such facilities and any associated mitigation would be identified through a future CEQA process
required in association with any future proposals for new or expanded facilities. Accordingly,
impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-12)

3.15 RECREATION
Project impacts for Recreation Thresholds a and b do not result in significant impacts and findings
are discussed below.

3.15.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 5.4.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Project does not involve any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a
population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the increased

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 114

Page 86

Page 115 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park; therefore,
no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-12)

3.15.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 5.4.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Project does not involve the construction of any new on- or off-site recreation facilities and
the Project would not expand any existing off-site recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts
related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would occur with implementation
of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-12)

3.16 TRANSPORTATION
Project impacts for CEQA Transportation Thresholds a, c, and d do not result in significant impacts
and findings are discussed below.

3.16.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The analysis below addresses the Project’s potential to result in a conflict with plans, programs,
ordinances, or policies that address the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle,
and pedestrian facilities. A project that generally conforms with, and does not obstruct, applicable
plans, programs, ordinances, and policies, is considered to be consistent. The transportation
plans, policies, programs, ordinances, and standards that are relevant to the Project are identified
in the analysis below. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-16)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 115

Page 87

Page 116 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
A.

General Plan Circulation Element and MSFCSP

As discussed in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project includes roadways
improvements at Caliente Road, Ranchero Road, and Farmington Street. These proposed
improvements are consistent with the General Plan’s 2025 Circulation Element Goals CI-1 and
CI-2, which are focused on developing a roadway network that provides for the safe and efficient
mobility needs of residents, businesses, visitors, and emergency services and providing a
circulation system that facilitates the movement of goods and services while minimizing impacts
to sensitive land uses, such as homes, schools, and hospitals, and vulnerable roadway users,
such as pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, the Circulation Element indicates that the City’s
desired Level of Service (LOS) is LOS D or better. As indicated in the Project’s Traffic Analysis
(Draft EIR Technical Appendix K2), although the Project would contribute to projected LOS
deficiencies and the need for intersection signalization, the Project would be conditioned to
construct improvements, pay fees pursuant to the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program,
Measure I, and pay fair-share contributions towards improvements not included in any existing
fee programs. Construction of public streets to City standards is required and would ensure that
the roadway surfaces are built to accommodate the weights and tire friction of all vehicles,
including trucks, that are permitted to operate on the public roadway system. The improvements
to be constructed as part of the Project, as part of the City’s fee programs, or as the result of
Project fair-share contributions would ensure that the Project is fully consistent with the General
Plan Circulation Element policies related to streets and roadways. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-16 through
4.13-17)
The Project also proposes to provide a total of 657 parking spaces, approximately 28 percent
more than the minimum required parking. These improvements would be consistent with the
MSFCSP’s Goal P-1, which requires the City to provide adequate, efficient parking while avoiding
an oversupply of parking. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-17)
Pertaining to truck routing, Project-related trucks would use I-15 and Ranchero Road. I-15 is a
designated truck route. Based on the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, the portion of
Ranchero Road to the west of the I-15 is classified as a Major Arterial satisfying the logistics
facilities citing requirement in Gov. Code § 65098.1(b)(4) pursuant to SB 415 (2025). Provided
that the industrial warehouse operator’s truck routing plan demonstrates how trucks will get from
the Project to a designated truck route, Gov. Code § 65098.4 is satisfied. Ranchero Road is the
most direct route for Project trucks to access the nearest truck route (I-15 Freeway). (Draft EIR,
p. 4.13-17)

Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities

As discussed above in Section Error! Reference source not found., there are no existing bus
routes that could serve the Project and the nearest bus route is Route 48 which runs on the east
side of the I-15 Freeway and north of Joshua Street. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-17)
As shown in Draft EIR Figure 4.13-4, the General Plan shows that there is an existing Class II
bike path along Mariposa Road and a Class I bike path along Ranchero Road east of the I-15
Freeway. Regarding pedestrian facilities, there are limited facilities within the vicinity of the Project
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 116

Page 88

Page 117 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
site. Sidewalks are located along Ranchero Road between the intersection at Ranchero
Road/Mariposa Road and Ranchero Road/I-15 ramp. In accordance with CALGreen, secure
bicycle parking would be provided interior to the Project site to encourage biking as a form of
transportation. In addition, the Project’s improvements to Caliente Road, Ranchero Road, and
Farmington Street would include the construction of curb-adjacent sidewalks abutting the Project
site boundaries. The Project would not impact the City’s ability to build out the planned bicycle
route and sidewalk system and would implement improvements as described above. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.13-17 through 4.13-18)
The Project’s provision of bicycle parking and sidewalk improvements are consistent with the
MSFCSP’s Goal C-2, which encourages the City to explore and provide the highest level of
access for all modes of transportation and maintains efficient circulation in the MSFCSP area
throughout the day, and Policies C-2.8 and C-2.9, which specifically call for the facilitation of
bicycle use and circulation within the MSFCSP area and the promotion of a safe and attractive
pedestrian environment to encourage pedestrian traffic within and across the districts. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.13-18)
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any plans or policies regarding existing or proposed
bicycle or pedestrian facilities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-18)

Connect SoCal

SCAG’s 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS),
referred to as “Connect SoCal” seeks to improve mobility, promote sustainability, facilitate
economic development, and preserve the quality of life for the residents in the region. The longrange visioning plan balances future mobility and housing needs with goals for the environment,
the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice, and public health. The goals
included in Connect SoCal are pertinent to the proposed Project. These goals are meant to
provide guidance for considering the proposed Project within the context of regional goals and
policies. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-18)
Consistency with the Connect SoCal goals identified in Draft EIR Table 4.13-8, Analysis of
Consistency with Connect SoCal Goals, demonstrates that the Project would not conflict with
applicable policies in the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect. Draft EIR Table 4.13-8 shows how the Project promotes consistency with
the guiding principles and policies of the RTP/SCS. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-18)

San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan

The intent of the San Bernardino County CMP is to provide the analytical basis for transportation
decisions. The Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and elements of the San
Bernardino County CMP shown in section Error! Reference source not found. above. The
Project would not impede the ability to maintain or enhance the performance of the multimodal
transportation system. The Project would include roadway improvements to serve internal
circulation needs. None of the proposed roadway improvements would interfere with the existing
or potential future improvements to the County’s multimodal transportation system. The Project
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 117

Page 89

Page 118 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
would participate in the City’s Development Impact Fee program, which is coordinated with
regional planning efforts in Victor Valley to meet regional transportation needs and to provide for
adequate funding of mitigation for impacts of new development, consistent with the CMP. The
CMP System LOS Element and Performance Measures Element also contain LOS standards for
CMP designated highways and roadways. However, there are no designated CMP roadways in
the Project study area; therefore, the Project would have no impact on these roadways.
Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with the San Bernardino County CMP. (Draft EIR, p.
4.13-20)

Summary

Based on the analysis provided above, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, or
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is
required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-20)

3.16.2 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment).



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Project site is located west of Caliente Road and north of Farmington Street, approximately
194 feet west of the I-15 Freeway. The Project entails the proposed development of a 1,061,780
s.f. industrial warehouse building and a 5.5-acre retail development pad reasonably assumed to
be developed with an 84-room hotel, 11,700 s.f. of in-line multi-tenant retail and food and
beverage uses, a 16-pump vehicle fueling station associated with a 3,000 s.f. convenience store,
and 3,000 s.f. fast food restaurant use with or without a drive-through lane, and associated site
improvements. The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars
and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along I-15 and adjacent local
roadways under existing conditions. All proposed improvements associated with the Project within
the Ranchero Road, Caliente Road, and Farmington Street public rights-of-way would be installed
in conformance with City design standards. Project construction activities that would occur in the
public rights-of-way would adhere to the applicable construction control practices that are
specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction Manual and the
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to preclude potential safety hazards. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.13-23)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 118

Page 90

Page 119 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Access to the industrial warehouse building site would be accommodated by three driveways: two
driveways connecting with Farmington Street and one driveway connecting with Ranchero Road.
The eastern driveway on Farmington Street would accommodate access for passenger vehicles
only. The other two driveways would accommodate access for both passenger vehicles and
trucks. Access to the retail pad would be provided by the eastern driveway connecting with
Ranchero Road and one driveway connecting with Caliente Road. Driveway access points to the
buildings have been designed pursuant to City standards and would not introduce any design
hazards. As such, the proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature or incompatible uses. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-23 through 4.13-24)
A review of the study area street facilities indicate that the existing configuration of the street
facilities meet CA MUTCD and High Design Manual standards. As such, impacts would be less
than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-24)

3.16.3 Threshold D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 4.13.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

During construction of the proposed Project, Project construction contractors would be required
to maintain adequate emergency access routes on site. As part of the discretionary review
process, the City reviewed the Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate
emergency ingress and egress would be available to and from the Project site and that circulation
on the Project site would be adequate for emergency vehicles. As discussed previously in Section
3.0, Project Description, within the site, a 30-foot-wide fire lane would be provided around the
perimeter of the building that would provide access and circulation for fire apparatus. Accordingly,
the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-24)

3.16.4 Cumulative Impacts
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to
transportation (conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system; increase hazards; or inadequate emergency access).



Findings

Potential cumulative transportation impacts of the Project related to conflicts with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system; increase in hazards; and inadequate
emergency access are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.6 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 119

Page 91

Page 120 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related
to these topics; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction
with other development projects and planned development in the City of Hesperia and County of
San Bernardino for the Oak Hills area south of the City limits. The nearest of the development
projects to the Project site is the proposed commercial developments to the east of the Project
site located at the southeast corner of Caliente Road and Ranchero Road and the north side of
Mariposa Road adjacent to the I-15 Freeway. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-24)
Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Addressing the Circulation System
As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a, the Project would be consistent with the City’s
General Plan, the MSFCSP and the City’s Municipal Code. Because other cumulative
developments would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and ordinances, or the
general plan and ordinances of surrounding jurisdictions, the Project would result in less than
significant impacts on a cumulatively-considerable basis due to a conflict with a program, plan, or
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-24)
Conflict or be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)
The Project’s cumulative effect on VMT was calculated using the boundary method. Land use
information representing the proposed land use changes contemplated by the Project were coded
into the Project TAZ to represent the “With Project” condition. Draft EIR Table 4.13-13, Cumulative
Boundary VMT, summarizes the boundary VMT under the No Project and With Project scenarios
for both baseline and cumulative conditions and any increase to VMT per service population
would be considered to have a significant cumulative VMT impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-24 through
4.13-25)
Boundary VMT increases under the With Project scenario for both baseline and cumulative
conditions when evaluated at the Countywide boundary. This is expected since the model
assumes additional development and associated vehicle travel. To assess the efficiency of the
land use plan or project, boundary VMT is divided by the service population, resulting in a VMT
per service population metric. Using that efficiency metric, VMT per service population does not
change in the With Project scenario under either baseline or cumulative conditions. As such, the
cumulative With Project VMT per service population is below the City’s cumulative significance
threshold. (UXR, 2025f, p. 10) Therefore, cumulative VMT impacts would be less than significant.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.13-25)
Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
All public roadway improvements proposed as part of the Project would be constructed to City
standards. Other cumulative developments within the cumulative study area likewise would be
required to demonstrate that there would be no geometric design feature hazards or impacts due
to incompatible risks. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-25)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 120

Page 92

Page 121 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Emergency Access
During Project construction and operations, the Project Applicant would be required to maintain
adequate access for emergency vehicles, as required by the City’s Municipal Code. Other
cumulative developments similarly would be required to maintain adequate emergency access.
Accordingly, cumulative impacts due to inadequate emergency access would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-25)

3.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.17.1 Cumulative Impact
Impact Statement: The Project does not have the potential to result in cumulative impacts to
tribal cultural resources.



Finding

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to tribal cultural resources are discussed in
detail in Section 4.14.5 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed
Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to tribal cultural resources;
therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a, the Project would not result in a significant impact
to any known TCR. Although unlikely, there is a remote possibility that TCRs could be
encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities, which would result in a site-specific
potentially significant impact to TCRs. This potentially significant impact will be addressed by
Mitigation Measures TCR MM-1 through TCR MM-5, which require that a qualified archaeological
monitor is retained to monitor the Project site during earthmoving activities and implement
mitigation to the satisfaction of the City in the event that any significant historic or archaeological
or tribal cultural resources are unearthed during excavation and grading activities. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures TCR MM-1 through TCR MM-5 would ensure the proper identification and
subsequent treatment of any significant historical or archaeological or tribal cultural resources
that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction.
With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural
resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-10 through 4.14-11)
Other development projects throughout the City that require excavation of undisturbed soils may
result in similar site-specific impacts to TCRs, which would also require mitigation in order to
reduce their respective impact(s) to a less than significant level. However, the proposed Project
does not include any components that would affect potentially significant off-site TCRs or would
otherwise result in an increase in the likeliness that such resource would be encountered when
combined with the impacts of other cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts to TCRs
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-11)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 121

Page 93

Page 122 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Project impacts for Utilities and Service Systems Thresholds a through e do not result in significant
impacts and findings are discussed below.

3.18.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 4.15.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Water service to the Project would be provided by CSA 70J. Water service for the proposed
warehouse building would be provided by a new point of connection (POC) at the northeastern
corner of the warehouse building to an existing 12-inch-diameter water line located within the
Caliente Road ROW. A fire service water line would extend from a proposed 12-inch water line
connecting to the existing 12-inch water line, both within the Caliente Road ROW, and would be
installed in a loop around the proposed warehouse building. Fire hydrants would be installed on
all four sides of the warehouse building and connect to this proposed fire water loop. An additional
fire service water line would extend from the existing 12-inch water line located within the Caliente
Road ROW and connect to the northeastern corner of the warehouse building. The retail
development pad is expected to be connected to the fire, irrigation, and domestic water system
at the existing water main in Caliente Road. However, the existing water main traverses only
approximately half of the Project site’s frontage with Caliente Road; therefore, the Project includes
the extension of the water main to the south to parallel the Project site’s full frontage with Caliente
Road. A secondary fire connection would be provided from the planned water main extension.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.15-15)
Sewer service would be provided by the HWD and VVWRA and be accommodated by an existing
8-inch sewer line within Caliente Road along the northeastern portion of the Project site boundary.
The Project proposes two options for providing sewer service to the warehouse building. Option
1 proposes a sewer lateral that would extend from the existing 8-inch sewer line and connect to
the northeastern corner of the proposed building. Option 2 proposes a sewer line that would
connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line and extend southerly and westerly within the eastern
truck court and southern parking lot to connect to the southeastern and southwestern corners of
the building. In addition, the Project would provide the installation of a new 12-inch sewer line that
would connect to the southern end of the existing 8-inch sewer line and extend southerly within
Caliente Road and stub at the southeastern corner of the Project site. The sewer discharge would
then be conveyed to the VVWRA Regional Sewage Treatment Facility (Victorville) for treatment,
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 122

Page 94

Page 123 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
located approximately 16.5 miles north of the Project site. The retail development pad is expected
to be connected to the sewer collection system at the site-adjacent existing sewer main in Caliente
Road. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-15 through 4.15-16)
With respect to wastewater treatment capacity, using Table 3.5, Wastewater Generation Factors,
of the City of Hesperia Wastewater Master Plan Update, the customer type for the Project would
be “Industrial” and “Commercial,” which both have a flow rate of 1,000 gallons per acre per day
(gpad). Thus, the amount of estimated wastewater generated by the Project would be
approximately 33,735 gpd [(“Industrial”: 1,061,780 s.f. ÷ 43560 [s.f. to acres conversion rate] =
24.375 acres x 1,000 gpad = 24,375 gpd) + (“Commercial”: 9.36 acres x 1,000 gpad = 9,360
gpd)]. Accordingly, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 33,735 gpd of wastewater
requiring treatment. The VVWRA Regional Sewage Treatment Facility (Victorville) provides
primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment with a design capacity of 12 mgd.
Wastewater generation from the Project would represent approximately 0.28 percent (33,735 gpd
÷ 12,000,000 x 100 = 0.28 percent) of the daily design capacity at the treatment facility. Because
the Project’s demand for wastewater treatment would only amount to approximately 0.28 percent
of the total capacity of the VVWRA Regional Sewage Treatment Facility (Victorville), no physical
alterations of the facility would be needed to accept and treat the Project’s wastewater. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.15-16)
The Project’s on-site stormwater would be captured through a proposed storm drain system,
consisting of a network of catch basins, underground storm drain pipes, and water infiltration
basins that would collect, treat, and discharge peak flows from the property. Two infiltration
chambers would be installed underground, one beneath the warehouse building’s eastern truck
court and one beneath the western truck court. The retail pad would be hydroseeded with proper
sheet drainage flow until it is developed with retail uses, at which time a storm drain system would
be installed. Construction of the Project’s stormwater drainage system would be contained to the
Project site and would not cause significant environmental effects outside of the Project boundary
or to the groundwater table. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-16)
The Project site is located in the service territories of Southwest Gas Corporation and SCE. A
variety of companies in Hesperia and the surrounding area provide telecommunications utilities,
including phone, internet, and television. It is expected that dry utilities would be extended to the
Project site from existing or planned utility facilities located within or adjacent to surrounding
roadways, consistent with applicable utility provider requirements and City standards. Utility
connections would be designed to serve the proposed industrial and commercial uses and are
expected to be installed underground, as required by applicable regulations and site conditions.
Because electricity, gas, and telecommunications facilities are available in the local area, it is
anticipated that the Project would connect to the existing facilities within existing improved siteadjacent roadways and would not cause significant environmental effects. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-16
through 4.15-17)
Impacts to the physical environment associated with the above-described Project-related water,
sewer, drainage, electricity, gas, and telecommunications facilities that would be constructed to
service the Project are inherent to the Project’s construction phase, and all potential impacts have
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 123

Page 95

Page 124 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
been evaluated throughout this EIR under the appropriate environmental topic areas (e.g., air
quality, biological resources, etc.). Where significant direct or cumulative impacts are identified,
mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce the Project’s impacts to the maximum extent
feasible. There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the Project’s
proposed water, sewer, drainage, electricity, gas, and telecommunications improvements. As
such, Project impacts associated with the installation of water, sewer, drainage, electricity, gas,
and telecommunications improvements to service the Project would be less than significant. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.15-17)
Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts
associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, and impacts
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-17)

3.18.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.15.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

A WSA for the Project was prepared by DEA, which utilized the City of Hesperia 2008 Water
Master Plan industrial development water demand factor of 3,000 gpd/ac for the area of the
Project site proposed for industrial development (approximately 24.38 acres) and the commercial
development water demand factor of 2,000 gpd/ac for the area of the Project site proposed for
commercial development (approximately 1.82 acres), to estimate the average potable water
demand for the Project. Based on this demand factor, the Project would result in a total average
daily demand for approximately 76,780 gpd of potable water, equivalent to 86 AFY. (Draft EIR, p.
4.15-17)
As previously indicated, CSA 70J would be responsible for supplying water services to the Project
site. CSA 70J’s anticipated water demands and supplies between 2025 and 2045 during normal
year, single dry year, and multiple dry years are provided in Table 6-1 of the Project’s WSA (Draft
EIR Technical Appendix L). It is noted that the projected additional demand of 86 AFY for the
Project exceeds CSA 70J’s projections for growth within its service area in the CSA 70J 2020
UWMP. However, CSA 70J is supplied by the MWA, and the Project site was included in the
MWA 2020 UWMP. The demand projections included in the MWA 2020 UWMP are based, in
part, on existing land uses as well as planned land uses, such as land uses identified in the City’s
General Plan. The proposed Project is consistent with its existing MSFCSP land use designation,
as anticipated by the UWMP. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Project’s water demand is
accounted for by the UWMP. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-17 through 4.15-18)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 124

Page 96

Page 125 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Accordingly, because the Project’s proposed land uses are accounted for by the MWA 2020
UWMP, and because the MWA 2020 UWMP demonstrates that the MWA would have sufficient
supply to meet projected demand through 2045, CSA 70J, which is supplied by MWA, would also
have sufficient water supply available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. Thus, Project impacts to water
supply would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-18)

3.18.3 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.15.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

As noted above under the analysis of Threshold a, the VVWRA Regional Sewage Treatment
Facility (Victorville) provides primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment with a design
capacity of 12 mgd. The Project’s wastewater generation would represent approximately 0.28
percent of the daily design capacity at the VVWRA Regional Sewage Treatment Facility
(Victorville). Because the Project’s demand for wastewater treatment would be de minimis
compared to the capacity of the existing facility, the Project would not trigger the need for any
physical changes or treatment capacity increases at the facility to service the Project. As such,
impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-18)

3.18.4 Threshold D
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 4.15.5 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

Solid waste generated by the Project would be disposed of at the Victorville Sanitary Landfill. The
Project would be required to comply with mandatory waste reduction requirements of the
California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) and the Mandatory Commercial Recycling
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 125

Page 97

Page 126 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Program (AB 341, PRC Section 42649). Notwithstanding, construction and operation of the
Project would result in the generation of solid waste requiring disposal at a landfill. The impact of
the Project’s generation of solid waste during construction and operation is analyzed below. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.15-18)

Solid Waste Impacts During Construction

Draft EIR Table 4.15-3, Estimated Construction Solid Waste Generation, provides an estimate of
the amount of construction waste that would be generated by the Project, based on nonresidential construction waste generation factors provided by the U.S. EPA. Draft EIR Table 4.153 does not account for the construction of site improvements other than buildings. Proposed nonbuilding features (e.g., parking areas, drive aisles, utilities, etc.) would produce nominal amounts
of construction waste that would not substantially exceed the solid waste totals (by phase) listed
in Draft EIR Table 4.15-3. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-18)
As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.15-3, and based on an analysis of the Project’s expected rate of
building construction, during construction of the industrial warehouse building, the Project is
anticipated to generate approximately 9,622 pounds per day (lbs/day) of construction waste
requiring disposal, or approximately 4.81 tons per day (tpd), which equates to approximately 3.44
cubic yards (cy) per day. In addition, during construction of the proposed retail pad, the Project is
anticipated to generate approximately 3,585 lbs/day of construction waste requiring disposal, or
approximately 1.79 tpd, which equates to approximately 1.28 cy per day. Construction of the
industrial and commercial uses would occur sequentially rather than concurrently; as such, the
maximum daily construction waste disposal rate would occur during construction of the industrial
building, which is approximately 4.81 tpd (3.44 cy per day). (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-19)
In total, construction of the Project would produce a projected 2,823 tons of construction waste
[(Industrial: 4.81 tons/day for 479 days = 2,304 tons) + (Commercial: 1.79 tons/day for 290 days
= 519 tons) = 2,823 tons], which equates to approximately 2,016 cy (2,823 tons ÷ 1.4 [tons to cy
conversion rate] = 2,016 cy). (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-19)
As discussed above, solid waste from the Project would be disposed of at the Victorville Sanitary
Landfill, which has a maximum permit capacity of 93,400,000 cubic yards and a maximum
permitted throughput of 3,000 cy per day. The Project’s estimated total construction solid waste
generation of 2,016 cy and maximum daily rate of 3.44 cy per day represents 0.002 percent of
the total capacity and 0.1 percent of the total permitted daily throughput capacity at the Victorville
Sanitary Landfill. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-19)
Because the estimated solid waste quantity generated by the Project on a daily basis during
construction represents less than one percent of the total maximum permit capacity and total
maximum permitted throughput capacity of the Victorville Sanitary Landfill, it is anticipated the
Victorville Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient daily capacity to accept the construction waste
generated by the proposed Project. Furthermore, CalGreen Section 5.408.1 requires the Project
Applicant to submit a construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) that identifies the construction
waste materials to be diverted, the diversion facilities where the materials will be taken, and the
amount to be diverted. The Project Applicant would also be required to provide documentation to
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 126

Page 98

Page 127 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
the City demonstrating compliance with the WMP. Mandatory compliance with the construction
WMP requirements would further reduce Project impacts to solid waste by ensuring that 65
percent of the nonhazardous construction waste is recycled or reused. Based on the foregoing
analysis, the Project would not cause or contribute to the need for new or expanded solid waste
facilities during construction, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.15-19 through 4.15-20)

Solid Waste Impacts During Operation

As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.15-4, Estimated Operational Solid Waste Generation, the Project’s
warehouse building and commercial uses are anticipated to generate approximately 7.54 tpd and
0.33 tpd of operational waste requiring disposal, respectively. As such, buildout and occupancy
of the Project is estimated to produce a total of approximately 7.87 tpd of solid waste, which
equates to approximately 5.63 cy per day. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-20)
As discussed above, solid waste from the Project would be disposed of at the Victorville Sanitary
Landfill. The Project’s estimated daily operational solid waste generation rate of 5.63 cy per day
represents 0.19 percent of the maximum daily permitted throughput for the Victorville Sanitary
Landfill (3,000 cy per day). Because the estimated solid waste quantity generated by the Project
on a daily basis during operation of the Project represents less than one percent of the total
maximum permitted throughput capacity of the Victorville Sanitary Landfill, it is anticipated that
the Victorville Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient daily capacity to accept the solid waste
generated by operation of the proposed Project. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project
would not cause or contribute to the need for new or expanded solid waste facilities during
operation, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-21)

Summary of Project Solid Waste Impacts

As indicated above, the region’s solid waste facility would have adequate capacity to handle solid
waste generated by the Project’s construction and operational phases, and the Project would not
cause or contribute to the need for new or expanded solid waste facilities during construction or
operation of the Project. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1521)

3.18.5 Threshold E
Impact Statement: The Project would comply with federal, State, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.5 of
the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in
significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 127

Page 99

Page 128 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Substantial Evidence

The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) established an integrated waste
management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal
of waste. In addition, the Act established a 50 percent waste reduction requirement for cities and
counties by the year 2000, along with a process to ensure environmentally safe disposal of waste
that could not be diverted. Per the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Act, the
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors adopted the San Bernardino CIWMP, which outlines
the goals, policies, and programs the County and its cities will implement to create an integrated
and cost-effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of California
Integrated Waste Management Act and its diversion mandates. Additionally, the Mandatory
Commercial Recycling Program (AB 341) made a legislative declaration that it is the policy goal
of the State that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be sourced, reduced, recycled,
or composted by the year 2020, although CalRecycle may not establish or enforce a diversion
rate greater than the 50 percent diversion rate as set forth by the CIWMP (per PRC Section
41780.01[b]). To verify CalGreen compliance for recycling of construction materials, the Project
is required to submit a construction WMP to the City and provide accurate records of construction
material recycling and solid waste disposal. Mandatory compliance with the CalGreen WMP
requirements would further reduce Project impacts to solid waste by ensuring that 65 percent of
nonhazardous construction waste is recycled or reused. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-21)
The proposed Project would be required to comply with the CIWMP’s requirement to divert up to
50 percent of its solid waste from area landfills. In conformance with the CIWMP, the Project
Applicant is required to work with future contract refuse haulers to implement recycling and waste
reduction programs for solid wastes. Implementation of a waste disposal strategy for the proposed
Project would assist San Bernardino County and the City of Hesperia in achieving the mandated
goals of the IWMA by developing feasible waste programs that encourage source reduction,
recycling, and composting. With mandatory compliance to AB 939, AB 341, and the City’s
programs and policies, the Project would result in a less than significant impact due to a conflict
with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and
regulations; as such, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-21 through 4.15-22)

3.18.6 Cumulative Impacts
Impact Statement: The Project does not have the potential to result in cumulative impacts to
utilities and service systems.



Finding

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to utilities and service systems are discussed
in detail in Section 4.15.6 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed
Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems;
therefore, no mitigation is required.

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 128

Page 100

Page 129 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”


Substantial Evidence

This cumulative impact analysis for utilities and service systems considers development of the
Project site in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site as well
as full General Plan buildout in the City of Hesperia and other jurisdictions in the region that are
within the same public utility and service boundaries as the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-22)
Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Utilities
As indicated under the analysis of Threshold a, the Project would require the installation of water,
sewer, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities to provide utility
service to the Project site. Cumulative effects associated with the proposed water, sewer,
stormwater drainage, and utility connections associated with the Project have been evaluated
throughout this EIR. There are no components of the water, sewer, stormwater drainage, or utility
connections associated with the Project that would result in cumulatively considerable impacts
not already evaluated by this EIR. Accordingly, Project impacts due to new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, and utility connections would be less than
cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-22)
Water Supply
As discussed under the analysis of Threshold b, based on MWA’s 2020 UWMP, with
implementation of the Project and other cumulative developments, CSA 70J would have adequate
water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years to meet projected demand through 2045.
Therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts due to water supply would be less than significant.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.15-22)
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
As indicated under the analysis of Threshold c, the wastewater generation associated with the
Project would represent approximately 0.28 percent of the daily design capacity at the VVWRA
Regional Sewage Treatment Facility (Victorville). This treatment facility has sufficient capacity to
handle wastewater generated by the Project and other cumulative developments both during longterm operation. The incremental contribution to wastewater generation associated with the Project
would be less than cumulatively considerable given the available capacity at the existing VVWRA
Regional Sewage Treatment Facility. Therefore, the Project’s impacts to wastewater treatment
facilities are evaluated as less than significant on a cumulatively considerable basis. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.15-22 through 4.15-23)
Solid Waste Generation
As indicated under the analysis of Threshold d, solid waste generated by construction and
operation of the Project would represent small proportions (less than one percent) of the total and
daily disposal capacities of the Victorville Sanitary Landfill. This landfill has sufficient capacity to
handle solid waste generated by the Project and other cumulative developments both during
construction and long-term operation. The incremental contribution to solid waste generation
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 129

Page 101

Page 130 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
associated with the Project would be less than cumulatively considerable given the available
capacity at the existing Victorville Sanitary Landfill. Therefore, the Project’s impacts to solid waste
disposal facilities are evaluated as less than significant on a cumulatively considerable basis.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.15-23)
Compliance with Solid Waste Reduction Requirements
The Project would adhere to regulations set forth by local and State regulations (including
CalGreen construction waste reduction requirements, AB 341, and AB 939) during both
construction and long-term operations. Other cumulative developments also would be required to
comply with such regulations. As such, the Project as well as other cumulative developments in
the area would not result in cumulative impacts with respect to compliance with federal, State,
and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes. Impacts would be less than cumulatively
considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-23)

3.19 WILDFIRE
Project impacts for Wildfire Thresholds a through d do not result in significant impacts and findings
are discussed below.

3.19.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Thresholds a is discussed in Section 4.16.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Thresholds a; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor is it physically part of an emergency
evacuation route. Under existing conditions, Ranchero Road, located northeast of the Project site,
and the I-15 Freeway, located east of the Project site, are evacuation routes. As part of the
discretionary review process, the City reviewed the Project’s application materials to ensure that
appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to and from the Project site and
that circulation on the Project site would be adequate for emergency vehicles. The development
of the Project as proposed would introduce driveway access points along Ranchero Road,
Caliente Road, and Farmington Street. In addition, the Project entails frontage improvements to
these roads which would increase their capacity to handle vehicles including during an emergency
event. In the event of a wildfire emergency, emergency personnel are trained to direct vehicle
traffic along the street system and designated evacuation routes to ensure safe and efficient
evacuations. There are no components of the Project that would substantially impair an
emergency response plan. Although traffic from the Project would be added to the street system,
the Project site is in very close proximity to I-15, would be connected to I-15 on- and off-ramps at
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 130

Page 102

Page 131 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Ranchero Road, and the Project would make roadway improvements at Ranchero Road and
Caliente Road to increase their capacity, improving traffic flow. There is no reasonable
circumstance under which the Project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be
less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-7)

3.19.2 Threshold B
Impact Statement: The Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Thresholds b is discussed in Section 4.16.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Thresholds b; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

As previously indicated, according to the CAL FIRE FHSZ Viewer, the Project site is located in an
LRA and classified as VHFHSZ and HFHSZ. Areas surrounding the Project site are also in either
an LRA or SRA and are classified as VHFHSZ, HFHSZ, or Moderate FHSZ. The areas to the
north and south of the Project site are vacant undeveloped land, and the areas to the east of the
Project site on the opposite side of I-15 and west of the Project site on the opposite side of Oro
Grande Wash are a mix of vacant undeveloped land, and land developed with residential uses
and roadways. Based on the character of surrounding properties and undeveloped properties
having vegetative fire fuel, wildfire spread has the potential to occur because the development
pattern in the area is not concentrated enough to disrupt fire spread, other than I-15, which would
serve as a fire break. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-8)
The development of the Project site as proposed would reduce the risk of wildfire by transforming
a majority of the undeveloped property into a developed property complete with irrigated
landscaping, paving, and fire sprinkler systems in the buildings. A Fire Protection Plan is proposed
as part of the Project which includes defensible space principles as part of the Project’s design,
primarily consisting of zones around the proposed buildings where fire fuel would be eliminated
or reduced and where the landscaping materials would be irrigated and managed to reduce
potential for ignition during a wildfire. See Draft EIR Figure 4.16-2, Fire Protection Plan – Sheet 1
through Sheet 3. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-8)
Also, in the interim period between Phase I (industrial warehouse) and Phase 2 (retail pad)
development, the hydroseeded condition of the retail pad would be managed to reduce wildfire
risk to the developed warehouse building. Further, the warehouse building is proposed as a
concrete tilt-up structure that would contain very little combustible material on the exterior of the
building other than at the building’s roof structure. As such, based upon the Project’s design,
wildfire risk on the site would be reduced and not increased as a result of the Project. Impacts
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-8)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 131

Page 103

Page 132 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
3.19.3 Threshold C
Impact Statement: The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Thresholds c is discussed in Section 4.16.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Thresholds c; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

The Project involves one warehouse building that is evaluated assuming High-Cube Fulfillment
Warehouse (Sort Facility) and future retail development evaluated for an 84-room Hotel, Strip
Retail Plaza use, High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant use, Fast Food restaurant without DriveThrough Window use, and a 16-vehicle fueling position gas station. Associated site improvements
for the Project would include drive aisles, irrigated landscaping, utility infrastructure, exterior
lighting, and signage. No components of the Project would trigger the installation or maintenance
of offsite infrastructure or wildfire management features that could result in exacerbated fire risks.
Through installation of the Project’s proposed on-site water system, which would be connected to
the domestic water system of the County of San Bernardino CSA 70J, adequate water supply
would be available on the site for any required fire water. Refer to EIR Subsection, 4.15, Utilities
and Service Systems, for more information on water supply. No new off-site emergency water
sources would need to be established or upgraded as a direct result of the Project. Less than
significant impacts would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-8 through 4.16-9)

3.19.4 Threshold D
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
instability, or drainage changes.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Thresholds d is discussed in Section 4.16.4 of the Draft
EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant
impacts related to Thresholds d; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

As previously indicated, the Project site is located in an LRA and classified as VHFHSZ and
HFHSZ. As shown previously in Draft EIR Figure 2-7, FEMA Map, the Project site is located within
FIRM No. 06071C6475H and mapped as Zone X (Unshaded), which are areas determined to be
outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-9).
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 132

Page 104

Page 133 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Under existing conditions, the northwest corner of the Project site slopes down toward the Oro
Grande Wash. No structures are proposed to be developed in this area. The area to the west of
the truck court and to the east of the Oro Grand Wash would be terraced to prevent slope
instability and flooding. Additionally, development on site as proposed would not involve any uses
containing natural vegetation or other features subject to wildland fire hazards. Furthermore, with
implementation of the Project, on-site captured stormwater would be conveyed to the one
aboveground and two underground infiltration basins that would have sufficient storage volume
to mitigate the full 100-year storm runoff volume, which would retain and fully infiltrate water
quality volume on-site. All runoff would be captured by the on-site infiltration basins, which would
capture, treat, and attenuate the stormwater runoff. Therefore, although new impervious surfaces
would be introduced at the site, the inclusion of stormwater control features that allow for on-site
detention and infiltration would minimize the amount of runoff discharged off site. Thus,
improvements proposed as part of the Project would not result in an increase in wildfire hazardrelated risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes, as the Project would not require any fire abatement
measures, such as fuel modification zones. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.16-9)

3.19.5 Cumulative Impacts
Impact Statement: The Project does not have the potential to result in cumulative impacts impact
related to Wildfire.



Finding

Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to wildfire are discussed in detail in Section
4.16.5 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not
result in significant cumulative impacts related to wildfire; therefore, no mitigation is required.



Substantial Evidence

This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction
with other development projects and planned development within a five-mile radius of the Project
site. This study area is appropriate for analysis because fire events located more than five miles
from the Project site are unlikely to affect the Project, and any fires starting in the Project area
likely would not affect lands located more than five miles away. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-9)
Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency
evacuation route, and the Project would not serve as an evacuation route under long-term
conditions. During construction and at Project build-out, the proposed Project would be required
to maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles. Other cumulative developments similarly
would be required to accommodate emergency access and facilities. As such, cumulatively
considerable impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-10)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 133

Page 105

Page 134 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Pollutant Concentrations from a Wildfire or the Uncontrolled Spread of a Wildfire
The development of the Project site as proposed would reduce the risk of wildfire by transforming
the undeveloped property into a developed property complete with irrigated landscaping, paving,
and fire sprinkler systems in the buildings. As such, cumulatively considerable impacts would be
less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-10)
Fire Protection-related Infrastructure
The Project proposes to develop industrial warehouse and retail uses with associated site
improvements. No components of the Project would trigger the installation or maintenance of
wildfire management features that could result in exacerbated fire risks. As such, cumulatively
considerable impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-10)
Wildfire-related Hazards
The Project does not propose any structures in the northwest corner of the site near the Oro
Grande Wash, and the area would be terraced to prevent slope instability and flooding.
Development on-site would not involve any uses containing natural vegetation or other features
subject to wildland fire hazards. Furthermore, on-site stormwater would be conveyed to the one
above ground and two underground infiltration basins that would have sufficient storage volume
to mitigate the full 100-year storm runoff volume, which would retain and fully infiltrate water
quality volume on-site. Moreover, improvements proposed as part of the Project would not result
in an increase in wildfire hazard-related risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. As such, the
Project has no potential to cumulatively contribute to impacts associated with the exposure of
people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Cumulatively
considerable impacts would not occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-10)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 134

Page 106

Page 135 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESSTHAN-SIGNIFICANT
4.1

AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Threshold D
Impact Statement: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 4.1.5 of the Draft
EIR. Compliance with the MSFCSP and HMC would ensure that implementation of the Project
would not create a new source of substantial light which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area. In addition, implementation of the industrial warehouse building would not
create a new source of substantial glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area. However, because the MSFCSP and HMC do not prohibit the use of reflective materials
or finishes on commercial buildings, and because the architectural materials of the future retail
buildings are unknown at this time, there is a potential that reflective materials could be used,
creating a potentially significant impact associated with glare. Mitigation Measure AES MM-1 has
been incorporated into the Project to reduce impacts to less than significant. The City has
determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.



Substantial Evidence

The Project site contains no sources of artificial lighting under existing conditions. However,
artificial, exterior lighting sources occur in the vicinity of the Project site, emanating from the
streetlights on Ranchero Road, the traffic signals at the intersection of Caliente Road and
Ranchero Road, and headlights of vehicles traveling on the I-15. The analysis presented below
separately addresses light and glare potential from the proposed industrial warehouse building
and future development of the proposed retail pad, but the conclusion considers both components
together for a comprehensive evaluation of the Project. No development or introduction of artificial
light sources are proposed within the portion of the Project site containing the Oro Grande Wash.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.1-15)

Industrial Warehouse

The proposed industrial warehouse building would be illuminated by artificial lighting, have small
elements of reflective building material such as window glass, and contain rooftop solar panels
that may have reflective qualities. The analysis below discusses the potential of the industrial
warehouse building to result in a new source of substantial artificial light and glare. (Draft EIR, p.
4.1-15)

Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 135

Page 107

Page 136 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
1.

Artificial Light

New sources of artificial lighting would be introduced to the Project site as a result of
implementation of the proposed industrial warehouse building. Lighting fixtures would primarily
be used to illuminate the driveway entrances, parking areas, truck docking areas, and entrances
for the building. Development would be required to comply with MSFCSP Section 11.B.14,
Exterior Lighting, which prevents light spillover and glare onto adjacent properties and streets.
Mandatory compliance with the MSFCSP lighting requirements would ensure that any polemounted and building-mounted lighting fixtures associated with the warehouse building would not
introduce any design features that would create a new source of light to the extent that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Because implementation of the warehouse
building would comply with the MSFCSP, the Project would not create a new source of substantial
light which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area; therefore, impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Impacts would be less than significant
individually and when combined in consideration of the retail pad development described below.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.1-15)

Glare

With respect to glare, most of the building materials associated with the industrial warehouse
building would consist of painted tilt-up concrete panels. The paint colors proposed for the
industrial warehouse building have a flat finish and would not produce glare, although the building
would incorporate some minor glass elements. While window glazing has the potential to result
in minor glare effects, such effects would not adversely affect daytime views experienced from
surrounding properties, including motorists along nearby roadways, because compliance with the
MSFCSP’s minimum building setbacks and landscape installation requirements would minimize
the potential for any vehicle headlights along Caliente Road, Ranchero Road, and Farmington
Street to shine into the building’s glass elements. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-15 through 4.1-16)
Development would also be required to comply with MSFCSP Section 11.B.14, Exterior Lighting,
which states that glare levels in industrial development parking areas should be considered and
that efforts should be made to minimize glare during the design process, as well as MSFCSP
Section 11.D.2, Landscape Materials, which requires industrial developments to locate and
choose planting types based on their ability to protect sensitive uses from excessive solar
exposure, glare, and undesirable views. Thus, glare impacts from proposed building elements
and parking surfaces would be less than significant. Regarding rooftop solar panels, the roof of
the industrial warehouse building would be solar-ready, and a rooftop photovoltaic system would
be installed in compliance with the CALGreen Code, applicable Building Code requirements,
clearance requirements around roof-mounted equipment, utility company interconnection
regulations, transformer capacity, and other code compliance constraints. Some noticeable glare
may occur, but the panels are expected to absorb and not reflect sunlight. The design of the
photovoltaic panels is not available at this time and cannot be available until the building’s
construction documents become available and the structural roof design is determined and the
panel manufacturer selected. Rooftop mounted solar panels would be required to be reviewed
and approved by the City prior to installation. In addition, HMC Section 16.20.135, Glare, requires
that any activity producing glare from community industrial or regional industrial districts should
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 136

Page 108

Page 137 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
be carried on so that light from the source does not exceed 0.5-foot candles when measured in
residential districts/lots. Mandatory compliance with the HMC requirements would ensure that any
activities associated with the industrial warehouse building would not introduce any design
features that would create a new source of glare to the extent that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant individually and when
combined in consideration of the industrial warehouse development described above. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.1-16)

Retail Pad

Although architectural plans are not presently available for the future retail buildings, the buildings
would be illuminated by artificial lighting and have small elements of reflective building material,
such as window glass. The analysis below discusses the potential of the future retail buildings to
result in a new source of substantial artificial light and glare. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-16)

Artificial Light

Pursuant to the MSFCSP requirements for commercial development, the buildings would be
required to comply with MSFCSP Section 10.B.14, Exterior Lighting, which prevents light spillover
and glare onto adjacent properties and streets. Mandatory compliance with the MSFCSP lighting
requirements would ensure that any pole-mounted and building-mounted lighting fixtures
associated with the Project would not introduce any design features that would create a new
source of light to the extent that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Because implementation of the future retail buildings would comply with the MSFCSP, the Project
would not create a new source of substantial light which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-16 through
4.1-17)
In addition, in compliance with the Specific Plan requirements for the RC Zone, future lighting for
the development of the retail pad is assured to consist of adequate but not overly bright lighting
that is located and designed to avoid direct glare onto adjacent properties and public rights-ofway (MSFCSP Section 10.B.14). All lighting fixtures are directed to be hooded and directed
downward to minimize light and glare impacts on neighboring properties and public rights-of-way
and should have cut-off luminaries that limit the amount of light pollution on nighttime skies
(MSFCSP Section 10.B.14). Impacts would be less than significant individually and when
combined in consideration of the retail pad development described above. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-17)

Glare

With respect to glare, the future retail buildings are expected to incorporate some glass elements
into the building designs. While window glazing has the potential to result in minor glare effects,
such effects would not adversely affect daytime views experienced from surrounding properties,
including motorists along nearby roadways, because MSFCSP Section 10.C.6(c), Display
Windows, requires retail storefront glass to have an exterior daylight reflectance of not more than
eight percent, and MSFCSP Section 10.C.7(b), Windows, prohibits the use of highly reflective
glass for windows of non-retail commercial buildings. Furthermore, compliance with the MSFCSP
minimum building setbacks would minimize the potential for any vehicle headlights along Caliente
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 137

Page 109

Page 138 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
Road and Ranchero Road to shine into the buildings’ glass elements, and compliance with
MSFCSP Section 10.B.14, Exterior Lighting, which states that glare levels in parking areas should
be considered and minimized during the design process, would reduce glare in the future parking
areas of the retail pad. Development would also be required to comply with MSFCSP Section
10.D.2, Landscape Materials, which requires commercial developments to locate and choose
planting types based on their ability to protect sensitive uses from excessive solar exposure, glare,
and undesirable views. Thus, the retail pad would be required to be landscaped to reduce glare
directed toward the residential uses on the western side of the Oro Grande Wash. With mandatory
adherence to the applicable MSFCSP standards, glare impacts from elements of the future retail
buildings and parking surfaces would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-17)
In addition, HMC Chapter 16.36, Sign Regulations, requires signage for commercial
developments to be designed to avoid undue glare or reflection of light. Mandatory compliance
with the HMC requirements would ensure that any signage associated with the future retail uses
would not introduce any design features that would create a new source of glare to the extent that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-17)
While the future retail buildings would be designed to comply with the applicable standards set by
the MSFCSP and HMC, the MSFCSP and HMC do not specifically prohibit the use of reflective
materials and finishes on commercial buildings. Because no architectural plans for the future retail
buildings are available for review at this time, there is a potential that building designs could
include reflective materials and finishes. The potential for such materials and finishes to be glare
producing is conservatively determined to be a potentially significant impact for which mitigation
is required in the form of a design review by the City when the architectural and landscape plans
for the future retail buildings become available. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES MM1 would reduce impacts related to glare to a less-than-significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-17
through 4.1-18)
The following Mitigation Measures are required for the Project and would avoid, minimize, or
mitigate impacts on aesthetics discussed above under Threshold d.
AES MM-1

This measure is applicable to future development on the retail pad.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a future retail building on the 5.5-acre
retail development pad, the Project Applicant shall submit architectural plans to the
City of Hesperia for review and approval demonstrating compliance with the
following performance standard. All glazing on building façades visible from public
rights-of-way shall have an exterior visible light reflectance (VLR) of no more than
8 percent. Non-glazed building exterior materials visible from public rights-of-way
shall have a Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of no more than 40, or shall use nonspecular, matte, or flat finishes, to preclude glare toward sensitive receptors and
public roadways.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES MM-1 would ensure that the architectural designs of
the future retail buildings are reviewed by the City of Hesperia to ensure that building and
landscape designs preclude glare potential, if any, that would impact public roads and adjacent
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 138

Page 110

Page 139 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
properties. With implementation of the required mitigation, the future retail buildings’ direct
impacts related to glare would be reduced to less than significant levels.

4.2

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.2.1 Threshold A
Impact Statement: The Project could potentially have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).



Findings

Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.5 of
the Draft EIR. The Project would result in significant, direct and cumulatively considerable impacts
to two special status plant species: Western Joshua Tree (WJT) and California juniper. Short-joint
beavertail cactus, a California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2 species, would also be directly impacted.
Additionally, the Project would result in significant direct and cumulative impacts to one special
status wildlife species (burrowing owl) which has a low potential to occur.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO MM-1, BIO MM-6, BIO MM-7, and BIO MM-8,
direct and indirect impacts to the WJT would be reduced to less than significant. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO MM-2, BIO MM-6, BIO MM-7, and BIO MM-8, the
direct impacts of the Project to short-joint beavertail cactus would be reduced to less than
significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO MM-3, BIO MM-6, BIO MM-7, and
BIO MM-8, impacts to California juniper would be less than significant. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO MM-3, BIO MM-5, BIO MM-6, BIO MM-7, and BIO MM-8, impacts to
BUOW would be reduced to less than significant. The City has determined that changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.



Substantial Evidence

Special Status Plant Species

Three special status plant species (i.e., western Joshua Tree, short-joint beavertail cactus, and
California juniper) were detected within the Project site. The Project would have significant
impacts on western Joshua Tree, short-joint beavertail cactus, and California juniper absent
mitigation or avoidance. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-21)

Western Joshua Tree

Appendix F, Joshua Tree Census Report, of the Project’s General Biological Resources
Assessment (Draft EIR Technical Appendix C) provides complete details of the Joshua trees that
were censused on the Project site during biological field surveys. A total of 1,223 WJT were
observed within the WJT survey area, all of which would be impacted by implementation of the
Project. Of the 1,223 WJT, 703 individuals were alive and 520 individuals were dead at the time
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 139

Page 111

Page 140 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
of survey. Additionally, of the 1,223 WJT, 65 trees were five meters or greater in height, 612 trees
were one meter or greater but less than five meters in height, and 546 trees were less than one
meter in height. The loss of these trees is considered a significant direct impact of the Project.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.3-21)
With implementation of mitigation measures as disclosed in Subsection Error! Reference source
not found., Error! Reference source not found., impacts to WJT would be reduced to less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-21)

Short-Joint Beavertail Cactus

Short-joint beavertail cactus was observed primarily along the southwestern portion of the
Project’s proposed ground disturbance footprint in approximately nine small clusters. A few
scattered individuals were observed elsewhere on the Project site. This species is a California
Rare Plant Rank 1B.2 species; therefore, while not protected under State or federal endangered
species laws, this cactus species is locally significant. With implementation of mitigation measures
as disclosed in Subsection Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not
found., impacts to Short-Joint Beavertail Cactus would be reduced to less than significant. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.3-21)

California Juniper

California juniper was observed predominantly in the northeastern flats of the Project site as a
small stand of juniper scrub. This species is protected under HMC Chapter 16.24, San Bernardino
County Code Section 88.01.060, and the California Desert Native Plants Act. Impacts to this
species are considered potentially significant and removal of shrubs or patches would require a
permit from the City of Hesperia. (Noreas, 2025, Appendix E) With implementation of mitigation
measures as disclosed in Subsection Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference
source not found., impacts to California Juniper would be reduced to less than significant. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.3-21 through 4.3-22)

Special Status Wildlife Species

No federally- or State-listed wildlife species were observed within the Project site during the 2025
field surveys conducted by Noreas biologists. Targeted surveys were conducted for four special
status wildlife species, the results of which are summarized below. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-22)

Burrowing Owl

The BUOW was not detected during focused surveys or habitat assessments conducted in 2025.
The Project site has been heavily altered by human-caused disturbance and surrounding
development, which have substantially degraded its suitability for nesting and foraging. Due to
the lack of suitable burrows and prey availability, frequent human activity, and the absence of
recent owl detections, the habitat within the Project site and adjacent lands are considered to be
of low value to BUOW and unlikely to support occupancy. As such, implementation of the Project
is not anticipated to directly harm individual BUOW or adversely impact local or regional
populations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-22)
Hesperia Gateway
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 140

Page 112

Page 141 of 141

“ATTACHMENT A”
However, although no BUOW individuals or signs of BUOW use were observed on the Project
site during focused surveys conducted by Noreas biologists, because BUOW is a highly mobile
species, there is the potential for the species to occupy the Project site prior to the start of
construction. If BUOW are present on the Project site at the time construction activities
commence, potential impacts to the species would be significant and mitigation would be required.
With implementation of mitigation measures as disclosed in Subsection Error! Reference source
not found., Error! Reference source not found., impacts would be reduced to less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-22)

Desert Tortoise

The Desert Tortoise was not detected during the focused survey or habitat assessment efforts
conducted in 2025. Anthropogenic activities have significantly diminished the habitat quality within
the Project site, ma

Read the agenda documentPrimary source ↗

The government’s own published record — read it yourself, then decide what to do about it.

Data centers in HesperiaLocal report →

The facilities, the coverage, and the local record for this community.

Outcome

Not yet recorded. The record stays open — outcomes are added as minutes and vote results are published.

Provenance

Where this record came from. Every source is listed, permanently.

Agenda Watch · Oct 22, 2026

Permanent ID DKT-2026-004494 — this record is never deleted.

Record history

Every change to this record, logged as it happened.

Oct 22, 2026 Filed on the Docket
Oct 22, 2026 Full document archived — public record

← The full Docket · every meeting, vote, and action on the permanent record · also in the National Record Index.

On the agenda: Hesperia Planning Commission on 2026-10-08 6:30 PM - Oct 08, 2026 — data center (Oct 8)

The agenda — from the public record

Provenance

Record history

More on the Docket in California