Apple Valley City Council
February 25, 2025

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-8
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
departure from burrows prior to any ground-disturbing activities.

Compensatory mitigation for permanent loss of owl habitat, if the site is occupied by burrowing owl, shall be provided following the guidance in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Where possible, burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible plastic pipe shall be inserted into the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any wildlife inside the burrow. An endoscope (fiber optic camera) should also be used to scope the burrow in front of the excavation. Occupied burrows that are excavated need to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio if there are already suitable burrows present nearby.

Should burrowing owl be located during the pre-construction survey, mitigation for direct impacts to 198.4 acres shall be fulfilled through conservation of suitable burrowing owl habitat through the purchase of credits at a minimum of 1:1 in-kind habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, for a total of 198.4 acres.

MM BIO-10: Pre-Disturbance Desert Tortoise Clearance Survey. A qualified biologist retained by the Project Applicant or construction contractor shall conduct pre-disturbance desert tortoise clearance surveys within three days of site ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, equipment staging, etc.) in accordance with current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol to reevaluate locations of potential Mojave desert tortoise burrows within the Project limits so take of Mojave desert tortoise can be avoided. If no Mojave desert tortoises are found during the pre-disturbance desert tortoise clearance survey, then no additional action or mitigation is required.

Should Mojave desert tortoise be located during the clearance survey, USFWS shall be contacted and all work shall cease until Within 3 days prior to site
disturbance/grading and ongoing
during construction (if species are
present)
Town of Apple
Valley/Biologist

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-9
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
further direction from the USFWS is provided. All methods used for handling desert tortoises during the clearance surveys must be in accordance with the USFWS Desert Tortoise Field Manual or Projectspecific guidance contained in a biological opinion or Incidental Take Permit. No take of Mojave desert tortoise shall occur without authorization in the form of an Incidental Take Permit pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 and a biological opinion or Habitat Conservation Plan. The Project Applicant shall adhere to measures and conditions set forth within the Incidental Take Permit. Anyone who handles desert tortoises during clearance activities must have the appropriate authorizations from USFWS.

The area cleared and number of Mojave desert tortoises found within that area shall be reported to the local USFWS and appropriate state wildlife agency. Notification shall be made in accordance with the conditions of the biological opinion or Incidental Take Permit.

Should Mojave desert tortoise be located during the clearance survey, the Project would result in the loss of 198.4 acres of suitable habitat for Mojave desert tortoise. Mitigation for direct impacts to 198.4 acres shall be fulfilled through conservation of suitable Mojave desert tortoise habitat through the purchase of credits at a minimum of 1:1 in-kind habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, for a total of 198.4 acres or as otherwise determined through coordination with the USFWS and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

MM BIO-11: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. If possible, vegetation clearing shall be conducted outside of the nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through August

31. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey within seven days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, Within 7 days prior to site
disturbance/grading
Town of Apple
Valley/Biologist

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-10
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
equipment staging, etc. If active nests are identified during the preconstruction nesting bird survey, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Suitable buffers shall be determined by the biologist based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and special-status species).

MM BIO-12: Pre-Disturbance American Badger and Desert Kit Fox Clearance Survey. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-disturbance clearance surveys for the American badger and/or desert kit fox within seven days of ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, equipment staging, etc.).

If the American badger and/or desert kit fox are not detected during the pre-disturbance clearance survey, then no additional action or mitigation is required. If the American badger and/or desert kit fox are detected on site in an active den, then the Project Applicant shall be required to contact CDFW prior to conducting any Projectassociated ground-disturbing activities and prepare and implement a relocation plan to avoid/minimize impacts to these species. An avoidance buffer of 300 feet shall be implemented around any active dens until the den is determined to have inactive burrows.

Within 7 days prior to site
disturbance/grading
Town of Apple
Valley/Biologist
MM BIO-13: Jurisdictional Waters. The Project site supports aquatic resources that are considered jurisdictional under the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Prior to site disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall coordinate with the Lahontan RWQCB (Region 6) to ensure conformance with the requirements of the Porter– Cologne Water Quality Control Act (waste discharge requirement).

Prior to activity within CDFW jurisdictional streambed or associated riparian habitat, the Project Applicant shall coordinate with CDFW Prior to, during, and after
construction/grading
Town of Apple
Valley/Lahonton

RWQCB/CDFW

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-11
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
(Inland Deserts Region 6) relative to conformance to the Lake and Streambed Alteration permit requirements.

The Project shall mitigate to ensure no net loss of waters at a minimum of minimum 1:1 with purchase of credits (1.63 acres RWQCB jurisdiction and 1.63 acres CDFW jurisdiction) for impacts to aquatic resources as part of an overall strategy to ensure no net loss. Mitigation shall be completed through use of a mitigation bank (e.g., West Mojave Mitigation Bank) or other Applicant-sponsored mitigation (such as restoration, preservation or enhancement of onsite or off-site resources). Final mitigation ratios and credits shall be determined in consultation with RWQCB and/or CDFW based on agency evaluation of current resource functions and values and through each agency’s respective permitting process.

Should Applicant-sponsored mitigation be implemented, a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared in accordance with State Water Resources Control Board guidelines and approved by the agencies in accordance with the proposed program permits. The HMMP shall include a conceptual planting plan including planting zones, grading, and irrigation, as applicable; a conceptual planting plant palette; a long-term maintenance and monitoring plan; annual reporting requirements; and proposed success criteria. Any Applicant-sponsored mitigation shall be conserved and managed in perpetuity.

Best management practices shall be implemented to avoid any indirect impacts on jurisdictional waters, including the following:
▪ Vehicles and equipment shall not be operated in ponded or flowing water except as described in permits.
▪ Water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from grading or other activities shall not be allowed to enter jurisdictional waters or be placed in locations that may be subjected to high storm flows.

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-12
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Spoil sites shall not be located within 30 feet from the boundaries of jurisdictional waters or in locations that may be subject to high storm flows, where spoils might be washed back into drainages.
▪ Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances that could be hazardous to vegetation or wildlife resources resulting from Project-related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering avoided jurisdictional waters.
▪ No equipment maintenance shall be performed within 100 feet of jurisdictional waters, including wetlands and riparian areas, where petroleum products or other pollutants from the
equipment may enter these areas. Fueling of equipment shall not occur on the Project site.

Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources MM CUL-1: Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) and Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training. Prior to any ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post replacement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), and prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant or contractor shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The archaeologist shall conduct a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) and Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists. In attendance shall be the consulting Tribe(s) Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, and/or designated Tribal Representative.

The training session shall focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during groundPrior to ground disturbance/ grading
Town of Apple
Valley/
Archaeologist

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-13
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
disturbing activities as well as the procedures to be followed in the event of an unanticipated discovery. A basic presentation shall be prepared and presented by the qualified archaeologist to inform all personnel working on the Project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area. The purpose of the WEAP training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction of the Project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the on-call archaeologist and if appropriate, Tribal representative. Necessity of training attendance shall be stated on all construction plans.

MM CUL-2: Archaeological and Native American Construction Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards and enter into a Tribal Monitoring Agreement with the consulting Tribe(s) for the Project. The qualified archaeological and Tribal Monitor(s) shall be on site during all ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind). The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground-disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources and/or tribal cultural resources.

The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal Monitor(s), shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring, and shall oversee and adjust monitoring Prior to grading permits and
following the completion of
construction if any resources are
identified
Town of Apple
Valley/
Archaeologist

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-14
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural deposits. The frequency of inspections shall depend on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and any discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074.

Archaeological and Native American monitoring shall be
discontinued when the depth of grading and the soil conditions no longer retain the potential to contain cultural deposits. The archaeologist shall be responsible for maintaining monitoring logs.

Following the completion of construction, the qualified archaeologist shall provide an archaeological monitoring report to the lead agency and the South Central Coast Information Center with the results of the cultural monitoring program.

MM CUL-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the Project, all construction work occurring within 60 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Quality Act (14 CCR 15064.5[f]; California PRC Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. If the discovery is Native American in nature, consultation with and/or monitoring by a Tribal representative will be necessary.

During construction/grading and
following the completion of
construction if any resources are
identified
Town of Apple
Valley/
Archaeologist

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-15
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
MM TCR-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan. Prior to any ground-disturbing activities the Project archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Plan) to address the details, timing, and responsibilities of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Project site. This Plan shall be written in consultation with the consulting Tribe(s) and shall include the following: approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties’ responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the Project construction schedule.

In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work shall follow protocols outlined under MM CUL-3 (Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources). Additionally, the consulting Tribe(s) shall be contacted regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era resources of a Native American origin and be provided information after the qualified archaeologist, as defined within MM CUL-2 (Archaeological and Native American Construction Monitoring), makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the discovery. Should the discovery be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), and avoidance cannot be ensured, the Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan, created by the qualified archaeologist in coordination with the consulting Tribe(s), shall be followed and all subsequent discoveries shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present representing the consulting Tribe(s) for the remainder of the Project, should the consulting Tribe(s) elect to place a monitor on site.

Prior to any ground disturbance/
grading
Town of Apple
Valley
MM TCR-2: Consultation with Consulting Tribes. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and lead agency for dissemination to consulting Tribe(s). The lead agency and/or applicant shall, in Prior to and during ground
disturbance/grading and ongoing
through Project operation
Town of Apple
Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-16
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
good faith, consult with the consulting Tribe(s) throughout the life of the Project.

MM TCR-3: Pre-Grade Meeting. The retained qualified archaeologist and consulting Tribe(s) representative shall attend the pre-grade meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan (in conjunction with the training held under MM CUL-1 (Workers Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP] and Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training).

Prior to ground disturbance/
grading
Town of Apple
Valley/
Archaeologist
MM TCR-4: Inadvertent Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that previously unidentified tribal cultural resources are unearthed during construction, the qualified archaeologist and the Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarily halt ground-disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored grading can proceed. This measure is in conjunction with mitigation measure MM CUL-3 (Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources).

If a potentially significant tribal cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within a 60-foot perimeter of the discovery and an Environmentally Sensitive Area physical demarcation/barrier constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal Monitor[s]. The archaeologist shall notify the lead agency and consulting Tribe(s) of said discovery. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, the consulting Tribe(s), and the Native American monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. A recommendation for the treatment and disposition of the Tribal Cultural Resource shall be made by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Tribe[s] and the Native American monitor[s] and be submitted to the lead During grading/construction Town of Apple
Valley/
Archaeologist

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-17
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
agency for review and approval. Below are the possible treatments and dispositions of significant cultural resources in order of CEQA preference:

Full avoidance.

If avoidance is not feasible, Preservation in place.

If Preservation in place is not feasible, all items shall be reburied in an area away from any future impacts and reside in a permanent conservation easement or Deed Restriction.

If all other options are proven to be infeasible, data recovery through excavation and then curation in a Curation Facility that meets the Federal Curation Standards (36 CFR 79).

MM TCR-5: Inadvertent Discovery of Native American Human Remains. The following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect Native American human remains and/or cremations. No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the consulting Tribe(s).

Should human remains, cremations, and/or funerary objects be encountered on the surface or during any and all grounddisturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop within a 100-foot perimeter of the discovery. The area shall be protected by the establishment of an Environmentally Sensitive Area with a marked boundary. Project personnel/observers shall be restricted from entry into the Environmentally Sensitive Area.

The County Coroner shall be contacted within 24 hours of discovery. The County Coroner has 48 hours to make his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.

During grading/construction Town of Apple
Valley/County
Coroner

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-18
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of
determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of HSC
Section 7050.5.

The Native American Heritage Commission shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours, upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery and make his/her recommendation for final treatment and
disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.

Once the MLD has been named, the Tribe may wish to rebury the human remains and/or cremation and sacred items in their place of discovery with no further disturbance where they will reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburial shall not be disclosed by any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6254[r]).

Reburial location of human remains and/or cremations shall be determined by the Tribe’s MLD, the landowner, and the Town Planning Department.

MM TCR-6: Final Report. The final report(s) created as a part of the Project (Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be submitted to the lead agency and consulting Tribe(s) for review and comment. After approval of all parties, the final reports shall be submitted to the South Central Coast Information Center and the consulting Tribe(s).

Prior to ground disturbance
consistent with MM TCR-1
Town of Apple
Valley
MM GEO-1: Paleontological Resources. The Project Applicant or proponent shall implement the following measures to protect paleontological resources.

Prior ground disturbance/grading;
during construction; and post
construction prior to obtaining
building permits (if a
Town of Apple
Valley/
Paleontologist

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-19
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the Project Applicant or proponent shall retain a Qualified Paleontologist to per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines. The Qualified Paleontologist shall prepare and implement a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP (2010) guidelines and should outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker
environmental awareness training, where monitoring is required within the proposed Project site based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports, procedures for adequate
paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, and paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management.

The qualified paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting and a qualified paleontological monitor shall be on site during all rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities (including augering) in previously undisturbed, finegrained Pleistocene alluvial deposits. ▪ Construction Worker Paleontological Resources Sensitivity Training. Prior to the commencement of Project grounddisturbing activities, a Qualified Paleontologist shall present a paleontological resources sensitivity training (or may be provided via digital recording) to project construction personnel.

The paleontologist shall inform construction personnel about the laws protecting paleontological resources; the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered; the proper procedures to follow in the event of a paleontological discovery; and safety precautions to be taken when working with
paleontological monitors. The Project Applicant shall provide the training agenda, materials, and attendance records to the Town within 5 business days of any request.

Paleontological Resources
Recovery Plan is required)

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-20
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Paleontological Monitoring. During grading and excavation activities, a qualified Paleontological Monitor shall be present to monitor the earth-moving activities in accordance with the Project paleontological assessment report or the PRIMP. Should paleontological resources be encountered, the Paleontological Monitor shall have the authority to halt ground-disturbing activities; and immediately notify the Qualified Paleontologist of the find; and inspect, document, and salvage the find as necessary. The Qualified Paleontologist shall prepare and submit a final report summarizing monitoring results to the Town and the San Bernardino County Museum.
▪ Paleontological Resources Recovery Plan. If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the Qualified Paleontologist meeting Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (SVP 2010) standards shall prepare and submit a Paleontological Resources Recovery Plan (PRRP) to the Town for review and approval. The recovery plan shall include, but is not limited to, sampling and fossil recovery procedures, museum curation for any scientifically significant specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan as approved by the County shall be implemented before
construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered. All reports and plans resulting from implementation of this measure shall be
submitted to the Town and filed with the San Bernardino County Museum.
▪ Paleontological Resources Discoveries Protocols. If fossils are discovered during earthmoving activities, the Paleontological Monitor shall be authorized to halt the ground-disturbing activities within an appropriate buffer area determined by the Paleontological Monitor. The paleontologist shall implement the PRIMP and oversee the collection of sediment samples and exposed fossils for processing and evaluation. Any fossils

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-21
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification, catalogued, and curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the material and with retrievable storage, such as the San Bernardino County
Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the fossils.

Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. All costs for lab work and curation fees are the responsibility of the project proponent or applicant. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, it may be donated to a local school or other interested organization in the area for educational purposes. The paleontologist shall prepare a final report on the collected fossils. The report shall contain an appropriate description of the fossils, treatment, and curation. A copy of the report shall be filed with the Town and the San Bernardino County Museum along with field notes and any other supporting documentation.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM GHG-1: Renewable Energy Plan. Future tenants of the Project shall be required to subscribe to the Apple Valley Choice Energy 100% Renewable Energy Plan, which is 100% renewable and 100% carbon-free, for the duration of occupancy as part of the entitlement agreement. At each lease or change of building ownership, the new lessee or owner shall also be automatically enrolled in the Apple Valley Choice Energy 100% Renewable Energy Plan.

Tenant leases or change in
building ownership
Town of Apple
Valley/Project
Applicant or
Property Manager

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-22
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
Project Design Features
PDF-DES-1: Sustainable Design/LEED Measures. The Project shall be designed so that it is able to achieve LEED Silver certification at the time of building permit application. Documentation shall be provided to the Town of Apple Valley demonstrating that the Project meets this requirement prior to the issuance of building permits.

Prior to issuance of building
permits
Town of Apple
Valley
PDF-DES-2: Sustainable Concrete Building Materials. The Project shall be designed with sustainable materials that will reduce 35% of the overall carbon footprint compared to other traditionally designed concrete tilt warehouses. The following measures shall be implemented:
▪ The Project shall reduce overall concrete in the slab by 10% through the use of a steel fiber mix to increase the overall strength of the concrete to reduce concrete thickness.
▪ The Project shall reduce overall concrete in the tilt walls by 30% by providing 4-inch foam insultation in the middle of the concrete panel (also known as composite panels). The foam insulation will result in an R value of R-19, while traditional concrete tilt walls have no R value, thereby reducing overall energy consumption and increasing occupant comfort.
▪ The roof shall have a 10% reduction in steel because of the lighter concrete tilt walls due to the foam insulation.
▪ The Project specifications shall require the use of sustainable concrete to reduce the Project’s overall carbon footprint by 35%.

During review of the final map
and during building construction
Town of Apple
Valley
PDF-DES-3: Electrical Infrastructure for Electric Equipment and Vehicles. The Project shall be designed to include electrical infrastructure to accommodate the required number of electric vehicle charging stations, the anticipated number charging stations for electric cargo handling equipment, and the potential installation of additional automobile and truck electric vehicle charging stations per Title 24, Part 11 (California Green Building Standards During review of the final map Town of Apple
Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-23
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
(CALGreen). Electrical conduit shall be installed within reasonable locations (e.g., parking areas, at or near dock doors) at the time of building construction to satisfy this requirement. The Project’s electrical rooms shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the upsizing of electrical equipment to accommodate potential future electrical loads.

PDF-DES-4: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations shall be installed on-site for employees for the percentage of employee parking spaces commensurate with Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance plus additional charging stations equal to 5% of the total employee parking spaces in the building permit, whichever is greater. By January 1, 2030, Level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations shall be installed for 25% of the employee parking spaces required.

Prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy
Town of Apple
Valley
PDF-DES-5: Sustainable Energy, Waste, and Water Design
Measures. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall implement the following measures:
▪ The Project’s landscape plan shall emphasize drought-tolerant plants and use water-efficient irrigation techniques.
▪ All heating, cooling, lighting, and appliance fixtures shall be Energy Star-rated.
▪ All fixtures installed in restrooms and employee break areas shall be U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense certified or equivalent.
▪ Structures shall be equipped with outdoor electric outlets in the front and rear of the structures to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment.
▪ Storage areas shall be provided for recyclables and green waste, as well as food waste storage if a pick-up service is available.

During review of the final map Town of Apple
Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-24
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Buildings shall include high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration systems within in all warehouse facilities.
▪ The roof shall provide R-30 insulation to decrease overall energy consumption and increase occupant comfort.
▪ Solar-powered water heaters shall be installed on the Project site. ▪ A timer system for lighting to ensure that lights shall be switched off during times of non-operation shall be installed on the Project site.

PDF-DES-6: Design of Ingress/Egress Points. Entry gates into the loading dock/truck court areas shall be sufficiently positioned to ensure that all truck and other vehicles are contained on site and inside the property line. Queuing, or circling of vehicles, on public streets immediately pre- or post-entry to the Project shall be strictly prohibited unless queuing occurs in a deceleration lane or right turn lane exclusively serving the Project site.

During review of the final map/
ongoing during Project operation
Town of Apple
Valley/Property
Manager
PDF-DES-7: Measures to Reduce the Urban Heat Island Effect. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce the urban heat island effect:
▪ The Project’s roof structures shall be designed to include “cool roof” materials with a minimum aged reflectance and thermal emittance values that are equal to or greater than those specified in the current edition of CALGreen, Table
A5.106.11.2.3 for Tier 1 standards.
▪ Sufficient shade trees shall be provided throughout the Project site so that at least 30% of the automobile parking areas will be shaded within 15 years after Project construction is complete (excluding the truck courts where trees cannot be planted due to interference with truck maneuvering).

During review of the final map Town of Apple
Valley
PDF-CON-1: Heavy-Duty Off-Road Construction Equipment
Requirements/Restrictions. During Project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction equipment greater than 150 During site disturbance/grading
construction
Town of Apple
Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-25
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
horsepower operating on the Project site shall meet U.S. EPAcertified Tier 4 Interim emissions standards. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts with successful contractors. Successful contractors must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the Town of Apple Valley in the event that the Project Applicant or successor in interest documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment.1 Before an exemption may be considered by the Town of Apple Valley, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall be required to demonstrate that at least two construction fleet owners/operators in the High Desert and San Bernardino Region were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Interim or better equipment could not be located within the High Desert and San Bernardino Region.

PDF-CON-2: Provision of Electrical Infrastructure for Construction and Use of Electric Construction Equipment. After the grading phase of Project construction, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide temporary electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than diesel-fueled generators, for contractors’ electric construction tools, such as saws, drills, and compressors.

The use of diesel-fueled generators for on-site construction activities shall be prohibited unless electrical infrastructure is not yet available on the Project site. Diesel-fueled generators may be used for off-site construction work. All off-road equipment with a Post grading and during
construction
Town of Apple
Valley
1 For example, if a Tier 4 Interim piece of equipment is not reasonably available at the time of construction and a lower tier equipment is used instead, another piece of equipment could be upgraded from a Tier 4 Interim to a higher tier (i.e., Tier 4 Final) or replaced with an alternative-fueled (not diesel-fueled) equipment to offset the emissions associated with using a piece of equipment that does not meet Tier 4 Interim standards.

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-26
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during Project construction must be electricpowered. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall include these requirements in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts with successful contractors.

PDF-CON-3: Construction Equipment Idling Restrictions. The idling of heavy construction equipment for more than 5 minutes shall be prohibited. Signage shall be posted throughout the construction site informing construction personnel of the idling time limit. Idling time limits shall be noted in construction specifications. Subject to all other idling restrictions, heavy construction equipment shall not be left in the “on position” for more than 10 hours per day.

During construction Town of Apple
Valley
PDF-CON-4: Construction Haul Truck Requirements. All haul trucks entering the Project construction site during the grading and building construction phases shall meet California Air Resources Board (CARB) model year 2014 (or newer) engine emission standards. All heavy-duty haul trucks should also meet CARB’s lowest optional lowoxides of nitrogen (NOx) standard.

During construction Town of Apple
Valley
PDF-CON-5: Dust Control Measures. Comply with all applicable Rules and Regulations of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), including, but not limited to Rules 401 (Visible Emissions), 402 (Nuisance), and 403 (Fugitive Dust). To ensure compliance with these Rules and Regulations, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall prepare and submit a Dust Control Plan to the MDAQMD for approval. The Dust Control Plan shall document the best management practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during Project construction to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, wind and soil erosion. BMPs that will be included in the Dust Control Plan shall include, but are not limited to, the following:

Prior to site disturbance/grading
and during construction
Town of Apple
Valley/Mojave
Desert Air Quality
Management
District

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-27
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Signage compliant with Rule 403 (Attachment B) shall be erected at each Project site entrance prior to the
commencement of construction.
▪ Use a water truck to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and actively spread water during visible dusting episodes to minimize visible fugitive dust emissions. If the Project site has exposed sand or fines deposits, or if the Project exposes such soils through earthmoving, chemical stabilization or covering with a stabilizing layer of gravel will be required to eliminate visible dust/sand from the sand/fines deposits.
▪ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
▪ All perimeter fencing shall be wind fencing or the equivalent, to a minimum of four feet of height or the top of all perimeter fencing. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall maintain the wind fencing as needed to keep it intact and remove windblown dropout. This wind fencing requirement may be superseded by local ordinance, rule, or Project-specific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.
▪ All maintenance and access vehicular roads and parking areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel, or asphaltic pavement sufficient to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall take actions to prevent Project-related track out onto paved surfaces and clean any Project-related track out within 24 hours. All other earthen surfaces within the Project area shall be stabilized by natural or irrigated vegetation, compaction, chemical, or other means sufficient to prohibit visible dust from wind erosion.

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-28
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Obtain MDAQMD permits for any miscellaneous process
equipment that may not be exempt under MDAQMD Rule 219
including, but not limited to, internal combustion engines with a manufacturer's maximum continuous rating greater than 50 brake horsepower.

PDF-CON-6: Construction Waste Recycling and Management.

Consistent with Section 5.408.1 of the CALGreen Code Part 11, a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste shall be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.

During construction Town of Apple
Valley
PDF-CON-7: Architectural Coating Requirements. Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (e.g., paints) applied on the Project site shall have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 grams per liter.

During construction Town of Apple
Valley
PDF-CON-8: Construction Logs. The Project’s construction manager shall maintain on the construction site construction logs detailing the following:
▪ An inventory of construction equipment, maintenance records, and datasheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications;
▪ Verification that construction equipment operators have been advised of idling time limits and photographic evidence that signage with idling time limits have been posted around the construction site; and
▪ Evidence that construction contractors have been provided with transit and ridesharing information for construction workers.

Construction logs shall be made available in the event that local, regional, or state officials (e.g., officials from the Town of Apple Valley, MDAQMD, or CARB) conduct an inspection at the Project site.

During construction Town of Apple
Valley/
Construction
contractor

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-29
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
PDF-OP-1: Zero-Emission Equipment. The following measure shall be implemented during all ongoing business operations and shall be included as part of contractual lease agreement language to ensure that tenants and operators of the Project are informed of the following operational responsibility:
▪ All equipment and appliances operating on the Project site shall be zero-emission equipment. This requirement shall apply to indoor and outdoor equipment such as forklifts, handheld landscaping equipment, yard equipment, office appliances, etc.

The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.

During Project operation Town of Apple
Valley/Property
manager or tenant
PDF-OP-2: Truck Requirements and Restrictions. The following measure shall be implemented during all ongoing business operations and shall be included as part of contractual lease agreement language to ensure that tenants and operators of the Project are informed of the following operational responsibility:
▪ Only haul trucks meeting CARB model year 2010 (or newer) engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the Project site. In addition, tenants shall be in, and monitor compliance with, all current air quality regulations for on-road trucks including CARB’s HeavyDuty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.

During operation/lease Town of Apple
Valley/Property
manager
PDF-OP-3: Idling Time Restriction. The following measure shall be implemented during all ongoing business operations and shall be included as part of contractual lease agreement language to ensure that tenants and operators of the Project are informed of the following operational responsibility:

During operation/lease Town of Apple
Valley/Property
manager

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-30
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Upon commencement of operations, the tenant/operator of the Project shall be required to restrict truck idling on site to a maximum of 3 minutes, subject to exceptions defined by the CARB’s commercial vehicle idling requirements. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing this requirement.

PDF-OP-4: Anti-Idling Implementation Measures. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions from idling:
▪ Signage. Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify the Project’s three-minute idling restriction. At a minimum, each sign shall include: (1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; (2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 3 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged; (3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations; and (4) that penalties apply for violations.

Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the Town of Apple Valley shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.
▪ Efficient Load Management. The facility operator(s) shall be required to train managers and employees on efficient
scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
▪ Anti-Idling Training. Tenants and operators on the Project site shall ensure that site enforcement staff in charge of keeping the daily log and monitoring for excess idling will be trained/certified in diesel health effects and technologies, for example, by requiring attendance at CARB-approved courses (such as the free, one-day Course #512).

During operation Town of Apple
Valley/Property
manager

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-31
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
PDF-OP-5: Truck Routing Plan. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall establish and submit for approval to the Town of Apple Valley a Truck Routing Plan that provides for routes between the Project site and the State Highway System. The Truck Routing Plan shall include measures, such as signage, pavement markings, and enforcement, for preventing truck queuing, circling, stopping, and parking on public streets. The Truck Routing Plan shall make every effort to avoid passing sensitive receptors, to the greatest extent possible, unless otherwise superseded by an applicable truck routing ordinance adopted by the Town of Apple Valley. The tenant/operator of the Project shall be responsible for enforcement of the Truck Routing Plan. A revised plan shall be submitted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to a business license being issued by the Town of Apple Valley for any new tenant/operator of the Project site.

The revised plan shall expand upon the original Truck Routing Plan and describe the operational characteristics of the use of the tenant/operator, including, but not limited to, hours of operations, types of items to be stored within the building, and whether any modifications to the Project’s designated truck routes are necessary.

The Town of Apple Valley shall have discretion to determine if changes to the Truck Routing Plan are necessary including any additional measures to alleviate truck routing and parking issues that may arise during the life of the Project. Signs and drive aisle pavement markings shall clearly identify the on-site circulation pattern to minimize unnecessary on-site vehicular travel.

During operation Town of Apple
Valley/Property
manager/tenant
PDF-OP-6: Transportation Demand Management Plan. For
occupants with more than 250 employees, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce employee commute vehicle emissions shall be established, subject to review and approval by the Town of Apple Valley. The TDM plan shall apply to Project tenants through tenant leases. The TDM plan shall discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, Prior to tenant occupancy Town of Apple
Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-32
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
and biking. Examples of trip reduction measures may include, but are not limited to:
▪ Transit passes
▪ Car-sharing programs
▪ Telecommuting and alternative work schedules
▪ Ride sharing programs
PDF-OP-7: Yard Sweeping to Reduce Fugitive Dust. The following measure shall be implemented during all ongoing business operations and shall be included as part of contractual lease agreement language to ensure that tenants and operators of the Project are informed of the following operational responsibility:
▪ Yard and parking area sweeping shall be periodically conducted to minimize dust generation from the Project site. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing this requirement.

Ongoing during operation Town of Apple
Valley/Property
manager
PDF-OP-8: Restriction on Cold and/or Refrigerated Space.

Operations involving cold or refrigerated storage shall be prohibited unless additional environmental review, including a Health Risk Assessment, is conducted and certified pursuant to CEQA.

During final map review Town of Apple
Valley
PDF-OP-9: Provision of Information Regarding Programs to Reduce Emissions from Trucks. Prior to tenant occupancy, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the Town of Apple Valley demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the Project site have been provided informational documentation regarding:
▪ Funding opportunities that provide incentives for using cleanerthan-required engines and equipment, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program.

Prior to tenant occupancy Town of Apple
Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-33
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature Implementation Timing Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ The U.S. EPA SmartWay Program, which assists freight shippers, carriers, logistics companies, and other stakeholder partner with the U.S. EPA to measure, benchmark, and improve logistics operations and reduce air pollutant emissions from the
transport of cargo.

PDF-OP-10: Provision of Information Regarding Reducing Emissions from Area and Energy Sources. Prior to tenant occupancy, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the Town of Apple Valley demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the Project site have been provided informational documentation regarding:
▪ Information regarding energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy management, and existing energy incentive programs.
▪ Information regarding and a recommendation to use cleaning products that are water-based or containing low quantities of volatile organic compounds.
▪ Information regarding and a recommendation to use electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters.
▪ Information regarding on-site meal options, such as food trucks, will be provided to employees.

Prior to tenant occupancy Town of Apple
Valley
PDF-OP-11: Fire Pump Requirements. All diesel-fueled fire pumps shall meet U.S. EPA-certified Tier 4 Interim emissions standards, at a minimum.

Prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy
Town of Apple
Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR CORDOVA COMPLEX AND QUARRY AT PAWNEE WAREHOUSE PROJECT 14795 SEPTEMBER 2024 4-34

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Exhibit C: Conditions of Approval

PLANNING DIVISION
General
P1. Approval of Site Plan Review No. SPR 2022-007 by the Planning Commission is understood as acknowledgement by the applicant of the Conditions of Approval unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Town of Apple Valley Development Code Section 9.12.250, Appeals.

P2. The Site Plan Review Permit and Tentative Map approval shall become effective ten (10) calendar days after the date of the decision unless an appeal is filed in accordance with the provisions of the Town Development Code.

P3. The project shall comply with the provisions of State law, the Town of Apple Valley Development Code and General Plan. The approval, if not exercised, shall expire three (3) years from the date of action of the Planning Commission, unless otherwise extended in accordance with the provisions of the Town Development Code.

P4. An extension application must be filed, and associated fees paid, at least sixty (60) days prior to the Site Plan Review permit expiration date, should the project proponent wish to seek extension.

P5. The project proponent shall agree to defend at their sole expense (with attorneys approved by the Town) and indemnify the Town against any action brought against the Town, its agents, officers or employees resulting from, or relating to, this Site Plan Review approval. The applicant shall reimburse the Town, its agents, officers or employees for any judgment, court costs and attorney's fees which the Town, its agents, officers or employees may be required to pay as a result of such action. The Town may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of the obligations under this condition.

P6. No deviation, modification, alteration, adjustment, or revision to or from the appearance, location, fixtures, features, or appurtenances thereto of any type or extent shall be approved without said changes being first submitted to the Planning Division for consideration and approval.

P7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project proponent shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions” and shall return the executed original to the Planning Division for inclusion in the case record.

NAVISP compliance
P8. The project shall conform with all development standards as stated in the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan (NAVISP), including those standards applicable within the Industrial Specific Plan (I-SP) zoning designation.

Landscaping and Irrigation
P9. The project’s final landscape and irrigation plans shall include additional plantings along the southwesterly property line, including additional trees, hedges and berming, sufficient to visually screen the project from adjacent residential properties located southwest of the Site. Hedges in this location shall be of a variety that will ultimately provide sufficient density to screen the Site from view, shall be maintained at a height not less than 8 feet, and shall be irrigated sufficiently to ensure their success for the life of the project.

P10. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit in accordance with Chapter 9.75, “Water Conservation/Landscape Regulations” of the Development Code and in accordance with the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan (NAVISP) landscape regulations.

P11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits, subject to approval by the Planning Division, reflecting plant species listed in the NAVISP approved planting list. Drought-tolerant xeriscape landscaping techniques are encouraged for use in parkway areas, typically to consist of drought tolerant, native type plants, trees and groundcover.

P12. All required and installed landscaping shall incorporate and maintain a functioning automatic sprinkler system.

P13. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, orderly, disease and weed-free manner at all times.

P14. All front building setbacks and street right-of-way areas located between on-site improvements and the back of existing or future public sidewalks or street curbs, except access driveways and walkways, shall be fully landscaped and maintained in a disease and weed-free manner at all times.

P15. Detention basins shall be landscaped with native vegetation, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division.

P16. The landscaping plan shall provide a minimum of one (1) tree of a minimum size of twenty-four (24) inch box per each seven (7) parking spaces, located to visually break up long rows of parking spaces, and may be clustered where appropriate.

P17. Decorative masonry walls, hedges and/or landscape berms, thirty-six to forty-two (36-42) inches tall, measured from finished grade of parking fields, shall be installed adjacent to public rights-of-way to screen parking fields. Heights of screening walls, hedges and/or berms may be reduced where parking fields are situated below grade. Horizontal and vertical variation in the design of the screening walls is required where the length of such wall exceeds forty (40) linear feet, subject to Planning Staff approval.

Screening, Fencing and Walls
P18. A fence/wall plan shall be submitted with the civil and landscape/irrigation plans identifying how new fencing or walls will relate to existing fences or walls located around the perimeter of the Site, if they exist. The project proponent shall be required to collaborate with adjacent property owners to provide new

fencing/walls and remove existing fence/walls, at the project proponent’s expense, should they exist. Double fencing shall not be permitted.

P19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit detailed plans showing all proposed walls and fencing, subject to approval by the Planning Division.

P20. Loading dock doors shall be screened from public rights-of-way and any adjacent or nearby residential uses or zoning districts by the use of wing walls, screening walls, landscaping or any combination thereof, as approved by the Planning Division.

P21. All proposed walls shall be constructed of decorative slump stone, split face, or other decorative material that is compatible with the architecture of the primary building. Such walls shall incorporate appropriate decorative enhancements such as caps or pilasters.

P22. All proposed fencing adjacent to surrounding abutting public rights-of-way shall be constructed of decorative materials such as wrought iron. Such fencing shall incorporate appropriate decorative enhancements.

P23. No roof-mounted equipment shall be placed on the building unless screened by parapets as an integral part of the architecture, and as specifically approved by the Planning Division. Placement of solar collection panels is exempt from this condition.

P24. No ground-mounted equipment shall be placed on site unless screened by a combination of walls matching the design and color palette of the primary building, and landscape planting materials, of a height sufficient to screen said equipment.

P25. Access to the building roof shall be provided from the interior of the building or screened from view from any public street or public parking area. If roof access is on the exterior of the building, security shall be provided to prevent unauthorized access.

P26. Long expanses of wall surface or fence surface shall be offset and architecturally designed to avoid monotony. Pilasters shall be provided at regular intervals consistent with the length and scale of the wall but at a minimum of every fifty (50) feet and landscape pockets shall be provided.

P27. Retaining walls of more than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be constructed of finished decorative material which is compatible with the primary material used on the main building.

P28. A Wall Height Permit shall be required for a wall or fence above six (6) feet in height, up to a maximum of eight (8) feet in height. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for a wall or fence above eight (8) feet in height, up to a maximum of ten (10) feet in height.

P29. Within the required front or street side setback, solid walls or fences are limited to forty-two (42) inches in height; open fences constructed of wrought iron incorporating decorative features, such as pilasters and spires or other embellishments, may be six (6) feet in height.

Signage
P30. All identification signs shall have a separate permit and are subject to final approval by the Town’s Planning Division. If the project will consist of a multitenant building, a sign program shall be required.

Parking
P31. All parking requirements shall be met and be in compliance with Town standards.

P32. All parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with double or hairpin lines.

P33. Required parking spaces shall be provided for handicapped persons in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and all applicable Town Development Code standards.

Handicapped-accessible parking spaces shall be located as close as practical to facility entrances. Each space must be provided with access ramps and clearly marked in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.

Trash enclosures
P34. Trash enclosures shall be designed and installed consistent with Chapter

9.46.080 of the Development Code and all other applicable Town Standards.

P35. Trash enclosures shall reflect the architectural design of the approved project, including trellis canopy or other similar features, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division.

Construction-related
P36. Construction activities shall not impede traffic flow or required accessible paths of travel.

P37. The site shall be maintained clean, sanitary, and free of litter and any other undesirable debris or materials and shall be cleaned of loose debris on a daily basis.

P38. Prior to approval of a building permit for the project, the following agencies shall provide written verification to the Planning Division that all conditions of approval and applicable regulations have been met:
• Apple Valley Fire Protection District
• Apple Valley Building & Safety Division
• Apple Valley Public Works Division
• Apple Valley Engineering Division
• Apple Valley Planning Division
• Liberty Utilities
• Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
Site Lighting and Photometrics
P39. Light standard models shall be selected and painted to blend architecturally with buildings, pedestrian areas and other hardscape elements.

P40. Lighting fixtures shall be located and shielded in such a manner that all light and glare be directed onto the Site, away from adjacent properties, and that no light or reflected glare shall be directed off-site. No light shall be directed above a horizontal plane passing through the bottom of fixtures.

P41. Parking lot lighting shall conform to all requirements of the Town Development Code and Uniform Building Code.

P42. Construction plans for a building permit application shall include a photometric plan showing the installation of lighting fixtures and lighting levels to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. The photometric plan shall include point-bypoint lighting levels in foot-candles for the entire plot and ten feet beyond the project property lines. The point-by-point photometric plan shall provide lighting levels on a grid not to exceed five feet by five feet across the entire site. Each point shall report the illuminance to the nearest 0.1 foot-candle. Photometric calculations including maximum foot-candles, average foot-candles, minimum foot-candles, average to minimum uniformity, and maximum to minimum uniformity shall be included on the plan. Fixture and standard specifications and details shall be provided on the plan.

Architectural
P43. Building renderings as approved by the Planning Commission shall be the anticipated and expected appearance of the structure upon completion.

P44. The Community Development Director or their designee shall have the authority to approve minor architectural changes on items such as window treatments, color combinations, facade treatments and architectural relief. Questions on the interpretation of this provision, or changes not clearly within the scope of this provision, shall be submitted to the Director for consideration under a Site Plan Review Permit Revision application.

Grading, Drainage and Utilities
P45. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval.

P46. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.

General Environmental & Regulatory
ER1. Pursuant to AVMC § 8.19.020(a) et seq., the construction contractor shall complete and submit a Waste Management Plan on a form approved by the Town for this purpose as part of the building permit application package.

ER2. Pursuant to AVMC § 8.19.050 and the California Green Code, the construction contractor shall submit documentation verifying that the project has met the diversion requirement prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. The diversion requirement shall be at least sixty five percent (65%) of the total construction debris generated by the project via reuse or recycling.

ER3. Trash and recycling enclosures shall be constructed to accommodate separated trash, recyclable material, and organic waste containers, appropriately sized to handle the estimated waste to be generated on-site, coupled with appropriate service frequency. Recyclable and organic waste containers are currently minimum 60-gallon barrels. Contact Burrtec Waste Industries at (760) 245-8607 for further information.

ER4. Development of the Site is subject to the Town’s Interim Local Policy and Procedures on the Western Joshua Tree published July 21, 2021, or amendment thereof.

California Environmental Quality Act EIR Addendum Mitigation Measures CEQA1.All mitigation measures identified in the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are hereby adopted by reference and shall be implemented as Conditions of Approval and made a part of this project and project record.

ENGINEERING DIVISION
EC1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage plan with street layouts shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer showing provisions for receiving and conducting offsite and onsite tributary drainage flows around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties. This plan shall consider reducing the post-development site-developed flow to 90 percent of the pre-development flow for a 100-year design storm. (Town Resolution 2000-50; Development Code 9.28.050.C, 9.28.100) EC2. A final grading plan shall be submitted to the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit for review and approval. A grading permit shall not be issued until street improvement plans have been submitted to the Town Engineer for review and substantial completion of the street plans has been attained as determined by the Town Engineer.

EC3. A 44-ft wide half-width road dedication adjacent to the property for Navajo Road shall be granted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to Issuance of Grading Permit.

EC4. A 44-ft wide half-width road dedication adjacent to the property for Cordova Road shall be granted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to Issuance of Grading Permit.

EC5. A 33-ft (plus 6-ft) wide half-width road dedication adjacent to the property for Doberman Road shall be granted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to Issuance of Grading Permit.

EC6. A 44-ft wide half-width road dedication adjacent to the property for Dachshund Road shall be granted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to Issuance of Grading Permit. If Dachshund Road is changed from a Secondary Road to a local industrial road on the Town’s General Plan Circulation Element, the project’s right-of-way and road construction requirements may be updated to the current Circulation Element standards without additional Planning Commission approval.

EC7. A minimum 36-ft wide road dedication for Cordova Road from Dale Evans Parkway to the Project shall be granted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to Issuance of a

Grading Permit.

EC8. A minimum 36-ft wide road dedication along Navajo Road from Johnson Road to the Project shall be granted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit.

EC9. Street improvement plans shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval.

EC10. All streets abutting the development shall be improved a minimum half-width of 28 feet with curb, gutter on the development side. All access roads shall be a minimum 26’ wide pavement with 5’ wide graded shoulders, per the Town’s access road standards.

EC11. Cordova Road adjacent to the property shall be improved to the Town's half-width Secondary Road standards.

EC12. Dachshund Avenue adjacent to the property shall be improved to the Town's halfwidth Secondary Road standards. See EC6.

EC13. Doberman Street adjacent to the property shall be improved to the Town's halfwidth Commercial/Industrial Road standards.

EC14. Additional rights-of-way (minimum 6’ width) may be required from offsite properties to construct the half-width industrial half-width street for Doberman Street. The minimum half-width pavement width for two-way traffic is 26’ wide with shoulders.

The additional right of way may come from adjacent properties or from the project’s property.

EC15. During the grading of the roads, soils testing of the road subgrades by a qualified soils engineering firm shall be performed to determine appropriate structural road section. Minimum asphalt concrete thickness for all streets shall be 0.33 ft.

EC16. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Town prior to performing any work in any public right of way.

EC17. Final improvement plans and profiles shall indicate the location of any existing utility which would affect construction and shall provide for its relocation at no cost to the Town.

EC18. Utility lines shall be placed underground in accordance with the requirements of the Town.

EC19. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the Town acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by Town to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the Town prior to commencement of the appraisal. Additional security may be required as recommended by the Town Engineer and Town Attorney.

EC20. Traffic impact fees adopted by the Town shall be paid by the developer.

EC21. Any developer fees including but not limited to drainage fees shall be paid by the developer as per Town enactment.

EC22. Any required street striping shall be thermoplastic as approved by the Town Engineer.

EC23. Retention/detention basins greater than 1 acre in size shall not be greater than 8 feet in depth (unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission). The sides of any retention/detention basins shall be 4:1 or flatter slopes.

EC24. Retention basin/drainage channel shall also include Town Standard two-stage dry wells or other approved system to help facilitate the rapid removal of storm water.

EC25. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shall be required.

EC26. At the intersection of I-15 NB Ramps/Outer Highway 15 & Stoddard Wells Rd, the Developer shall pay a fair share contribution towards the widening of the southbound approach to add an exclusive southbound left-turn lane on the I-15 Northbound off-ramp and convert the intersection from a side-street stopcontrolled intersection to an all-way stop controlled intersection, prior to final occupancy.

EC27. All additional traffic mitigation measure included on Table 1-5 and listed in Section

1.7 in the “Focused Traffic Impact Analysis, Proposed Cordova Industrial, Complex Development, APN: 0463-213-05,” prepared by David Evans and Associates shall be required prior to final occupancy.

EC28. Ramona Road is to be formally vacated through the Site prior to recordation of the project’s Final Parcel Map.

PUBLIC WORKS
PW1. Sewage disposal shall be by sewer main extension. A six-inch lateral is required off the extension.

PW2. Sewer connection fees are required.

PW3. Submit plans to Town of Apple Valley Public Works Department for review and approval.

BUILDING AND SAFETY
BC1. Grading and drainage plans including a soils report must be submitted to and approved by the Building Department and Engineering Department prior to grading permit issuance.

BC2. Submit plans, engineering and obtain permits for all structures, retaining walls, signs.

BC3. A pre-construction permit and inspection are required prior to any land disturbing activity to verify requirements for erosion control, flood hazard native plant protection and desert tortoise habitat.

BC4. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and a Storm Water Prevention Plan (SWPP) must be submitted to and approved by the Engineering and Building Departments prior to issuance of a grading permit and or any land disturbance.

BC5. All utilities shall be placed underground in compliance with Town Ordinance No.

89.

BC6. All cross lot drainage requires easements and may require improvements at the time of development.

BC7. Comply with State of California Disability Access requirements.

BC8. A pre-grading meeting is required prior to beginning any land disturbance. This meeting shall include the Building Inspector, General Contractor, Grading Contractor, soils technician and any other parties required to be present during the grading process such as Biologist, Paleontologist.

BC9. Dust palliative or hydro seed will be required on those portions of the site graded but not constructed (phased construction).

BC10. Page two of the submitted building plans will be the conditions of approval.

BC11. Construction must comply with 2022 California Building Codes.

BC12. Best Managements Practices (BMP’s) are required for the site during construction.

BC13. Provide Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) or Alternative Compliance Plan.

FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
FP1. The referenced project is protected by the Apple Valley Fire Protection District.

Prior to construction occurring on any parcel, the owner shall contact the Fire District for verification of current fire protection development requirement.

FP2. All new construction shall comply with applicable sections of the California Fire Code, California Building Code, and other statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations regarding fires and fire prevention adopted by the State, County, or Apple Valley Fire Protection District.

FP3. All combustible vegetation, such as dead shrubbery and dry grasses, shall be removed from each building site a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet from any combustible building material, including the finished structure. This does not apply to single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery, or similar plants, which are used as ground cover if they do not form a means of transmitting fire.

FP4. Prior to combustible construction, the development, and each phase thereof, shall have two points of paved access for fire and other emergency equipment, and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations. Each of these points of access shall provide an independent route into the area in which the development is located.

FP5. Fire lanes shall be provided with a minimum width of twenty-six (26) feet, maintained, and identified in the parking areas.

FP6. Fire lanes shall be provided with a minimum width of thirty-six (36) feet, maintained, and identified in and throughout the facility (Apple Valley Fire Protection District Ordinance 57).

FP7. A turnaround shall be required at the end of each roadway one hundred fifty (150) feet or more in length and shall be approved by the Fire District. Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) feet.

Turning radius on all roads within the facility shall not be less than 21 feet inside and minimum of 41 feet outside turning radius with no parking on street, or 47 feet with parking. Road grades shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) unless approved by the Chief (Apple Valley Fire Protection District Ordinance 57).

FP8. Plans for fire protection systems designed to meet the fire flow requirements specified in the Conditions of Approval for this project shall be submitted to and approved by the Apple Valley Fire Protection District and water purveyor prior to the installation of said systems (Apple Valley Fire Protection District, Ordinance 57).

A. Unless otherwise approved by the Fire Chief, on-site fire protection water systems shall be designed to be looped and fed from two (2) remote points.

B. System Standards:

Fire Flow 3,000-4,000 GPM @ 20 psi Residual
pressure
Duration 4 hours
Hydrant Spacing 330 feet
Fire Flow is determined by the type of construction.

FP9. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial and industrial developments shall have street addresses and location approved by the Fire District. Where the building setback exceeds 200 feet from the roadway, additional non-illuminated contrasting (18) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entrance. When these developments have rear doors of each unit, the unit number shall be a minimum of 6 inches and shall contrast with their background (Apple Valley Fire Protection District, Ordinance 57).

FP10. A letter shall be furnished to the Fire District from the water purveyor stating that the required fire flow for the project can be met prior to the Formal Development Review Committee meeting.

FP11. Prior to issuance of building permit, the developer shall pay all applicable fees as identified in the Apple Valley Fire Protection District Ordinance.

FP12. A Knox Box Rapid Entry System shall be required for this project (Apple Valley Fire Protection District Ordinance 57).

MOJAVE DESERT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
MD1. Signage compliant with Rule 403 Attachment B shall be erected at each Site entrance not later than the commencement of construction.

MD2. Use a water truck to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and actively spread water during visible dusting episodes to minimize visible fugitive dust emissions. For projects with exposed sand or fines deposits (and for projects that expose such soils through earthmoving), chemical stabilization or covering with a stabilizing layer of gravel will be required to eliminate visible dust/sand from sand/fines deposits.

MD3. All perimeter fencing shall be wind fencing or the equivalent, to a minimum of four feet of height or the top of all perimeter fencing. The owner/operator shall maintain the wind fencing as needed to keep it intact and remove windblown dropout. This

wind fencing requirement may be superseded by local ordinance, rule or projectspecific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.

MD4. All maintenance and access vehicular roads and parking areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel or asphaltic pavement sufficient to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. Take actions to prevent project-related trackout onto paved surfaces and clean any project-related trackout within 24 hours. All other earthen surfaces within the project area shall be stabilized by natural or irrigated vegetation, compaction, chemical or other means sufficient to prohibit visible fugitive dust from wind erosion.

MD5. Obtain District permits for any miscellaneous process equipment that may not be exempt under District Rule 219 including, but not limited to: Internal Combustion Engines with a manufacture's maximum continuous rating greater than 50 brake horsepower.

MD6. Prepare and submit to MDAQMD prior to commencing earth-moving activity, a dust control plan that describes all applicable dust control measures that will be implemented at the project.

SOUTHWEST GAS
SW1. Gas main distribution lines are a distance away. Review needs to take place to determine time/feasibility/cost. Time required varies by project and can be estimated once the request is made by the customer and review is completed. For projects that require system improvement it can be a year or longer.

SW2. As soon as possible, please contact the Southwest Gas Energy Solutions department at [email protected] for more information.

SW3. Refer to the Southwest Gas Required for Design letter for initial information that is required from the customer.

LIBERTY UTILITIES
LU1. Offsite water mains exist on Dachshund Avenue and Cordova Road fronting this development but are not adequate to meet fire flow requirements.

LU2. Water mains must be upgraded and extended to provide fire protection for this development in accordance with Apple Valley Fire Protection District's conditions.

LU3. Water main extension contract between the developer and Liberty Apple Valley is required and must comply with Rule 15 of the California Public Utilities Commission. Subject to the terms of the contract, the cost of facilities installed as advances will be reimbursed to the developer at 2.5 percent per year for 40 years with no interest. Upgrade approximately 4,000 feet of 8” main to 16” diameter pipe along Dachshund Avenue and Cordova Road connecting at Navajo Road. Extend 16” diameter pipeline approximately 2,000 feet along Cordova Road and connect to existing main at Pawnee and Concord Roads.

LU4. Offsite fire hydrants are required to be located in accordance with Apple Valley Fire Protection District's requirements and installed per Liberty Apple Valley standard drawings.

LU5. Fire hydrants required onsite will be installed in accordance with Apple Valley Fire Protection District's requirements.

LU6. Fire service lines are required for this development and will be installed in accordance with Apple Valley Fire Protection District's conditions and must comply with Rule 16 of the California Public Utilities Commission. Approved and tested customer owned backflow protection device is required.

LU7. The water lines and appurtenances required are to be installed in accordance with Liberty Apple Valley standards and specifications.

LU8. Water facilities need to be installed in dedicated public Rights-of-Ways and/or public utility easements and need to be identified and shown on the water improvement plans. These dedications and/or easements are needed to install, maintain, repair, connect, operate and inspect the proposed water facilities with unobstructed vehicular access.

LU9. Domestic service lines will be installed from the proposed water main to the street right-of-way line that fronts this development. Approved and tested customer owned backflow protection device is required.

LU10. Supply Facility Fee is required, which will fund development of new wells. This fee will be collected on a per meter basis, which is presently at a rate of $1,030 per 5/8" equivalent meter.

LU11. Supplemental Water Acquisition Fee is also required in order for Liberty to have the water rights to provide water to this project. This is a one-time charge that is subject to change, to be determined at the time of construction. Presently, this fee is $5,665 per residential lot or equivalent average residential water use.

END OF CONDITIONS

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 - 03

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF APPLE VALLEY: 1) DENYING APPEAL 2024-006 AND
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
CERTIFICATION OF EIR SCH #2023090009, APPROVAL
OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20788 AND
APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW 2022-007, AND, 2)

CERTIFYING THE EIR, MAKING CEQA FINDINGS OF

FACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND SITE PLAN REVIEW.

WHEREAS, on November 7, 2022, the applicant’s agent, Synergy Consulting CA, submitted an application on behalf of the applicant, VVLIG US Holdings LP, to build a

1.56 million square foot ecommerce warehouse development (Cordova Complex Project or Project) on an 87-acre site located between Cordova Road to the north, Navajo Road to the east, Doberman Street and undeveloped land to the south, and Dachshund Avenue to the west, comprised of ten parcels (APNs 0463-213-05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 16, 33, 34, 35, and 36) in the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan (NAVISP) area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Town is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Tentative Parcel Map is subject to all requirements as identified in Chapter 9.71, Subdivision Regulations, of Title 9 of the Town Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Section III.G.1 of the adopted NAVISP requires approval of a Site Plan Review Permit for the Project; and
WHEREAS, based on information contained in the Initial Study, which concluded that the Project would have a significant impact on the environment, the Town published a “Notice of Preparation” (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting and circulated the NOP for (30) calendar days between September 1, 2023 through October 2, 2023, during which time the Town received six comment letters; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21067 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, a Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared (State Clearinghouse #2023090009), pursuant to requirements of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines, sufficiently detailed such that all potentially significant adverse environmental effects have been evaluated; and

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
2 WHEREAS, the DEIR recommends mitigation measures be applied to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to less-than-significant levels, analyzed a range of potentially feasible alternatives capable of reducing environmental effects to a lesser level of significance, and concludes that, despite incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Noise; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15087, Notices of Completion and Availability were prepared, circulated to the public, responsible, trustee and other regulatory agencies and other parties, and filed with the State Clearinghouse and Clerk of the Board of San Bernardino County and the DEIR circulated for (45) days from May 24, 2024 through July 8, 2024 during which time, the Town received eight written comment letters; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, physical copies of the DEIR and technical appendices were made available for review and inspection at Apple Valley Town Hall, at the Development Services Building, on the Planning Department website, and at the San Bernardino County Public Library; and
WHEREAS, based on comments received during the DEIR public review period, the Town prepared a Final EIR (“FEIR”), consisting of comments received during the public comment period, written responses to those comments, revisions and corrections to the DEIR and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the FEIR sufficiently analyzes feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing the effects in accordance with CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2024, the FEIR was published, as well as Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the merits of the project, certified the FEIR, adopted Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 20788 and Site Plan Review No. 2022-007, and directed Town Staff to file and post a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the Clerk of the Board for the County of San Bernardino and with the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(d), an NOD was filed and posted on November 14, 2024 with the Clerk of the Board for the County of San Bernardino and on November 12, 2024 with the State Clearinghouse and the Town mailed the NOD to all responsible and trustee agencies and to entities that had requested direct notification; and
WHEREAS, Appeal 2024-006 was filed by Advocates for the Environment on November 13, 2024, challenging the Planning Commission’s determination and

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
3 requesting review by the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was duly published and posted in the manner and for the time prescribed by law, and was also direct certified mailed to all property owners within a 700-foot radius of the Project site boundaries; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, commencing at 6:30 P.M. in the Town Council Chambers at Apple Valley Town Hall, the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley conducted a public hearing at which time all persons wishing to testify regarding said Appeal were heard, and said Appeal was fully studied; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Town Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all information and data in the administrative record, including, but not limited to, the EIR and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, no comments made during the public review period or in the public hearing, and no additional information submitted to the Town have produced substantial new information that would warrant preparation of a new EIR, recirculation of the previously prepared EIR, or any other additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Town Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Town Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive Findings of this Resolution.

Section 2. As Lead Agency and decision-making body for the Project, the Town Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, comments received, and other documents contained in the administrative record for the Project and finds that the EIR and administrative record contain a complete and accurate reporting of environmental impacts associated with the Project, and that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines.

Section 3. Based on the whole record before it and all other written and oral evidence presented, the Town Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact.

Section 4. The Town Council hereby adopts CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which were prepared in accordance with CEQA

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
4 Guidelines Section 15091, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 5. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Town Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth in the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

Section 6. The Town shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of the County of San Bernardino and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of the Town Council’s approval.

Section 7. The Town of Apple Valley Town Council makes the following Tentative Parcel Map approval Findings pursuant to Section 9.71.040(A)(5) of the Apple Valley Municipal Code:

1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan (Subdivision Map Act 66473.5).

FACT: The project proposes consolidation (subdivision) of ten adjoining parcels on 87 acres into one legal parcel of land for the purpose of facilitating development of one industrial building. All ten of the parcels that are part of the project are within the NAVISP and identified as such on the General Plan Land Use map and are designated as SP-Specific Plan, on the Town Zoning Map. The created lot would meet the minimum required lot size, width and depth as prescribed in the NAVISP.

By its size, shape and configuration, the proposed project and lot consolidation could be used in a manner consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element, the NAVISP, and the SP zoning designation and the site is suitable for such use.

Conditions of approval have been added to the project to ensure that it meets the intent of the General Plan and NAVISP.

2. The Town Council has considered the effects of its action upon the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources (Subdivision Map Act Section 66412.3).

FACT: The proposal consists of consolidating ten separate contiguous industrial parcels for the purpose of future industrial development. The proposal will not adversely impact housing needs or future housing development within the Town, as it does not affect residentially designated land, nor result in demolition of existing housing. The proposal will assist in providing economic opportunity in the

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
5 form of property tax and job creation. The proposed uses and density are permitted under the NAVISP General Plan land use designation, the SP-Specific Plan zoning designation as well as the I-SP NAVISP land use designation. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density as consolidated and will allow the property to be developed in a manner consistent with the General Plan’s Goal and Objective to promote well-designed industrial development.

3. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for the future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.

FACT: The single parcel of land that would be created by this subdivision would be sufficiently sized at 87 acres to provide natural heating and cooling on site. The project includes robust landscaped and open space areas to support natural heating and cooling. Further, as the site is developed, construction will be subject to implementation of natural heating and cooling requirements pursuant to requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code.

4. The Town Council shall determine whether the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system would result in a violation of the requirements as set forth in Section 13000 et seq., of the California Water Code. If the Town Council finds that the proposed waste discharge would result in, or add to, a violation of said requirements, the Town Council may disapprove the subdivision (Subdivision Map Act Section 66474.6).

FACT: A detailed Water Quality Management Plan was prepared. Based on the WQMP, detailed sanitary sewer utility plans have been prepared. The design of the project resulting from the proposed subdivision would not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure wildlife or their habitats, cause serious public health problems, nor result in violation of the California Water Code.

5. In order to avoid the creation of undevelopable parcels of land, any subdivision falling wholly or partially in areas of fifteen (15) percent or steeper slopes shall be subject to the Findings contained in Section 9.71.060.D of this Chapter.

FACT: The proposed subdivision does not involve land in an area with 15 percent or greater slopes and no further Findings are required.

Section 8. The Town of Apple Valley Town Council makes the following Site Plan Review approval Findings pursuant to Section III (G)(1) of the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan.

1. That the location, size, design, density and intensity of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan, the Development Code, and the development policies and standards of the Town.

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
6 FACT: The project site’s land use designation in the NAVISP is Specific PlanIndustrial (I-SP), which allows warehouse development with approval of a Site Plan Review permit. As proposed, the project complies with all applicable design and development standards of the General Plan and NAVISP, including lot size, width, depth, required building and landscaping setbacks, lot coverage, maximum height, parking space counts and dimensions and landscaping coverage requirements.

The project is designed with an on-site stormwater filtration and retention system that will accommodate the required capacity of a 100-year storm event. All anticipated potential environmental impacts have been addressed with detailed mitigation measures that will be incorporated as project Conditions of Approval.

2. That the location, size and design of the proposed structures and improvements are compatible with the site’s natural landforms, surrounding sites, structures and streetscapes.

FACT: There are no significant natural landmarks present on the project site or in the surrounding area. The character of surrounding areas has been established by the densities, intensities and uses of the NAVISP as well as prior construction of large nearby warehouse complexes that are similar in size and use. The project’s size, massing, form and scale are consistent with the intent of the NAVISP, as well as with the existing visual character in the immediate vicinity, and the overall character envisioned in the NAVISP and the General Plan. The proposed project will therefore not result in negative impacts to natural landforms or scenic views.

3. That the materials, textures and details of the proposed construction are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures.

FACT: The project consists of a single 48-foot tall “high cube” industrial warehouse building to be constructed of concrete tilt-up walls. The building design deploys a variety of architectural strategies to create a contemporary, high-quality and appropriately sited industrial park facility. The design indicates varying roof lines and numerous vertical and horizontal elements that serve to break up the overall sense of massing. Varying building materials, robust wall articulation, multiple roof planes and lines, cornice caps, extensive glazing, and other architectural elements and embellishments are indicated throughout. The building also incorporates high metal canopies, large windows, including prominent glass entryways, and aesthetically nuances at the office space entry. Elevations facing public rights-ofway feature scored accent concrete panels and decorative windows. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by a parapet. The building will feature a complementary and neutral color palette incorporating earthtones with shades of grey, taupe and cream, consistent and compatible with the Town’s high desert setting, long-term architectural vision and traditional values. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in negative impacts to neighboring structures.

4. That quality in architectural design is maintained in order to enhance the visual environment of the Town and protect the economic value of existing

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
7 structures.

FACT: The building design deploys a variety of architectural strategies to create a contemporary, high-quality industrial park facility. The elevations depict varying roof lines and numerous vertical and horizontal elements that serve to break up the overall sense of massing. Varying building materials, robust wall articulation, multiple roof planes and lines, cornice caps, extensive glazing, and other architectural elements and embellishments are indicated throughout. The building also incorporates high metal canopies, large windows, including prominent glass entryways, and aesthetically pleasant nuances at the office space entries.

Elevations facing public rights-of-way feature scored accent concrete panels and decorative windows. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by a parapet.

The building will feature a complementary and neutral color palette incorporating a variety of earthtones with shades of brown, grey, taupe and cream represented, consistent and compatible with the Town’s high desert setting, long-term vision and traditional values. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in negative impacts to neighboring structures. Therefore, the project’s architectural design will enhance the visual environment, promote quality architecture, and protect the economic value of existing structures in the NAVISP.

5. That there are public facilities, services and utilities available at the appropriate levels or that these shall be installed at the appropriate time to serve the project.

FACT: Water, sanitary sewer, stormwater infrastructure, communications, electrical and gas utilities and services are either available at the project site, nearby, or are planned to be sized and installed at capacities that comfortably support the scale of the proposed facility. The project meets all Apple Valley Fire District standards including fire lane width, site access points, truck turn-around radius (end of Doberman Street), connectors/post indicators, valves, and fire hydrant spacing and placement. The developer is required to pay all applicable Town Development Impact Fees toward construction of required off-site improvements and will finance and construct all required on-site improvements to meet minimum requirements and to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. As regards required public right-of-way dedications and improvements, the project is required to construct half-width street sections on all public streets that it abuts, including Cordova and Navajo Roads, Dachshund Avenue and Doberman Street.

The Town Engineer has provided conditions that will ensure the development meets or exceeds all Town standards for right-of-way dedication and street improvement and utility and service provision. Further, the Town has adopted a comprehensive Traffic Impact Fee program to fund construction of warranted circulation system improvements and the project will be required to pay its fair share contribution as part of the impact fee program toward construction of improvements to ensure transport circulation level of service standards are met or exceeded. All required improvements are conditioned to be installed prior to issuance of any occupancy permits or certificates.

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
8 6. That access to the site and internal circulation are safe.

FACT: The project would have seven access points and demonstrates safe and adequate access to and from the proposed facility. Site design and proposed Conditions of Approval require the site to be improved to provide adequate legal and physical access pursuant to standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The project proposes 13 ADA-compliant parking spaces with striped loading areas and four-foot-wide paths of travel between abutting streets, parking fields and building entrances. In addition, the site is designed with striped pathways to provide safe travel between abutting public rights-of-way and building entrances.

7. That the project is consistent with the uses described in the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan and analyzed in the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006031112).

FACT: An EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and evaluated the Cordova Complex project’s potential adverse environmental impacts. The EIR provides information regarding short-term, long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, and identifies mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate potentially significant impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for which mitigation measures can be applied to avoid or substantially reduce significant adverse environmental effects has been prepared. Significant and unavoidable impacts were found for which no feasible mitigation measures could avoid or substantially reduce some Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Noise impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared to address those issues and provide an explanation as to why the Town has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse remaining significant unavoidable impacts.

Section 9. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the Town Council during the public hearing of February 25, 2025, including written and oral staff reports together with public testimony, the Town Council hereby approves the proposed Project (TPM No. 20788, SPR 2022-007). Project approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 10. The documents and materials associated with the project and the EIR that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings are based are located at Apple Valley Town Hall, 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, CA 92307.

The Custodian of Record is Ms. La Vonda M-Pearson, Town Clerk and Director of Government Services.

Section 11. Based on the entire record before the Town Council, all written and oral evidence presented, and the Findings set forth in Sections 1 through 10 of this Resolution, the Town Council hereby finds that the Appeal is without merit and is therefore denied.

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
9 Section 12. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Resolution shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect.

Section 13. Effective Date. This Resolution is effective immediately. All resolutions, parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby amended to be consistent herewith.

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley this 25th day of February 2025.
__________________________________
Scott Nassif, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
La Vonda M-Pearson, Town Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
10 Please see attachment A – Resolution 2025-02 for Exhibits A-C

ATTACHMENT D
Attachment D - Blum, Collins & Ho DEIR comment “Letter E” and Dudek Final EIR response

1. Blum, Collins & Ho DEIR comment “Letter E” can be found on pages 14 through 169 of Appendix A of the Final EIR on the Town of Apple Valley website.

Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project - Appendix A – Draft Environmental Impact Report Comment Letters

2. Dudek Final EIR response can be found on pages 3-8 through 3-29 (PDF pages 26–47) of the Final EIR on the Town of Apple Valley website.

Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project – Final EIR

To: Apple Valley Planning Commission
From: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Subject: Quarry at Pawnee
This letter is to serve as further comment in addition to all previously submitted comments and documents by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.

CalEnviroScreen Information
CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the state. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared. An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores. CalEnviroScreen ranks communities based on data that are available from state and federal government sources. CalEnviroScreen is updated and maintained by The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, on behalf ofthe California Environmental Protection Agency.

CalEnviroScreen Data on : Quarry at Pawnee EIR Project Location/Area The above listed project is in census tract (6071012101). Overall, when compared to other census tracts, the project site census tract is in the 65th percentile regarding pollution. As far as pollution burden is concerned, this census tract is in the 40th percentile. In terms of Ozone, this census tract is in the 80th percentile, and Traffic 60th percentile, to name a few.

Apple Valley - Quarry at Pawnee EIR
Census Tract: 6071012101
Population: 5,860
Environmental Effects %
Cleanup Sites 52%
Solid Waste 85%
Sensitive Populations %
Cardiovascular Disease 89%
Asthma 88%
Low Birth Weight 92%
Exposures %
Ozone 80%
Traffic 60%
Socioeconomic Factors %
Unemployment 91%
Poverty 53%
Overall Percentiles %
Population Characteristics Percentile 77%
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile 65%

Conclusion
Consider the above referenced information when making this important decision. Realize that you and the citizens of this area face some of the WORST POLLUTION in the entire state of California.

It is the responsibility of the City’s elected and appointed officials to make environmentally responsible development decisions. Based on the CalEnviroScreen data, this is more than sufficient evidence of the further air quality impacts that the citizenry of Apple Valley will continue to encounter with further development of another warehouse. We are not against development, as we believe it is necessary for further economic growth in our current society.

Development needs to be conducted with the highest of expectations to ensure the local population does not suffer further air quality burdens.

We stand by our comments and believe the EIR is flawed and should be redrafted and recirculated for public review.

Respectfully Submitted,
Rich Golding
Rich Golding

GSEJA
Source -
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/4af93cf9888a424481d2868391af2d82/p age/home/?data_id=dataSource_2-1754d6afdb4-layer-9%3A7306 Glossary of Terms
Ozone - Amount of daily maximum 8-hour Ozone concentration Particulate Matter 2.5 - Annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations Diesel Particulate Matter - Diesel PM emissions from on‐road and non‐road sources Toxic Releases - Toxicity‐weighted concentrations of modeled chemical releases to air from
facility emissions and off‐site incineration.

Traffic -Traffic density, in vehicle‐kilometers per hour per road length, within 150 meters of the census tract boundary.

MEMORANDUM
To: Rick Hirsch, Contract Planner for Town of Apple Valley From: Christine Kronenberg, Catherine Wade
Subject: Response to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Date: November 5, 2024
Attachment(s): None
The Town of Apple Valley (Town) received written correspondence (n.d.)1 after the close of the Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) comment period from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. The correspondence discusses the CalEnviroScreen mapping tool and uses the tool to evaluate environmental effects of the project and concludes the area is subject to higher levels of pollution and based on this information states the EIR is flawed and should be revised and recirculated.

A similar comment was received on the Draft EIR and addressed in the Final EIR (see Response to Comment E-8).

As indicated in the response, neither the Town, the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), nor the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines include thresholds that consider broader environmental justice impacts, but rather account for the potential health effects of a project relying on project-level thresholds.

The CalEnviroScreen Environmental Justice mapping tool, developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in 2013, identifies California communities that are most affected by pollution and vulnerable to its effects. The MDAQMD is the entity responsible for monitoring air quality in the region, issuing permits for stationary sources, regulating stationary sources through compliance with air district rules, and for developing plans to reduce air emissions to comply with state and national air quality standards. The MDAQMD currently does not have any air quality guidance or thresholds to analyze areas with higher pollution levels differently from areas with lower pollution. While CalEnviroScreen is a useful tool in assessing a community’s risk, it is not the industry standard for evaluating a project’s impact on the environment as required under CEQA. The Draft EIR relies on the thresholds established by the MDAQMD to evaluate if the project would result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and if the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The analysis concludes project operation would result in exceedances of criteria pollutant thresholds for emissions of NOx and PM10 primarily associated with vehicles and no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level; therefore, impacts related to a net increase of criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable. The effects of this exceedance would occur on a regional scale, and CEQA does not currently treat this impact in a different manner depending on the socioeconomic characteristics of a community. To further evaluate the potential health risks of the project, a health risk analysis was also prepared for the project (see Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-25- 1 n.d. = no date

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE 14795 2
NOVEMBER 2024
26; 4.2-37) and the results indicate that the project’s incremental increase in potential cancer and non-cancer health risk impacts with regard to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site and haul routes was determined to be less than significant. The EIR analysis properly evaluates the project’s air quality impacts under CEQA and recirculation is not required, per Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

January 21, 2025
Town of Apple Valley
Town Council
14955 Dale Evans Parkway
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Re: Response to Appeal of Site Plan Review SPR 2022-007 – TPM 20788 by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (APL 2024-005)
Dear Town Councilmembers:

The purpose of this letter is to provide responses to the issues raised by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (“Appellant”) in its appeal of the November 6, 2024, Planning Commission approval of the Cordova Complex Warehouse Project (“Project”) which included approval of Site Plan Review No. 2022-007 and Tentative Parcel Map 20788.

Appellant has not raised any significant new issues beyond those mentioned in a comment letter on the Draft EIR submitted by Blum, Collins & Ho LLP on behalf of the Appellant on July 3, 20241, and a subsequent November 4, 2024 letter to the Town Planning Commissioners which was addressed in a separate response dated November 5, 2024, and provided in the Project’s Planning Commission staff report. See the November 5, 2024 response included in the staff report dated February 11, 2025. All of the issues raised in the July 3, 2024 comment letter were responded to in detail within the Final EIR. The responses demonstrate that the Project EIR fully complied with the legal requirements and intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Specifically with regard to Appellant’s claims regarding pollution exposure to diesel particulate matter that was not adequately addressed in the health risk analysis (“HRA”) prepared for the Project and included in the Draft EIR, responses to each of the issues raised by Appellant in its November 12, 2024 appeal letter are provided below, along with page references to where each of these issues were already addressed in the Final EIR or in the subsequent memorandum in response to Appellant’s previous comments. • Appellant’s claim that the Draft EIR and Final EIR should disclose the inputs or exposure assumptions used in the analysis to calculate diesel particulate matter emissions to ensure emissions due to project construction and operation were adequately evaluated. It is not clear if the Fraction of Time at Home (“FAH”) and Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASF”) were relied upon for the analysis. o Response: As described in Attachment A, Response to Comment E-34 (page 3-23), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance and equations were used as the basis of 1 Note: the November 12, 2024 appeal letter from the Appellant refers to a comment letter dated July 23, 2024 (see p. 1 of 5). This appears to be an error because the only comment letter received was the July 3, 2024 letter from Blum, Collins &Ho LLP on behalf of the Appellant.

TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE 2 the health risk estimates. As described in the Draft EIR (see p. 4.2-27), the construction and operational HRA health risk calculations were performed using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2) Air Dispersion and Risk Tool (ADMRT, Version 22118). Of import, the risk analysis algorithms and default values used in HARP2 are based on the OEHHA guidelines (OEHHA 2015), including age sensitivity factors and fraction of time at home parameters, and assumptions and results of the modeling were included in Appendix B-2 of the Draft EIR. However, per the commenter’s request, Table 1 below has been provided as a summary of the OEHHA exposure parameters used in the analysis. These parameters were incorporated into the OEHHA risk equations, which are summarized in response to the next comment, below.

Table 1. Project Health Risk Assessment Exposure Parameters Receptor
Type Period
Receptor Age
Group
Exposure Parameters
Daily
Breathing
Rate (DBR)1
[L/kg-day]
Exposure
Duration
(ED)2 [years]
Fraction of
Time at
Home
(FAH)3
[unitless]
Exposure
Frequency
(EF)4
[days/year]
Averaging
Time (AT)
[days]5
Age Sensitivity
Factor (ASF)
Resident Construction 3rd Trimester 361 0.25 1.0 350 25,550 10 Age 0 <2 Years 1090 1.54 1.0 10
Resident Operation 3rd Trimester 361 0.25 1.0 350 25,550 10 Age 0 <2 Years 1090 2.0 1.0 10
Age 2 <16 Years 572 14 1.0 3
Age 16 <30 Years 261 14 0.73 1
Source: OEHHA 2015.

Notes:
1 Daily breathing rates reflect default breathing rates from OEHHA (2015) as follows: Resident: 95th percentile 24-hour daily breathing rates for 3rd trimester and age 0-<2 years; 80th percentile for age 2-<16, and 16-30 years. 2 The exposure duration for residents during construction reflects the proposed construction schedule of approximately 1.54 years; the exposure duration for operation reflects the default residential exposure duration from OEHHA (2015). 3 Fraction of time at home are set to 1.0 for all age groups less than 16 years. For age greater than 16 years, values from OEHHA (2015) Table 8.4 were used.
4 Residential exposure frequency reflects default exposure frequency from OEHHA (2015). 5 Average time represents 70 years for lifetime cancer risk, per OEHHA (2015). • Appellant’s claim that HRA should have relied on the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidelines to calculate the cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors due to project construction and operation and the risk equation relied on for the HRA.

o Response: As described in the response above, the OEHHA guidelines equations and assumptions, which are incorporated into HARP2, were used for the health risk assessment for the Project. These include the following:

Cancer risk = DOSE * CPF * ASF * ED/AT * FAH,
DOSE = (Cair * DBR * A * EF * 10−6),
Cair = ER * X/Q,

TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE 3 Where:

DOSE = daily inhalation dose (mg/kg-day),
CPF = cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)−1,
ASF = age sensitivity factor for a specified age group (unitless), ED = exposure duration (in years) for a specified age group, AT = averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years),
FAH = fraction of time spent at home (unitless),
Cair = average air concentration of TAC from the air dispersion model (μg/m3), DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day),
EF = exposure frequency (unitless), days/365 days,
A = inhalation absorption factor (unitless),
10−6 = micrograms to milligrams conversion, liters to cubic meters conversion, ER = emission rates (grams/second),
X/Q = model output data (μg/m3)/(grams/second).

The chronic hazard quotients were calculated for TACs using the following equations as assumed in HARP2 (OEHHA 2015):

HQC = (Cair /REL),
Where:

HQC = chronic hazard quotient,
Cair = annual average concentration (μg/m3),
REL = chronic reference exposure level (μg/m3).

As explained previously, these factors and equations are based on OEHHA guidance and are the default assumptions included in the HARP2 model. As such, the health risk assessment performed for the Project adequately and appropriately addressed exposure of proximate sensitive receptors to diesel particulate matter. Finally, to reiterate the results presented in the Draft EIR (see pp. 4.2-36 and 4.2-37), the diesel particulate matter emissions from the Project would result in a Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of about

1.77 in 1 million and a Chronic Hazard Index of 0.0017 during construction and a Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of about 6.98 in 1 million and a Chronic Hazard Index of 0.0016 during operations, which would all be below the respective Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District significance thresholds and would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Sincerely,
Matthew Morales, Senior Air Quality Specialist, Dudek

151531360.1
Kelly Alhadeff-Black
3 Better World Circle, Suite 100
Temecula, California 92590
[email protected]
Direct: 951.252.6154
January 23, 2025
ARIZONA • CALIFORNIA • COLORADO • CONNECTICUT • DELAWARE • FLORIDA • GEORGIA • ILLINOIS • INDIANA • KANSAS • KENTUCKY • LOUISIANA MARYLAND • MASSACHUSETTS • MINNESOTA • MISSISSIPPI • MISSOURI • NEVADA • NEWJERSEY • NEWMEXICO • NEW YORK • NORTH CAROLINA OHIO • OREGON • PENNSYLVANIA • RHODEISLAND • TENNESSEE • TEXAS • UTAH • VIRGINIA • WASHINGTON • WASHINGTON D.C. • WESTVIRGINIA

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Town of Apple Valley
Town Council
14955 Dale Evans Parkway
Apple Valley, California 92307
Re: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance appeal of the Cordova Warehouse Project Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council:

Our office represents the project applicant for the proposed Cordova Warehouse Complex project (the “Project”), considered and approved by the Town of Apple Valley’s (the “Town”) Planning Commission during at its November 6, 2024 meeting. Following that meeting, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, by and through its attorneys at Blum, Collins & Ho, LLP (collectively “GSEJA”) filed an appeal of the Town Planning Commission’s decision on the Project.

This letter provides the Project applicant’s response to the assertions contained in the GSEJA appeal. In light of the comprehensive administrative record for the reasons set forth herein, the decision of the Town’s Planning Commission should be upheld and the appeal by GSEJA should be denied.

As a threshold matter it must be noted that the appeal filed by GSEJA applies only to the Project and not the Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project which was considered on the same night as the Project and which is covered under the same Environmental Impact Report for the Project

January 23, 2025

151531360.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
www.lewisbrisbois.com
(the “EIR” (SCH202309009))1. GSEJA’s appeal form only specifies the Project (see Appeal Application, Project Information section) and only one appeal fee was paid.2 For the reasons discussed herein and for other reasons as may be discussed during the upcoming Town Council meeting, the bases for GSEJA’s appeal and the accompanying assertion that a new environmental impact report must be prepared for the Project are invalid, without legal merit and do not raise any new or relevant legal arguments for why the decision of the Town’s Planning Commission should not be upheld.

Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) As a procedural law, CEQA (California Public Resources Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et. seq. and the accompanying guidelines found at Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 6, §§ 15000 et seq. (the “CEQA Guidelines”) requires the evaluation of projects, as that term is defined in CEQA, for potential adverse effects on the physical environment. Compliance with CEQA informs decision makers of the potential environmental impacts of a project and requires the inclusion of feasible mitigation measures to reduce, when possible, significant adverse effects that result from a project. (PRC § 21083). An agency may not take action on a discretionary project that may have an adverse impact on the environment unless the agency has first complied with CEQA (CEQA Guidelines § 15004).

As the lead agency for the Project, the Town is responsible for evaluating the Project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. In its capacity as the decisionmaker for the Project, the Town’s Planning Commission determined, considering the evidence contained in the Project’s administrative record, that the Project was properly evaluated in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and found that even though the Project included significant and unmitigable environmental impacts it should be approved3.
1 The full title of the EIR is the “Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project Environmental Impact Report.”
2 In accordance with PRC § 21151(c) a decision made by the Town’s Planning Commission may be appealed to the Town’s elected decision body, in this case the Town Council.

In accordance with the Town’s code, appeals must be submitted using the appropriate Town forms and must include payment of the applicable fees, within 10 days of a decision by the Town’s Planning Commission. Apple Valley Municipal Code Section 9.12.250.
3 CEQA allows a lead agency to approve a project that includes significant adverse impacts on the environment as long as the agency’s decision includes findings that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations outweigh the project’s significant and unmitigated impacts. PRC § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15093.

January 23, 2025

151531360.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
www.lewisbrisbois.com
In making its decision, the Town’s Planning Commission considered, among other information, written comments that were submitted on the Project EIR during the public review period. GSEJA submitted a comment letter on the Project EIR, dated July 3, 20244, wherein it raised several concerns about the completeness and adequacy of the Project’s EIR. That comment letter was reviewed by the Project’s CEQA consultant and detailed written responses were provided to GSEJA and included in the final EIR for the Project5. Those written responses were included in the information provided to the Town’s Planning Commission in advance of its November 6, 2024 hearing and were evaluated by the Planning Commission in making its decision on the Project.

The appeal filed by GSEJA incorporates by reference its written comment letter and does not provide any new arguments or evidence as to why the prior responses to that comment letter, as set for in the Project’s final EIR, and which were considered by the Town’s Planning Commission in making its decision on the Project, are either legally or factually deficient. The appeal simply incorporates the prior information and claims the issues remain unresolved.

However, each of the purportedly unresolved issues and asserted deficiencies in the EIR have been addressed both in the Project’s final EIR responses to comments, and again in a technical memorandum provided by Dudek as part of the Project’s administrative record.6 While GSEJA and it’s consultant may disagree with the responses provided, they fail to provide any factual, legal or analytical bases or substantial evidence to justify their position.7 4 Interestingly, in its appeal form, GSEJA cites to a July 23, 2024 comment letter. However, the date of GSEJA’s public comment letter is July 3, 2024
5 GSEJA’s comment letter is labeled as Comment Letter “E” in the Project’s final EIR and written responses to those comments were provide in accordance and compliance with CEQA Guidelines § 15088. 6 See “Response to Appeal of Site Plan Review SPR2022-007 – TPM 20788 by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance” dated January 21, 2025, submitted by Dudek.
7 It is important to note here that the term “substantial evidence” as applied to comments on environmental impact reports has been defined in case law as evidence that is “of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144. CEQA includes guidance of what is and is not considered “substantial evidence” in California Public Resources Code Section 21082.2(c), which provides:

Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.

January 23, 2025

151531360.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
www.lewisbrisbois.com
Environmental Justice Claims
In addition to restating its prior objections, GSEJA further argues that the Project must be reconsidered on the basis that asserted environmental, social, and economic justice issues were not adequately addressed in the Project’s EIR. However, there is no affirmative requirement under CEQA to consider issues of environmental justice, or perceived social or economic impacts.

CEQA’s focus is on “the physical conditions that exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, or objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” PRC § 21060.5. No where in the foregoing definition are the terms economic, social or justice used. Contrary to GSEJA’s argument, the economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(e) § 15131). Impacts related to environmental justice are not a part of the CEQA process.8 Similarly, GSEJA also appeals to the Town Council to overturn the Project on the basis that local government has an important role in ensuring environmental justice for all of California’s residents while referencing Cal Enviro Screening information for the Town. As explained by the CEQA Attorney at the Town’s Planning Commission hearing, Cal Enviro Screening is an environmental justice mapping tool, but not a CEQA threshold. The Cal Enviro Screening information was considered by the Commission as part of its decision to approve the Project, and while GSEJA may not agree with the decision, it is not reason to overturn the Town Planning Commission’s informed decision to approve the EIR.

Clearly, CEQA allows for disagreement on an issue.9 When the Lead Agency’s position differs from recommendations and objections raised in comments, they must address in detail why such were not accepted (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c).) As explained above, CEQA specifically excludes environmental justice as having a significant effect on the environment. This topic is not a legal basis to appeal the Project.
8 GSEJA cites to California Government Code § 65040.12 (e) in support of its argument that the Town must consider issues of environmental justice in making a decision on the Project. This section of the Government Code is part of a mandate that is directed at the California State office of Planning and Research (now known as the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation) requiring that office to be the coordinating agency for the state with respect to environmental justice programs. The section is neither related to CEQA nor applicable to the Town. 9 In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c).)

January 23, 2025

151531360.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
www.lewisbrisbois.com
Health Risk Analysis Claims
GSEJA has also appealed the Project on the basis that the Project’s health risk analysis was deficient. The Project’s CEQA consultant, Dudek, addressed these issues in a technical memorandum dated January 21, 2025 which is included in the Project’s administrative record. As more fully detailed and analyzed in Dudek’s technical memorandum, the basis of the appeal with respect to the HRA is unsubstantiated.

The Decision of the Town Planning Commission should be upheld Pursuant to CEQA, the Lead Agency must certify that “the final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project” (CEQA Guidelines § 15090(b)). GSEJA has appealed the Project on the basis that “the Planning Commission did not fulfill its duty to adequately investigate nor mitigate the project.” However, the Planning Commission does not have any such duty.

It is clear from the record of proceedings that the Commissioners reviewed and specifically considered Project impacts and public comments. During the November 6th public hearing on the Project, members of the Town Planning Commission asked specific questions on the EIR relating issues concerning the number of employees, Cal EE Mod (California Emissions Estimator Model), the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and traffic impacts, among others. Responses were provided to the questions and issues raised by both Town Staff and members of the Town Planning Commission.10
CEQA allows for the approval of projects found to have significant effects on the environment provided that certain finding(s) are made, and specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project are found to outweigh the significant effects on the environment (PRC § 21081). The EIR found that the Project would have certain significant, unmitigable impacts which were considered as part of the Project approval, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The record supports that the Planning Commission fulfilled their duty under CEQA of making an informed decision when approving the Project. 10 It bears mentioning here that neither the legal team representing GSEJA nor any members of GSEJA appeared at the Project’s hearing on November 6th Aside from written comments included in the Project record, as far as we are aware no member of GSEJA lives in, works in, recreates in or has appeared in any public meeting in the Town of Apple Valley.

January 23, 2025

151531360.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
www.lewisbrisbois.com
Conclusion
Based on the substantial evidence contained in the Project’s administrative record, the information contained in the Project’s EIR including the Final EIR, and based on the information received during the November 6th public hearing in front of the Town’s Planning Commission\, there is more than enough evidence to justify the decision made by the Town’s Planning Commission to approve the Project. The administrative record includes substantial evidence that the Town complied with CEQA in reviewing the Project and preparing the Project EIR. All public comments received on the Project EIR, including the repetitive comments submitted by GSEJA, have been reviewed and responded to in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.

The appeal filed by GSEJA raises no issues of law, fact or procedure that have not already be addressed by the Project EIR or responded to in the course of the public review and hearing process for the Project. GSEJA’s appeal does not raise any novel legal issues or concerns which would justify overturning the informed decision of the Town’s Planning Commission.

We therefore respectfully request that GSEJA’s appeal of the Project be denied and the decision of the Town’s Planning Commission be upheld. We will be in attendance for the Town Council meeting and look forward to answering any questions or providing any additional information as may be requested.

Sincerely yours,
/s/Kelly M. Alhadeff Black
Kelly Alhadeff-Black and Elysian Kurnik

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &

SMITH LLP
KAB

10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040. (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] November 8, 2024
Richard Hirsch
Consulting Planner
Town of Apple Valley
14955 Dale Evans Parkway,
Apple Valley, CA, 92307
Via FedEx overnight
Re: Justification for Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of the Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project and certification of Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2023020285
Dear Mr. Hirsch:

Advocates for the Environment hereby appeals the Town of Apple Valley Planning Director’s November 6, 2024 approval of the Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project (Project) and certification of the associated Environmental Impact Report. The Project Site is located near the intersection of Cordova Road, Navajo Road, Johnson Road, and Dachshund Avenue, while the Quarry at Pawnee site is located near Quarry Road and Flint Road in the Town of Apple Valley (Town), County of San Bernardino, and is located on approximately 163 acres of land.

The Project includes the construction and operation of two industrial warehouse buildings on two sites: (1) Cordova Complex site, which would be developed with a 1,559,952 square feet warehouse with 266 loading docks; and (2) Quarry at Pawnee site, which would be developed with a 1,462,342 square feet warehouse with 235 loading docks.

We are appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with a statement of overriding considerations because the EIR for the Project does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000-21189.91), as discussed below.

GHG Mitigation is Insufficient under CEQA
The calculated project-related emissions amount to 50,693.99 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year (EIR, p. 4.6-26). The City adopted a significance threshold based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on this threshold, City concluded the Project would have significant GHG emissions. To reduce this identified significant GHG impact, the GHG Analysis offered one GHG mitigation measure (MM GHG-1). (EIR, p. 4.6-34.)
Advocates for the Environment
A non-profit public-interest law firm
and environmental advocacy organization

Town of Apple Valley Page 2
Justification for Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval November 8, 2024 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040. (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] The EIR did not provide evidence that there was no further feasible mitigation, stating the following: “No feasible mitigation measures beyond those already identified exist that would reduce these emissions to a level that is less than significant.” (EIR, p. 4.6-26.) The City did not provide any rationale why, in this instance, existing regulations and the adopted mitigation measures would be the only feasible mitigation for this Project. Despite the availability of other GHG mitigation measures, the EIR declared that the Project’s mitigated emissions were unavoidable. However, because this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence, the EIR should have included more mitigation to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to the extent required by CEQA.

MM GHG-1 Is Not the Only Feasible Mitigation Measure
MM GHG-1 requires tenants to opt into the Apple Valley Choice energy 100% renewable energy program. While this is a good start, the vast majority of the Project’s emissions are from mobile sources, and only about 12% of the Project’s GHG impact is from energy.1 The City has identified several Project Design Features (PDFs) that would potentially reduce mobile emissions, but without estimating how effective these measures would be or ensuring the enforceability of these measures. The City contends that “quantitative reductions from these mobile source PDFs cannot be determined at this time and neither the Project Applicant nor the Town can substantively or materially affect reduction in the Project’s on-road mobile source emissions beyond what is already required by regulation.”
Even though many of the PDFs are already required by regulation, there is nothing in CEQA that would prohibit a lead agency from adopting these measures as enforceable mitigation measures to ensure that GHG emissions reductions were achieved. Further, the City did not provide evidence that the required regulations, which are the bare minimum, also represent the maximum feasible mitigation for GHGs.

For example, Title 24 requires that the Project install electric vehicle stations for employees, but the City did not attempt to explain the amount of electric vehicle charging stations that would be feasible to implement, simply assuming that the minimum requirement is also the maximum number feasible. The City does not support its determination that MM GHG-1 is the only feasible mitigation measure by substantial evidence.

Infeasibility Finding Lacks Substantial Evidence
The conclusion that the Project will not be able to achieve any mitigation beyond which was identified in MM GHG-1 is not supported with substantial evidence. The EIR 1 ! !,#$%.$' )*+,#-
./,!'0.'' )*+,#-" × 100 = 12.39%

Town of Apple Valley Page 3
Justification for Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval November 8, 2024 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040. (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] should have proposed more mitigation measures to be applied to the maximum feasible extent to justify the conclusion that the Project’s GHG impact would be unavoidable due to lack of feasibility of further mitigation. While the proposed mitigation measures are a good start, the City did not demonstrate that these actions would represent the maximum feasible mitigation to support a finding that the Project’s impact would be significant and unavoidable.

CEQA requires that the lead agency identifies specific reasons for infeasibility of further mitigation when concluding significant and unavoidable impact. The City did not attempt to specify any infeasible mitigation measures when concluding that the Project’s GHG impact would be unavoidable, nor did it provide any reasoning that the identified mitigation measures represent the maximum feasible mitigation.

Thus, the conclusion that further mitigation is infeasible was not supported by substantial evidence; there are other readily available mitigation measures, especially considering that 96%2 of the Project’s GHG impact originates from mobile emissions which the mitigation measures were not focused on reducing. (EIR, p. 4.6-26.) The City and Applicant together can commit to design and technology specifications that reduce emissions, especially in the heavy-duty truck and transportation vehicle fleet.

The Project’s GHG Impacts Must be Fully Mitigated
CEQA requires that the Project include fair-share mitigation for all significant cumulative impacts. (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 364.) Here, this means mitigation of the full extent of the Project’s GHG impacts. The EIR claims that no other mitigation measures are feasible, beyond the identified mitigation measures. But that conclusion is incorrect, and not supported by substantial evidence.

The amount of GHG emissions that comprises the Project’s fair share is clear. The reasonable lifespan this Project is approximately 30 years as indicated by the amortization of construction emissions. (EIR, p. 4.6-24.) Therefore, the Project would likely contribute 1,520,819 MTCO2e during its entire lifespan.3 This would be a good starting point from which to subtract the effect of additional non-offset mitigation measures, before implementing offset purchases.

The EIR notes that mobile emissions are not controllable, making them infeasible to mitigate because of the limited ability to address vehicle emissions. (EIR, p. 4.6-25.) However, the City could require the Applicant to enter into an agreement for a zero2 ! 1%,%...0' )*+,#-
./,!'0.'' )*+,#-" × 100 = 96.37%
3 50,693.99 MTCO2e per year × 30 years = 1,520,819.7 MTCO2e

Town of Apple Valley Page 4
Justification for Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval November 8, 2024 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040. (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] emission heavy-duty truck fleet to the extent feasible and as soon as practicable. While PDFDES-3 and PDF-DES-4 specify the installation of the minimum number of charging stations required by Title 24, there is no evidence that it would be infeasible to install more charging stations beyond the minimum requirement.

CEQA does not distinguish between mobile and non-mobile sources of GHG emissions; the lead agency can mitigate cumulative GHG impacts through any measure.

Several on-site mitigation measures are feasible, including solar water heaters and automatic light switches, among many other mitigation strategies that can be incorporated into the project as design features or as mitigation measures. Such features could be adopted individually or as part of a comprehensive goal of sustainable building certification, such as achieving higher levels of Leadership and Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, beyond the Silver level and extending further beyond CALGreen requirements.

Overall, there are more options available to mitigate emissions to the full extent of project emissions.

Carbon Offsets are Feasible as Mitigation Measures
After requiring operational emissions reductions to the maximum feasible extent, the City could also require the Applicant to purchase offsets for the Project’s remaining GHG emissions. The City did not provide any evidence for why offsets would be infeasible.

Overall, there are more options available to mitigate emissions to the full extent of project emissions, and the City failed to acknowledge or implement many mitigation measures that are feasible and could help reduce the Project’s GHG impact to the fair share extent.

Offsets are acceptable mitigation measures under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (c)(3).) Many offset projects are currently operating in California, including projects that are relevant to the Project’s operations such as the Truck Stop Electrification project in California (Project ID ACR133), and those that reduce industrial process emissions such as the reclaimed hydrofluorocarbon project by Anew Environmental, LLC (Project ID ACR777), among others.4 Such offset programs are just examples of which the City could consider as feasible carbon offsets to reduce the Project’s GHG impact.

The EIR did not address why offsets would be infeasible to reduce this Project’s GHG impact.
4 American Carbon Registry (ACR), list of offset projects, available at https://acr2.apx.com/myModule/rpt/myrpt.asp?r=111 (Accessed June 26, 2024).

Town of Apple Valley Page 5
Justification for Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval November 8, 2024 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040. (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Conclusion
Even if there are not mitigation measures available to reduce a project’s impact to a non-significant level, CEQA requires the maximum feasible mitigation for significant impacts. The EIR fails to require all feasible mitigation, despite concluding that the significant GHG impact will be unavoidable. The lead agency has not met its burden of showing that such measures are infeasible, and therefore the EIR is inadequate and cannot be used to support a finding of significant and unavoidable GHG impact. The Planning Commission erred in certifying the EIR and approving the Project with a statement of overriding considerations because the EIR did not demonstrate that the GHG impact would be mitigated to the maximum feasible extent.

Sincerely,
Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law
Executive Director, Advocates for the Environment

ATTACHMENT I
Attachment I - Advocates for the Environment DEIR comment “Letter H” and Dudek Final EIR response

1. Advocates for the Environment DEIR comment “Letter H” can be found on pages 174 through 179 of Appendix A of the Final EIR on the Town of Apple Valley Website
Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project - Appendix A – Draft Environmental Impact Report Comment Letters

2. Dudek Final EIR response can be found on pages 3-34 through 3-39 (PDF pages 52-57) of the Final EIR
Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project – Final EIR

1 February 11, 2025
Town of Apple Valley
Town Council
14955 Dale Evans Parkway
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Re: Response to Appeal of Site Plan Review SPR 2022-007 – TPM 20788 Advocates for the Environment Dear Town Councilmembers:

The purpose of this letter is to provide responses to the issues raised by Advocates for the Environment (“Appellant”) in its appeal of the November 6, 2024, Planning Commission approval of the Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project (“Project”) which included approval of Site Plan Review No. 2022-007 and Tentative Parcel Map 20788.

Appellant has not raised any significant new issues beyond those mentioned in their comment letter on the Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project Draft EIR (“Draft EIR”) on July 19, 2024. All of the issues raised in their July 19, 2024 comment letter (Letter H) were responded to in detail within the Project’s Final EIR. The responses demonstrate that the Project EIR fully complied with the legal requirements and intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Responses to each of the issues raised by Appellant in its November 8, 2024 appeal letter are provided below, along with page references to where each of these issues were already addressed in the Final EIR. • Appellant’s claim that the Draft EIR and Final EIR does not provide evidence that there are no further feasible mitigation measures available to reduce GHG emissions other than the identified MM GHG-1, and that more mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions should have been included.

o Response: As described in the Project’s Final EIR in Response to Comment E-35 and Table E-1, Analysis of Applicability and Feasibility of Suggested Mitigation Measures starting on page 3-24, 38 mitigation measures to address GHG emissions were reviewed and determined to be infeasible because: (1) the measure was already included in the Project’s PDFs or Project Design Features; (2) inapplicable because the measure(s) was clearly designed for different land uses or a different location; or (3) infeasible due to various other reasons.

• Appellant states the majority of the Project’s GHG emissions are from mobile sources and the Project’s PDFs partially reduce mobile emissions but does not estimate by how much or ensuring enforceability.

Appellant further states the Town does not provide the number of electric vehicle charging stations that would be required under Title 24.
o Response: The Project includes 26 PDFs that the Project Applicant has committed to implementing and the Town will ensure are implemented, as noted on page 3-10 of the Draft EIR: “To ensure that these PDFs are implemented during construction and operation, they will be tracked within the Project’s Mitigation

TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY ADVOCATES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 2 Monitoring and Reporting Program.” The Project is also required to comply with mandatory federal and state laws and regulations; Town General Plan policies, ordinances, other adopted Town documents; and policies, actions, design guidelines and development standards contained in the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan and are therefore not identified as mitigation measures (Draft EIR, p.4-3).

Compliance with MM GHG-1, PDFs, and federal state and local legal requirements as well as other mandatory Town policies, actions, design guidelines and development standards would help reduce the Project’s GHG emissions, but not to a level of less than significant. The EIR provides the substantial evidence required to make this finding.

The Project includes the following PDFs that pertain to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure:

PDF-DES-3: Electrical Infrastructure for Electric Equipment and Vehicles. The Project shall be designed to include electrical infrastructure to accommodate the required number of electric vehicle charging stations, the anticipated number charging stations for electric cargo handling equipment, and the potential installation of additional automobile and truck electric vehicle charging stations per Title 24, Part 11 (California Green Building Standards (CALGreen). Electrical conduit shall be installed within reasonable locations (e.g., parking areas, at or near dock doors) at the time of building construction to satisfy this requirement. The Project’s electrical rooms shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the upsizing of electrical equipment to accommodate potential future electrical loads.

PDF-DES-4: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations shall be installed on-site for employees for the percentage of employee parking spaces commensurate with Title 24, Part 11 (CAL Green) requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance plus additional charging stations equal to 5% of the total employee parking spaces in the building permit, whichever is greater. By January 1, 2030, Level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations shall be installed for 25% of the employee parking spaces required.

The number of EV charging stations to be installed will be determined based on Title 24, Part 11 (CAL Green) requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance plus additional charging stations equal to 5% of the total employee parking spaces in the building permit, whichever is greater. The state updates the CALGreen building code every three years. The current CAL Green code is the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code which became effective on January 1, 2023.

• Appellant claims the EIR does not include the Project’s fair-share mitigation for the GHG impacts and refers to amortizing the Project’s GHG emissions over a 30-year lifespan to calculate purchase of (carbon) offsets.

o Response: Please see the Project’s Final EIR Response to Comment H-4 on page 3-35. The potential lifetime GHG emissions of the Project provides factual information but does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. It is important to note that an individual land use project’s fair-share does not necessarily include everything that will need to happen in order to achieve the state’s long-term goals, but rather that “projects should focus on aspects within the scope of their design and control that contribute their ‘fair-share’ of what is needed to attain state goals” (BAAQMD 2022). The Project already includes a robust suite of measures within its design and control that would reduce GHGs, and the Town has determined that all feasible measures have been incorporated into the Final EIR and that the Project is doing its fair-share to minimize GHGs.

TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY ADVOCATES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 3 • Appellant questions if the Town could require the Project to enter into an agreement for a zero-emission heavy-duty truck fleet and further notes there is no evidence it would be infeasible to install additional EV charging stations beyond the minimum requirements specified in PDF-DES-3 and PDF-DES-4, as required by Title 24.
o Response: Please see the Project’s Final EIR Response to Comment H-5 on page 3-36. The comment is identical, and the response provided in the Final EIR is as follows.

Although all-electric trucks may be physically available, albeit not in sufficient quantity, there are further economic and infrastructure related constraints that make including such a requirement proposed by the commenter—mandating all trucks accessing the Project site be zero emissions—wholly infeasible today, and likely well into the future. Based on current conditions the following make this requirement infeasible (1) insufficient electric grid capacity, (2) logistics barriers, (3) zero-emission trucks are cost prohibitive due to limited supplies, and (4) sourcing material is scarce and causes environmental effects. These factors are discussed in detail below.

The first major issue that makes requiring all trucks accessing the Project site to be zero-emissions infeasible, is that there is not enough electrical grid power to sustainably charge heavy-duty trucks. For example, one trucking company tried to electrify 30 trucks at a terminal in Joliet, Illinois. Shortly after this plan began, local officials shut it down, commenting that it would draw more electricity than is needed to power the entire city (ATA 2023). In a May 2023 report by Resources for the Future, titled Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification: Challenges, Policy Solutions, and Open Research Questions, the report states that medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicle (MHDEV) charging (which may exceed several megawatts [MWs] of electricity demand for large fleets) could destabilize electricity distribution systems (RFF 2023). Therefore, significant investments into the grid, transmission system, and generation capacity are required (RFF 2023). If the Town were to mandate every truck entering the facility to be zero-emissions, it would put a significant strain on California’s power grid; one the grid cannot handle in the short-term, much less sustain in the long run.

Not only can local and state electrical infrastructure not sustain fully electric trucks, the logistical and operational barriers of using such trucks is also extremely prohibitive. To gain widespread use, MHDEVs must be comparable to diesel vehicles in model options, range, recharge time, payloads, and maintenance (RFF 2023). However, MHDEVs generally have ranges below 200 miles, versus more than 1,000 miles for diesel vehicles (RFF 2023). Additionally recharge times are substantially longer than diesel refueling. For example, a diesel truck can spend 15 minutes fueling anywhere in the country and then travel about 1,200 miles before fueling again (ATA 2023). In contrast, today’s long-haul battery electric trucks have a range of about 150–330 miles and can take up to 10 hours to charge (ATA 2023). Moreover, fleets without a charging depot will need to rely on public charging stations. Unfortunately, significant investment must first be made before widespread public charging is feasible (RFF 2023). Lastly, the weight of MHDEVs is also a significant issue that will lead to increased operational barriers. Battery-electric trucks, which run on two approximately 8,000-pound lithium-ion batteries, are far heavier than diesel trucks (ATA 2023). Because trucks are subject to strict federal and state weight limits, as seen by weighing stations throughout California and the United States, requiring zero-emission battery electric trucks will significantly decrease

TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY ADVOCATES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 4 the payload of each truck, thus requiring more trucks to be on the road leading to increased traffic congestion and tailpipe emissions (ATA 2023).

In addition to the barriers described above, zero-emission trucks are currently cost prohibitive for most fleet owners. A new, clean-diesel long-haul tractor typically costs in the range of $180,000 to $200,000 (ATA 2023). Meanwhile, a comparable battery-electric tractor—with a quarter of the range and thus requiring frequent and long hours of charging—costs upwards of $480,000 (ATA 2023). This $300,000 upcharge is cost prohibitive for the overwhelming majority of truck operators/companies and as more than 95% of trucking companies are small businesses operating ten (10) trucks or fewer (ATA 2023). Enacting the agreement requested by the commenter would push many truck carriers out of business, tighten capacity, and potentially cause severe price inflation for all goods (ATA 2023). As stated previously, many small trucking businesses would be required to use public charging stations, in which the infrastructure for such charging is not widely available (CCJ 2023).

Finally, there is a significant constraint in sourcing enough raw minerals needed to produce the lithium-ion batteries used in zero-emission trucks. For example, tens of millions of tons of cobalt, graphite, lithium, and nickel would need to be produced (ATA 2023). It is estimated that it could take up to 35 years to acquire all the minerals needed to generate enough truck batteries for current levels of global production (ATA 2023). Additionally, expanding capacity and sourcing this amount of material creates massive environmental effects, that in some respects could exceed the emissions of current clean-diesel trucks (ATA 2023).

Although no one is certain, it is estimated that it would take several decades to reach a point where zeroemission trucks are fully feasible. This is illustrated by CARB’s own lofty goals, to require all trucks entering a California port to be zero-emission by 2035, and for ‘last-mile’ delivery trucks and vans to be zeroemission by 2040 (CARB 2020). By setting these dates, which are 12 and 17 years in the future, CARB is acknowledging that current infrastructure and costs make requiring exclusively zero-emission trucks infeasible in the next decade. Significant investment in public charging, battery size, battery sourcing, battery range, and electric grid capacity must begin now, to meet the goals set by CARB.

Based on the response above, all feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the Project as it pertains to heavy-duty trucks.
• Appellant notes that there are options available to mitigate the full extent of Project emissions, noting several additional mitigation measures addressing non-mobile sources of GHG emissions are available, specifically solar water heaters and automatic light switches, that could be incorporated into the Project as PDFs or mitigation measures. The comment also mentions that the Project could achieve a higher level of LEED certification beyond Silver and extend further beyond CALGreen requirements. o Response: Please see the Project’s Final EIR Response to Comment H-6 on page 3-37. The comment is identical, and the response provided in the Final EIR is as follows.

The Project has been designed to meet the Town’s development standards as well as meet state building requirements under Title 24, including installation of solar to offset the Project’s energy demand. The Project includes PDF-DES-3, PDF-DES-4, PDF-DES-6, PDF-OP-2, PDF-OP-3, PDF-OP-4, PDF-OP-5, PDF-OP-6,

TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY ADVOCATES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 5 and PDF-OP-9 provided in Chapter 3 starting on page 3-10 that would help reduce mobile sources of GHGs.

However, quantitative reductions from these mobile source PDFs cannot be determined at this time and neither the Project Applicant nor the Town can substantively or materially affect reductions in the Project’s on-road mobile source emissions beyond what is already required by state regulations. Other PDFs address energy efficiency in the design and operation of Project buildings including PDF-DES-5, PDF-DES-7, and PDF-OP-1. The Project also requires future tenants to subscribe to the Apple Valley Choice Energy 100% Renewable Energy Plan, which is 100% renewable and 100% carbon-free, for the duration of occupancy as part of the entitlement agreement, per MM-GHG-1. This further commits Project tenants to rely on renewable energy sources to minimize long-term GHG emissions. • Appellant states the Town could require the Project purchase offsets for the Project’s remaining GHG emissions, after requiring operational emissions reductions to the maximum extent feasible. Also, the Draft EIR provides no evidence for why offsets would be infeasible. o Response: Please see the Project’s Final EIR Response to Comment H-7 on page 3-38. The comment is identical, and the response provided in the Final EIR is as follows.

Although it is true that it is possible to purchase carbon offsets, recent Court of Appeal decisions have cast considerable doubt on the use of such offsets to mitigate GHG impacts from development projects. In Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, the Court of Appeal invalidated a mitigation measure that required the purchase of offsets from a “CARB-approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard.” (Id. at 510.) Although the court insisted its decision “should not be construed as blanket prohibition on using carbon offsets” to mitigate GHG emissions under CEQA, it found numerous flaws with the measure at issue and failed to provide a clear roadmap for how to craft a similar valid measure. (id. at 483.) The court also declined to express an opinion on a number of issues, including whether offsets could potentially be used to mitigate more than 8% of a project’s emissions and the extent to which out-of-county offsets could be used. (Id. at 503, 513, n. 27.) Subsequent to Golden Door (and within the last year), another measure requiring the purchase of offsets was similarly found to be invalid in an unpublished Court of Appeal decision, with the court finding the measure’s inclusion of additional standards for offsets did “not cure the defects found in Golden Door.” (Sierra Club v. County of San Diego ((Dec. 21, 2021, No. D077548) (2021 WL 6050624, at *11.)) In light of such uncertainty, carbon offsets are not a feasible method for mitigating the Project’s GHG emissions.

In addition, it should be noted that the vast majority of emissions that would be generated by the Project, including mobile emissions and energy emissions, are subject to the California Cap-and-Trade program, which places an economy-wide “cap” on major sources of GHG emissions, such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities and transportation fuels. For example, “’Fuel suppliers’ are responsible for the carbon pollution from fuels under the Cap-and-Trade Program” and thus must acquire “allowances” to cover all carbon pollution from such fuels1. They may also purchase certain approved offsets to fulfill up to 8% of their compliance obligation. (See Golden Door at 485.) Given that more than 95% of the emissions that would be generated by the Project are covered under the Cap-and-Trade program and thus are already 1 FAQ for Fuel Purchasers: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/cap-and-trade/guidance/faq_fuel_purchasers.pdf

TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY ADVOCATES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 6 subject to a regulatory program that includes offsets, it would be inappropriate and infeasible to use offsets to mitigate such emissions. Rather, mitigation measures should focus on reducing emissions from the Project.

Indeed, Golden Door and other cases make clear that the purchase of offsets is not a substitute for avoiding emissions and that measures that result in actual reductions in emissions from a development project are preferable to attempting to offset emissions via offsets. Thus, the Draft EIR requires the Project implement numerous measures designed to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions (see Chapter 3, pp. 3-10 through 3-15). Furthermore, the Town has carefully considered comments suggesting additional mitigation measures, and, partly as a result of comments received on the Draft EIR, the Town has modified PDF-DES-5 to include solar-power water heaters and a timer system for lighting, and PDF-OP-10 to include provision of information about on-site food trucks (see Chapter 2, Changes to the Draft Environment Impact Report, of this Final EIR).

While some quantification of the effect of mitigation is possible, many measures still remain difficult to quantify and the Town finds it would not be appropriate to do so at this time.

With the revisions to PDF-DES-5 and PDF-OP-10 described above, the Town has determined that all feasible measures have been incorporated into the Final EIR. Such additional measures would result in fewer emissions than disclosed in the Draft EIR; however, because the Project would still result in a net increase in GHG emissions as compared to existing conditions, the Project’s contribution to cumulative GHG impacts is still considered to be significant and unavoidable. For the reasons discussed above, the Town’s experts disagree that the purchase of carbon offsets is a feasible or appropriate way to mitigate the Project’s remaining GHG emissions.

Sincerely,
Matthew Morales, Senior Air Quality Specialist, Dudek

152510427.1
Kelly Alhadeff-Black
3 Better World Circle, Suite 100
Temecula, California 92590
[email protected]
Direct: 951.252.6154
February 13, 2025 File No. 57389.1
ARIZONA • CALIFORNIA • COLORADO • CONNECTICUT • DELAWARE • FLORIDA • GEORGIA • ILLINOIS • INDIANA • KANSAS • KENTUCKY • LOUISIANA MARYLAND • MASSACHUSETTS • MINNESOTA • MISSISSIPPI • MISSOURI • NEVADA • NEWJERSEY • NEWMEXICO • NEW YORK • NORTH CAROLINA OHIO • OREGON • PENNSYLVANIA • RHODEISLAND • TENNESSEE • TEXAS • UTAH • VIRGINIA • WASHINGTON • WASHINGTON D.C. • WESTVIRGINIA

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Town of Apple Valley
Town Council
14955 Dale Evans Parkway
Apple Valley, California 92307
Re: Advocates for the Environment appeal of the Cordova Warehouse Project Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council:

Our office represents the project applicant for the proposed Cordova Warehouse Complex project (the “Project”), considered and approved by the Town of Apple Valley’s (the “Town”) Planning Commission at its November 6, 2024 meeting. Following that meeting, Advocates for the Environment (“AFE”), a non-profit public-interest law firm and environmental advocacy organization, filed an appeal of the Town Planning Commission’s decision on the Project and certification of the associated Environmental Impact Report (SCH202309009) (the “EIR”).

This letter provides the Project applicant’s response to the assertions contained in the AFE appeal. In light of the comprehensive administrative record and for the reasons set forth herein, the decision of the Town’s Planning Commission should be upheld and the appeal by AFE, which is wholly without merit, should be denied.

As a threshold matter it must be noted that the appeal filed by AFE applies only to the Project and not the Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project which was considered on the same night as the Project and which is covered under the same EIR for the Project.1 AFE’s appeal form only specifies the Project (see Appeal Application, Project Information section) and only one appeal fee was paid.2
1 The full title of the EIR is the “Cordova Complex and Quarry at Pawnee Warehouse Project Environmental Impact Report.”
2 In accordance with PRC § 2115(c) a decision made by the Town’s Planning Commission may be appealed to the Town’s elected decision body, in this case the Town Council.

Town of Apple Valley
February 13, 2025

152510427.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
www.lewisbrisbois.com
Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) As a procedural law, CEQA (California Public Resources Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et. seq. and the accompanying guidelines found at Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 6, §§ 15000 et seq. (the “CEQA Guidelines”) requires the evaluation of projects, as that term is defined in CEQA, for potential adverse effects on the physical environment. Compliance with CEQA informs decision makers of the potential environmental impacts of a project and requires the inclusion of feasible mitigation measures to reduce, when possible, significant adverse effects that result from a project. (PRC § 21083). An agency may not take action on a discretionary project that may have an adverse impact on the environment unless the agency has first complied with CEQA (CEQA Guidelines § 15004).

As the lead agency for the Project, the Town is responsible for evaluating the Project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. In its capacity as the decisionmaker for the Project, the Town’s Planning Commission determined, based on its evaluation and consideration of the evidence contained in the Project’s administrative record, that the Project was properly evaluated in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and found that even though the Project included significant and unmitigable environmental impacts it should be approved.3 In making its decision, the Town’s Planning Commission considered, among other information, written comments that were submitted on the Project EIR during the public review period. AFE submitted a comment letter on the Project EIR after the close of the public review period, dated July 19, 20244, which was responded to in detail in the Project’s Final EIR.

AFE’s appeal does not raise any significant new issues; the appeal relies on an unsupportable assumption that additional mitigation measures are available to reduce or offset 3 CEQA allows a lead agency to approve a project that includes significant adverse impacts on the environment as long as the agency’s decision includes findings that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations outweigh the project’s significant and unmitigated impacts. PRC § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15093.
4 The 45-day public review period for the Project’s EIR ran between May 24th through July 8, 2024. AFE’s comment letter was dated approximately 9-days after the expiration of the public review period. PRC § 21091(d)(1) only requires a written response to comments received during the official public review period.

However, as a courtesy to the commenters, responses to AFE’s late comments were provided.

AFE’s comment letter is labeled as Comment Letter “H” in the Project’s Final EIR and written responses to those comments were provided in accordance and compliance with CEQA Guidelines § 15088.

Town of Apple Valley
February 13, 2025

152510427.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
www.lewisbrisbois.com
greenhouse gas emissions. While AFE may disagree with the responses provided, they failed to provide any factual, legal, or analytical bases or substantial evidence to justify their position.5 GHG Mitigation Insufficient Under CEQA Claim
CEQA requires a public agency to “mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible6to do so.”7 Mitigation measure (MM-GHG-1) was identified in the EIR for Project greenhouse gases, which was found to reduce potential impacts from (1) any conflicts with plans to reduce GHG emissions, and (2) the generation of GHG emissions from the Project’s energy demands. However, no feasible mitigation measure was identified that could reduce the generation of GHG emissions from mobile sources, meaning the truck traffic, that would be generated by the Project. As a result, the Project was determined to result in significant, unmitigable impacts for its indirect generation of GHG emissions and cumulative impacts.

AFE agrees with the mitigation measure (MM-GHG-1
8 ) identified in the EIR, but asserts that
additional mitigation measures for GHG emissions are feasible for the Project. However, AFE fails to identify specific mitigation measures or offer any substantial evidence that additional feasible mitigation measures9 exist to mitigate the Project’s remaining significant impacts on GHG mobile source emissions resulting from the increased truck traffic that would be generated from the 5 It is important to note here that the term “substantial evidence” as applied to comments on environmental impact reports has been defined in case law as evidence that is “of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144. CEQA includes guidance of what is and is not considered “substantial evidence” in California Public Resources Code Section 21082.2(c), which provides:

Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. 6 “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines §15364).
7 PRC § 21002.1(b).
8 MM-GHG-1: Renewable Energy Plan. Future tenants of the Project shall be required to subscribe tot eh Apple \Valley Choice Energy 100% Renewable Energy Plan, which is 100% renewable and 100% carbonfree, for the duration of occupancy as part of the entitlement agreement. At each lease or change of building ownership, the new lessee or owner shall also be automatically enrolled in the Apple Valley Choice Energy 100% Renewable Energy Plan.
9 AFE acknowledges that the Project is subject to many project design features (“PDF”) already required by regulations and offers that the Town could adopt a mitigation measure to enforce those regulations; however, those design features have been combined with the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program and the agency responsible for implementing each PDF has been identified.

Town of Apple Valley
February 13, 2025

152510427.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
www.lewisbrisbois.com
Project.10 While AFE may believe additional mitigation measures exist, it has not provided any substantial evidence to support its belief. The Project should not be overturned on this basis.

Lack of Substantial Evidence Claims
AFE has also appealed the Project on the basis there is a lack of evidence to support the finding that there are no additional mitigation measures. CEQA requires a discussion of feasible mitigation measures,11 which can be found in both the Draft EIR and the Final EIR. As discussed in the Draft EIR, “The primary source of GHGs emissions associated with the Project are mobile source vehicles and energy. Although many PDFs have been identified that apply to mobile sources . . . , quantitative reductions from these mobile source PDFs cannot be determined at this time and neither the Project Applicant nor the Town can substantively or materially affect reductions in the Project’s on-road mobile source emissions beyond what is already required by regulation.”12
Further, in response to public comments received, the Final EIR document evaluated and responded to an additional proposed 38 mitigation measures and includes a discussion of the determination of their infeasibility. The basis of AFE’s appeal with respect to a lack of substantial evidence to support the assertion that no additional feasible mitigation measures exist is unsubstantiated.

Carbon Offsets as Feasible Mitigation Claims
AFE suggests that the Town could require the Project Applicant to purchase offsets for the Project’s remaining GHG emissions as an additional mitigation measure. While offsets may be used to mitigate GHG emissions,13 they were determined to be infeasible for this Project.

As explained in the response to AFE’s public comments on the Draft EIR, “recent Court of Appeal decisions have cast considerable doubt on the use of such offsets to mitigate GHG impacts from development projects.”14 As further discussed in the Draft EIR, the effect of mitigation is 10 The Project’s unavoidable significant impacts are associated with the indirect generation of GHG emissions through the increased truck traffic (mobile source vehicles) and through energy (which is addressed by MM-GHG-1), as well as cumulative impacts; the Project was found to result in less than significant impacts associated with any conflicts with plans to reduce GHG emissions. 11 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)
12 The EIR found the Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations related to GHGs.

Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of MM GHG-1. 13 Mitigation measures related to GHG emissions may include “Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise require, to mitigate a project’s emissions” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(c)(3)). 14 Response H-7 in the Final EIR.

Town of Apple Valley
February 13, 2025

152510427.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
www.lewisbrisbois.com
difficult to quantify.15 The Final EIR discusses the Town’s reasoning for determining the infeasibility of carbon offsets as mitigation for this Project, and while AFE may disagree, this is not a reason to overturn the Town Planning Commission’s informed decision to approve the EIR.16 Conclusion
Based on the substantial evidence contained in the Project’s administrative record, the information contained in the Project’s EIR including the Final EIR and based on the information received during the Town’s November 6, 2024 Planning Commission public hearing, there is more than enough evidence to justify the decision made by the Town’s Planning Commission to approve the Project. The administrative record includes substantial evidence that the Town complied with CEQA in reviewing the Project and preparing the Project EIR, including identifying feasible mitigation measures. All public comments received on the Project EIR, including the late submission of repetitive comments by AFE, have been reviewed and responded to in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.

The appeal filed by AFE raises no issues of law, fact or procedure that have not already been addressed by the Project EIR or responded to in the course of the public review and hearing process for the Project. AFE’s appeal does not raise any novel legal issues or concerns which would justify overturning the informed decision of the Town’s Planning Commission.

We therefore respectfully request that AFE’s appeal of the Project be denied and the decision of the Town’s Planning Commission be upheld. We will be in attendance for the Town Council meeting and look forward to answering any questions or providing any additional information as may be requested.

Sincerely yours,
Kelly Alhadeff-Black and Elysian Kurnik of

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
KAB:EMK
15 This could lead to legal issues as the authority of a lead agency to require changes to a project to avoid or reduce significant effects on the environment must be “consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards established by case law (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, Ehrlich v. City of Clover City (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854)” (CEQA Guidelines § 15041(a)). 16 CEQA allows for disagreement on an issue. When the Lead Agency’s position differs from recommendations and objections raised in comments, they must address in detail why such were not accepted (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c).)

1 Memorandum
To: Josh Malhi, VVLIG US Holdings
Ramsey Shaheen, VVLIG US Holdings
From: Peter Piller, Managing Principal
Jared Rodio, Manager
Date: January 2025
Re: Apple Valley Industrial Project - Fiscal Revenue Analysis The Apple Valley Industrial Project (the “Project”) is proposed for two industrial buildings, with one building comprised of 1,559,952 square feet (“Cordova”) and a second building comprised of 1,462,342 square feet (“Quarry”) for a total building square footage of 3,022,294. At the request of VVLIG US HOLDINGS, DPFG has prepared a fiscal revenue analysis to estimate the major fiscal tax revenue that the Project is expected to generate when at full build-out and under stabilized operating conditions for the Town of Apple Valley (“Town”).

Our Fiscal Revenue Analysis of the Project estimates that it will generate approximately $6,437,486 annually in property tax revenue (of which the Town will receive approximately $607,368 annually), approximately $702,881 annually in Property Taxes In lieu of MVLF, and approximately $87,792 annually in off-site sales tax revenues. This results in an approximate total annual revenue of $1,398,041 being generated by the Project for the Town. The Project is also expected to generate approximately 2,015 full time equivalent jobs which results in approximately 2,154 seasonal jobs.

In addition to the fiscal revenue analysis, we estimate that the Project will pay one-time Development Impact Fees to the Town in the amount of approximately $6,022,742. Cordova will also be responsible for paying a fair share contribution of approximately $1,651,350 for traffic improvements. This results in a total One-Time Development Impact Fee payment of $7,674,092.

Although not analyzed in this report, the Project could potentially generate on-site sales tax if used as a fulfillment center. This would result in a significant increase in the revenues and employment from the Project to the Town.

We have also analyzed the Project using IMPLAN. IMPLAN is the most widely employed and accepted regional economic analysis software for predicting economic impacts. The IMPLAN model is used to predict the economic consequences of a development project within a local economy and measures the direct, indirect and induced effects in terms of economic output, employment, and earnings within the local region.

A key concept to understand about the IMPLAN economic impact analysis is that one form of economic activity almost always stimulates other economic activities. The total economic impact of a specific project or event on a study area is the sum of the direct, indirect and induced impacts. The direct economic activity stemming from the Project stimulates subsequent indirect and induced impacts to the local economy.

2 The three components of economic impact are further described below:

1. Direct Impact: Represents the initial change in the economy attributable to the development of the Project which occurs directly on the Project site.

2. Indirect Impact: Represents the impact on local industries as a result of inter-industry purchases as the economy responds to new demand of the directly affected industries. This impact represents the additional rounds of economic activity that occur as a consequence from the direct impacts, specifically through the production of goods and services required to support businesses directly impacted. For example, as it relates to jobs, if a direct impact of a Project is the creation of construction jobs on-site as a result of building new homes, then an indirect impact would be the creation of jobs in the lumber industry as result of the contractor’s purchase of lumber to construct those homes.

3. Induced Impact: Represents the impact to the local economy as a result of the increased household spending due to additional labor income generated, specifically through the purchase of goods and/or services required to meet consumer demand generated by the Project’s residents and employees.

The specific economic impacts evaluated in this analysis are employment and labor income.

Employment: Represents the number of jobs produced in the economy.

Labor Income: Represents the total value of all forms of employment income paid throughout the local economy.

These economic impacts are driven by economic activity generated directly at the Project site as well as the related flow of economic activity in the specified region. In this case, the defined geographic region is the County of San Bernardino and the economic activities generating impacts are the construction of the Project, the annual ongoing activities of the new businesses located in the Project, and new local spending by the Project’s employees. Accordingly, this analysis evaluates the direct, indirect and induced effects of the Project at two separate times: (i) a one-time evaluation of direct, indirect, and induced effects during the construction of the Project (“Construction Period Impacts”) and (ii) the ongoing annual direct, indirect, and induced effects at buildout (“Ongoing Annual Impacts”). The IMPLAN data set used for this analysis is in 2025 dollars.

The “Construction Period” commences upon initial site development and ends upon completion of all industrial structures. The Construction Period is expected to be approximately 2 years. Direct inputs were comprised of approximately $230,000,000 which includes the Hard and Soft costs for the development of the Project exclusive of the land price. Construction of the Project will contribute to the creation of new direct, indirect, and induced jobs County-wide. Direct jobs created during the Construction Period consist of the employees constructing the Project, whereas the indirect and induced jobs created during this phase relate to (i) the other industries that need to produce additional goods and services to meet the demand from contractors/businesses directly involved in the construction of the Project and (ii) discretionary spending of the construction employees.

Labor income during the construction period includes employment compensation and benefits paid to workers. The direct effect on labor income during the Construction Period is comprised of labor income paid to construction employees on site. The indirect effect on labor income includes the income of those employees of businesses providing goods and services to the contractors/businesses working directly on the site. The induced effect on labor income is comprised of the income of employees working at businesses that experience growth from the discretionary spending of the direct and indirect employees. Overall, the

3 Project is estimated to generate an average of approximately $71,527,000 annually in labor income over the Construction Period for a total cumulative labor income of approximately $143,055,000.

Ongoing annual direct effects represent the anticipated economic effects of the Project once the site is stabilized. Ongoing annual direct effects on employment relate to the employees working at the Project, whereas the indirect and induced jobs created during this phase relate to the other industries that produce goods and services that support the new businesses of the Project and local spending by the new employees and residents of the Project. The project is anticipated to create approximately 2,015 full-time equivalent employees. Full-time equivalent employees for the Project were based on occupancy and the square feet per employee estimates according to the anticipated tenant type. Because IMPLAN’s definition of employment includes “all jobs” (i.e., full-time, part-time, and seasonal), IMPLAN industry sector conversion factor of 1.162 for warehousing and storage in the County of San Bernardino. This resulted in a total direct employee (i.e., total “headcount” jobs) of approximately 2,154 employees.

The direct effect on labor income during the Permanent Ongoing Period includes the labor income paid to on-site employees of the Project. The indirect and induced effects on labor income consist of the income of those employees associated with businesses that service the Project, as well as the income of the new employees generated by the increased demand for goods and services from the Project. Overall, the Project is estimated to generate approximately $181,400,000 annually in labor income.

Our analysis uses conservative metrics drawn from the County of San Bernardino market conditions and our industry knowledge and experience. It should be noted, however, that market conditions may change between now and when the Project is anticipated to open. Accordingly, as the information, estimates, and assumptions used in the analysis are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events (e.g., market conditions, government regulations, etc.), the estimates presented herein are subject to change.

Appendix:

Appendix A – Site Plan
Appendix B – Fiscal Revenue Analysis Tables
Appendix C – Development Impact Fees

4 Appendix A:

Site Plan

5 Appendix B:

Fiscal Revenue Analysis Tables

Table 1
Fiscal Revenue and Economic Benefit Analysis Summary
VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
Recurring Annual Revenues: 2024 - 2025
Property Taxes $ 607,368 Table 4
Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF 702,881 Table 5
Offsite Sales Tax 87,792 Table 6
Total Annual Tax Revenue $ 1,398,041
Jobs Labor Income Jobs Labor Income
Direct Effect Direct Effect Direct Effect Direct Effect 740 $ 56,324,000 2,154 $ 130,136,000
Indirect Effect Indirect Effect Indirect Effect Indirect Effect 95 $ 6,447,000 557 $ 30,758,000
Induced Effect Induced Effect Induced Effect Induced Effect 170 $ 8,756,000 396 $ 20,506,000
Average Annual Number
of Jobs
Average Annual
Labor Income
Average Annual
Number of Jobs
Average Annual
Labor Income
1,005 $ 71,527,000 3,107 $ 181,400,000
Cumulative Labor
Income
$ 143,055,000
Footnotes:
(a) See Table 8 for support and detailed description of categories. (b) See Table 9 for support and detailed description of categories. 2-Year Construction Period

MAJOR TAX REVENUES
IMPLAN Results Summary
Average Annual Construction Period Impacts Permanent Annual Ongoing Impact (b) 2-Year Construction Period (a) Cumulative Construction Period Impacts

Table 2
Land Use and Assessed Value Assumptions
VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
Building 1 1,559,952 $ 213 $ 332,269,776
Building 2 1,462,342 213 311,478,846
Subtotal Industrial 3,022,294 $ 643,748,622
Total Project Assessed Value $ 643,748,622
Footnotes:
(a) Industrial estimated value per Table 3.

Industrial
Probable Tenant Type Bldg. SF / Acre Estimated Assessed Value per SF
Total Assessed
Value (a)

Table 3
Estimated Commercial Uses Property Value Using Income Method VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
Industrial
Gross Square Feet 3,022,294

REVENUE
Average Monthly NNN Rental Rate per s.f. (a) $ 1.19
Total Scheduled Annual NNN Rents $ 43,158,358

EXPENSES
Vacancy (%) (a) 6.80%
Vacancy ($) $ 2,934,768
Unreimbursed Expenses (b) 8,044,718
Total Expenses $ 10,979,486
NET OPERATING INCOME $ 32,178,872
CAP RATE (c) 5.00%
TOTAL VALUE $ 643,577,439
VALUE PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT 212.94
VALUE PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT (ROUNDED) 213.00
Footnotes:
(b) Operating Expenses for Warehouse estimated at 20.0% of revenue. (c) Industrial cap rate per CBRE North America Cap Rate Survey First Half 2024 for Class A Stabilized Industrial property in the Inland Empire.
(a) Industrial monthly NNN rental rate and vacancy per CBRE Inland Empire Industrial, Q3 2024 Report.

Table 4
Share of the Basic Tax Calculation
VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
Agency Code Agency 21027
AB01 GA01 COUNTY GENERAL - GTL 14.77390000%
AB02 GA01 E.R.A.F. - GTL 22.37117300%
BF04 GA01 FLOOD ZONE 4 - GTL 2.33390500%
BF08 GA01 FLOOD ADM 3-6 - GTL 0.08930800%
BL01 GA01 CO FREE LIBRARY - GTL 1.43060900%
BS01 GA01 SUPT OF SCHL-CO WIDE GTL 0.50692800%
BS01 GA03 SUPT OF SCH-PHY HAND GTL 0.19942200%
BS01 GA02 SUPT OF SCHL-R.O.P. GTL 0.08689400%
BS01 GA05 SUPT OF SCHL-DEV CTR GTL 0.05228500%
BS01 GA04 SUPT OF SCH-MENT RET GTL 0.16011400%
CC03 GA01 APPLE VALLEY TOWN-GTL 9.43485600%
SC66 GA01 VICTOR VLY COMM COLL GTL 6.63877100%
SU06 GA01 APPLE VLY UNIF GTL 31.06921900%
UD44 GA01 CSA 60 - GTL 1.02410100%
WF01 GA01 APPLE VALLEY FIRE - GTL 9.25990400%
WR03 GL01 #MOJAVE DESERT RCD-GTL 0.04735200%
WY20 GI01 ##MOJAVE WTR - GTL L&I 0.52125900%
Total 100.00%
Acreage 167.19
100%
Total Assessed Value $ 643,748,622
Base 1% Ad-Valorem Tax 1.00%
Base Ad-Valorem Revenue $ 6,437,486
Town of Apple Valley Allocation 9.43%
Total Town of Apple Valley Property Taxes $ 607,368
Footnotes:

Source: Fiscal Year 2024/25 Allocation Percentage Calculation per San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller's Office.

Table 5
Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF
VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
FY 2024/25 In Lieu MVLF Allocation to Town $ 9,377,100 (a) FY 2024/25 Town of Apple Valley Assessed Value 8,588,212,468 (b) Total Project Assessed Value from Table 2 643,748,622
AV Growth from Project 7.496%
Annual Town Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF $ 702,881
Footnotes:
(b) Per County of San Bernardino Assessor-Recorder-Clerk Office 2024 Assessment Roll.
(a) Per Town of Apple Valley Annual Budget for FY 2024-25; General Fund Revenues by Line Item (Page 37).

Table 6
Off-Site Sales Tax Revenue - Commercial
VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
Non-Residential Worker Retail Spending Pattern Analysis Lunch Goods and Services Transportation Dinner / Drinks Total Avg. Weekly Expenditures Before / During / After Work (a) $ 16 $ 160 $ 38 $ 13 $ 227 Avg. Annual Expenditures Before / During / After Work (b) 790 8,007 1,884 653 11,333 Percentage of Purchases Made Closer to Work 100% 50% 50% 50% Average Annual Expenditures Closer to Work $ 790 $ 4,003 $ 942 $ 327 $ 6,062 Median Salary for Survey Respondents (c) 87,500 87,500 87,500 87,500 Median Salary for Town of Apple Valley (d) 62,898 62,898 62,898 62,898 Adjustments Factor for Difference in Income 72% 72% 72% 72% Adjusted Avg. Annual Expenditures per Employee $ 568 $ 2,878 $ 677 $ 235 $ 4,357 Town share of Avg. Annual Expenditures per Employee (1%) $ 6 $ 29 $ 7 $ 2 $ 44 Total number of Employees per Table 7 2,015
Total Town share of Avg, Annual Expenditures per Employee $ 87,792 Footnotes:
(b) Assumes a 50 week work year.
(d) Estimate of median salary per U.S. Census Beareu Quick Facts Sheet for Town of Apple Valley, CA. (a) Estimate of average national weekly suburban office worker spending per Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age published by the International Council of Shopping Centers, dated 2012.
(c) Median salary for respondents per Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age published by the International Council of Shopping Centers, dated 2012.

Table 7
Full Time Equivalent Employment
VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
Tenant Type Bldg. SF Estimated SF per
Employee (a)
Estimated
Employees
Building 1 1,559,952 1,500 1,040
Building 2 1,462,342 1,500 975
Subtotal Business and Warehouse 3,022,294 2,015
Total Estimated Employees 2,015
Footnotes:
(a) Estimated employees per square foot per the United States Green Building Council default occupancy count and DPFG estimates based on industry knowledge and review of various data sources.

Business and Warehouse

Table 8
Construction Period Impacts
VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
Employment Impact Jobs Description
Direct Effect 740 Represents direct onsite construction-related jobs.

Indirect Effect 95
Represents jobs created as a result of new business to business spending in the local economy.

Induced Effect 170
Represents jobs created as a result of spending by new direct and indirect employees in the local economy.

Total 1,005
Labor Income Impact Labor Income Description
Direct Effect $ 56,324,000 Represents direct onsite construction labor income.

Indirect Effect 6,447,000
Represents labor income generated as a result of new business to business spending in the local economy.

Induced Effect 8,756,000
Represents labor income generated as a result of spending by new direct and indirect employees in the local economy.

Total $ 71,527,000
Labor Income Impact Labor Income Description
Direct Effect $ 112,649,000 Represents direct onsite construction labor income.

Indirect Effect 12,894,000
Represents labor income generated as a result of new business to business spending in the local economy.

Induced Effect 17,512,000
Represents labor income generated as a result of spending by new direct and indirect employees in the local economy.

Total $ 143,055,000
Footnotes:
(a) Calculated using IMPLAN, a nationally recognized economic modeling system. San Bernardino is the study area. Jobs are reported as all jobs (full-time, part-time, and seasonal).

Average Annual Jobs Created During Construction Period (a) Average Annual Labor Income Generated During Construction Period (a) Cumulative Labor Income Generated During Construction Period (a)

Table 9
Ongoing Annual Impacts
VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
Employment Impact Total Jobs Description
Direct Effect (b) 2,154
Represents direct onsite jobs created by the operations of the new facilities.

Indirect Effect 557
Represents jobs created as a result of new business to business spending in the local economy.

Induced Effect 396
Represents jobs created as a result of spending by new direct and indirect employees in the local economy.

Total 3,107
Labor Income Impact Total Labor Income Description
Direct Effect $ 130,136,000 Represents labor income generated by the operations of the new facilities Indirect Effect 30,758,000
Represents labor income generated from new business to business spending in the local economy.

Induced Effect 20,506,000
Represents labor income generated by spending of new direct and indirect employees in the local economy.

Total $ 181,400,000
Footnotes:

Total Ongoing Annual Number of Jobs Created (a)
Total Ongoing Annual Labor Income Generated (a)
(a) Calculated using IMPLAN, a nationally recognized economic modeling system. San Bernardino is the study area. Jobs are reported as all jobs (full-time, part-time, and seasonal).

Table 10
Top 10 Industries Affected during Construction Period
VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
Rank Industry Jobs
1 51 - Construction of new manufacturing structures 740 2 472 - Employment services 14
3 417 - Truck transportation 10
4 395 - Wholesale - Machinery, equipment, and supplies 8 5 447 - Other real estate 9
6 477 - Landscape and horticultural services 5
7 396 - Wholesale - Other durable goods merchant wholesalers 5 8 453 - Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment rental and leasing 4 9 457 - Architectural, engineering, and related services 4 10 421 - Couriers and messengers 4
(a)
(b)
Top 10 Industries Affected during Construction Period Annually (a) (b) Footnotes:

Calculated using IMPLAN, a nationally recognized economic modeling system. Riverside County is the study area. Jobs are reported as all jobs (full-time, part-time, and seasonal).

Jobs by Top Ten industries affected annually by the new construction and local spending during the construction period of 2 years.

Table 11
Top 10 Industries Affected from Ongoing Annual Operations from Commercial Site VVLIG US Holdings - Apple Valley
Rank Industry Jobs
1 422 - Warehousing and storage 2,365
2 447 - Other real estate 103
3 472 - Employment services 76
4 421 - Couriers and messengers 23
5 519 - Dry-cleaning and laundry services 14
6 470 - Office administrative services 13
7 476 - Services to buildings 10
8 534 - Other local government enterprises 13
9 475 - Investigation and security services 9
10 477 - Landscape and horticultural services 8
(a)
Top 10 Industries Affected during Construction Period Annually (a) Footnotes:

Calculated using IMPLAN, a nationally recognized economic modeling system. Riverside County is the study area. Jobs are reported as all jobs (full-time, part-time, and seasonal).

6 Appendix C:

Development Impact Fees

I. Development Impact Fees - both sites
Fee Unit of Measure Quantity Total Fees
Town of Apple Valley
Law Enforcement Facilities [a] $ 0.001 Per Square Foot 3,022,294 $ 3,022 Storm Drainage Facilities [a] 0.114 Per Square Foot 3,022,294 344,542 Sanitary Sewer Facilities [a] 0.684 Per Square Foot 3,022,294 2,067,249 General Government Facilities [a] 0.034 Per Square Foot 3,022,294 102,758 General Park Fee/Quimby [a] 0.006 Per Square Foot 3,022,294 18,738 A.V. Fire Fees [a] 0.089 Per Square Foot 3,022,294 268,984 Transportation Impact Fees [a] 1.062 Base & Per Square Foot 3,022,294 3,217,449 Total $ 6,022,742
II. Fair Share Fee Contribution - Cordova Site
Cost Fair Share % Fair Share Fee
Near Term Project Specific Improvements
Dale Evans Parkway / Johnson Road (b) $ 200,000 93.10% $ 186,200 Stoddard Wells Road / Johnson Road (b) 300,000 94.30% 282,900 Stoddard Wells Road / I-15 Northbound Ramps(b) 450,000 87.70% 394,650 Long Range Cumulative Measures
Dale Evans Parkway / Johnson Road (b) 700,000 33.00% 231,000 Stoddard Wells Road / Johnson Road (b) 900,000 28.60% 257,400 Stoddard Wells Road / I-15 Northbound Ramps(b) 1,100,000 27.20% 299,200 Total $ 1,651,350
Subtotal Estimated Development Impact Fees: $ 7,674,092 Footnotes:
(b) For informational purposes only. In addition to Traffic Impact Fees, each of the distribution center’s Traffic Analysis in the north Apple Valley area indicates that they are required to pay for fair share contributions for improvements at the Stoddard Wells Road/ I-15 interchange. This location is not listed on the Town’s Traffic Impact Fee’s network and is not mitigated by the Traffic Impact Fee. The fair share contributions range from about 4% to 14% and is based on estimates that are not determined at this time. The fees are collected and retained by the Town for the County and Caltrans until there is sufficient funds to complete the anticipated improvements.

One of the improvements is to add an additional lane to the northbound off ramp. The amount reflected in this analysis reflects only the Fair Share fees outlined in the Cordova Complex Traffic Impact Analysis. (a) Fee amounts and units of measure per the Town of Apple Valley Schedule J - Development Impact Fees FY 23-24. Fees escalate yearly by the increase in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, Los Angeles Average. Transportation Impact Fees also include base fee of $6,745.

Synergy - Apple Valley Project
Development Impact Fees
1/16/2025