Apple Valley City Council
April 22, 2025

153515047.1 Page 67 of 121
orientation as they currently occur on the Project site, with the marking on the north side of the trees facing north at the relocation site(s). ▪ Transplanted plants shall be watered prior to and at the time of transplantation.

The schedule of watering shall be determined by the qualified tree expert and desert native plant expert(s) to maintain plant health. Watering of the transplanted plants shall continue under the guidance of a qualified tree expert and desert native plant expert(s) until it has been determined that the transplants have become established in the permanent relocation site(s) and no longer require supplemental watering.

MM-BIO-3 Designated Biologist Authority. The designated biologist shall have authority to immediately stop any activity that does not comply with the biological resources mitigation measures and/or to order any reasonable measure to avoid the unauthorized take of an individual western Joshua tree or special-status wildlife species.

MM-BIO-4 Compliance Monitoring. The designated biologist shall be on site daily when impacts occur. The designated biologist shall conduct compliance inspections to minimize incidental take of western Joshua trees and impacts to other sensitive biological resources, including Mohave ground squirrel, if present; prevent unlawful take of western Joshua trees; and ensure that signs, stakes, and fencing are intact, and that impacts are only occurring outside the permitted impact footprint. Weekly written observation and inspection records that summarize oversight activities and compliance inspections and monitoring activities required by the Incidental Take Permit shall be prepared.

Species Connectivity Database Observation Reporting. During all Project ground disturbing activities, the Qualified Biologist shall report any collision-related mortalities that may occur within adjacent roadways of the Project site to the California Roadkill Observation System. In addition, the qualified Biologist shall report any identifiable recently sprouted native and nonnative plant species that occur within the Project area during Project activities to the CalFlora Plant Observation database.

MM-BIO-5 Education Program. An education program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all persons employed or otherwise working in the Project area shall be administered before performing impacts. The WEAP shall consist of a presentation from the designated biologist that includes a discussion of the biology and status of western Joshua trees, burrowing owls, and loggerhead shrikes, and other biological resources mitigation measures described in the California Environmental Quality Act document. The training shall also discuss the invasive plant species currently present within the Project area as well as those that may pose a threat to or have the potential to invade the Project area through implementation of ground disturbing activities. The discussion shall describe the potential long-lasting effects of introduced invasive species that may encroach on native plant species and continue to spread following the construction of the Project and beginning of industrial work. Interpretation for nonEnglish-speaking workers shall be provided, and the same instruction shall be provided to all new workers before they are authorized to perform work in the Project area. Upon

153515047.1 Page 68 of 121
completion of the WEAP, employees shall sign a form stating they attended the program and understand all protection measures. This training shall be repeated at least once annually for long-term and/or permanent employees who will be conducting work in the Project area.

MM-BIO-6 Construction Monitoring Notebook. The designated biologist shall maintain a construction-monitoring notebook on site throughout the construction period that shall include a copy of the biological resources mitigation measures with attachments and a list of signatures of all personnel who have successfully completed the education program. The permittee shall ensure that a copy of the construction monitoring notebook is available for review at the Project site upon request by the Town.

MM-BIO-7 Delineation of Project Boundaries. Before beginning activities that would cause impacts, the contractor shall, in consultation with the designated biologist, clearly delineate the boundaries with fencing, stakes, or flags, consistent with the grading plan, within which Project impacts will take place. All impacts outside the fenced, staked, or flagged areas shall be avoided, and all fencing, stakes, and flags shall be maintained until the completion of impacts in that area.

MM-BIO-8 Hazardous Waste. The applicant shall immediately stop work and, pursuant to pertinent state and federal statutes and regulations, arrange for repair and cleanup by qualified individuals of any fuel or hazardous waste leaks or spills at the time of occurrence, or as soon as it is safe to do so.

MM-BIO-9 Herbicides. The applicant shall limit herbicide use for invasive plant species and shall use herbicides only if it has been determined that hand or mechanical efforts are infeasible. To prevent drift, the permittee shall apply herbicides only when wind speeds are less than 7 miles per hour. All herbicide application shall be performed by a licensed applicator and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

MM-BIO-10 Pre-construction Clearance Surveys for Mojave Desert Tortoise and Avoidance. One pre-construction clearance survey in accordance with the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol shall be conducted to reevaluate locations of potential Mojave desert tortoise burrows within the Project limits so take of Mojave desert tortoise can be avoided. The pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted on the Project site 14 to 21 days prior to the start of construction activities; or alternatively, pre-construction clearance surveys may be conducted at any time following the installation of desert tortoise exclusionary fencing encompassing the Project site that would ensure that tortoises cannot enter the Project after clearance surveys are completed. Should there be any faults following the installation of the desert tortoise exclusionary fence that would compromise the efficacy, an additional pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted throughout the Project site. If no Mojave desert tortoises are found during the surveys desert tortoise exclusionary fencing encompassing the Project site shall remain in place until Project construction is completed and shall be monitored by a qualified biologist in compliance with current USFWS protocol.

153515047.1 Page 69 of 121
Should Mojave desert tortoise be located during the clearance survey, all methods used for handling desert tortoises during the clearance surveys must be in accordance with the USFWS Desert Tortoise Field Manual or Project-specific guidance contained in a habitat conservation plan or Incidental Take Permit (ITP). No take of Mojave desert tortoise shall occur without prior authorization in the form of an ITP pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 and a 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 and CDFW. 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 habitat conservation plan and ITP.

Should Mojave desert tortoise be located during the clearance survey, the Project would result in the loss of 165.4 acres of suitable habitat for Mojave desert tortoise.

Mitigation for direct impacts to 165.4 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 165.4 acres or as otherwise determined through coordination with USFWS and/or CDFW.

MM-BIO-11 Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl and Avoidance.

MM-BIO-11.1 Focused Non-Breeding Season Surveys. Focused non-breeding season surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in accordance with protocols established in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; then California Department of Fish and Game) 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation or the most recent guidance. As outlined in the 2012 Staff Report, non-breeding season surveys will occur from September 1 to January 31. If burrowing owl are not detected, a pre-construction survey shall be completed, as described in 11.2. If burrowing owls are detected during these surveys, avoidance and preparation of a Burrowing Owl Plan will occur as outlined in MM-BIO-11.3 and MM-BIO-11.4.

MM-BIO-11.2 Pre-Construction Survey. One pre‐construction burrowing owl survey shall be completed no more than 14 days before initiation of site preparation or grading activities, and a second survey shall be completed within 24 hours of the start of site preparation or grading activities. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction surveys, the Project site and off-site improvement areas shall be resurveyed. Surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in accordance with protocols established in the 2012 Staff Report.

Evidence of owl activity may include presence of owls themselves, burrows, and owl sign at burrow entrances such as pellets, whitewash or other “ornamentation,” feathers, prey remains, etc. If it is evident that the burrows are actively being used by burrowing owl, avoidance and preparation of a Burrowing Owl Plan will occur as outlined in MM-BIO-11.3 and MM-BIO-11.4.

MM-BIO-11.3 Avoidance. The Project proponent shall clearly delineate no-disturbance buffers of 250 feet radius around all occupied burrows within the Project site and

153515047.1 Page 70 of 121
approximately 400 feet of the Project site, where legally accessible, with posted signs demarcating the avoidance area and by using stakes, flags, and/or rope or cord to minimize the disturbance of burrowing owl habitat. The Project proponent shall delineate occupied burrows with different materials than those used to delineate the Project site. No Project activities shall be allowed to encroach into established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until it is determined that occupied burrows have been vacated. Project proponent shall remove and properly dispose of all materials used for delineation immediately upon completion of the Project.

MM-BIO-11.4 Burrowing Owl Plan. If burrowing owls are detected on the Project site, the Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval at least 30 days prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected after ground-disturbing activities have been initiated, a Burrowing Owl Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval within two weeks of detection. Project activities shall not occur within 400 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include but is not limited to 1) impact assessment that details the number and location of occupied burrow sites, and acres of burrowing owl habitat with a qualitative description of the habitat vegetation characteristics that will be impacted; 2) details on avoidance actions and monitoring such as proposed buffers, visual barriers and other actions; 3) site monitoring; and 4)minimization and compensatory mitigation actions that will be implemented.

Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method, may be a potentially significant impact under CEQA, and has the possibility to result in take. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall identify compensatory mitigation for the loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat consistent with the “Mitigation Impacts” section of the 2012 Staff Report and shall implement CDFW-approved mitigation prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities, as outlined in MM-BIO-11.5 below. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls. If no suitable habitat is available nearby, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW review and approval.

MM-BIO-11.5 Compensatory Mitigation. No take of burrowing owl shall occur without prior authorization in the form of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081. The Project Applicant shall adhere to measures and conditions set forth within the ITP. Anyone who handles burrowing owl during clearance activities must have the appropriate authorizations from CDFW. Notification shall be made in accordance with the conditions of the ITP. Should burrowing owl be located during the non-breeding season or clearance surveys, the Project would result in the loss of 165.4 acres of suitable habitat for burrowing owl. Mitigation for direct

153515047.1 Page 71 of 121
impacts to 165.4 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 165.4 acres.

MM-BIO-11.6 Burrowing Owls Observed During Construction. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during Project implementation and construction, the Project proponent shall notify CDFW immediately in writing.

MM-BIO-12 Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Special-status bird species that have a moderate potential to occur within the Project include burrowing owl, LeConte’s thrasher, and loggerhead shrike. The Project also contains trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that provide opportunities for other non-sensitive birds and raptors to nest on site. Construction activities shall avoid the migratory bird nesting season (typically February 1 through August 31) to reduce any potential significant impact to birds that may be nesting in the survey area. Regardless of the time of year, a pre-construction avian nesting clearance survey of the Project site and within 500 feet of all impact areas must be conducted to determine the presence/absence of protected migratory birds and active nests. The avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to the start of construction in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If an active bird nest is found within the Project area of within 500 feet of the Project area, the nest shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans, along with an appropriate buffer established around the nest, which shall be determined by the biologist based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance. The nest area and buffers shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist and avoided until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is vacated and the juveniles have fledged. The nest area shall be demarcated in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. On-site construction monitoring shall be conducted when construction occurs in close proximately to an active nest buffer. The buffer shall remain in place until is determined by the qualified biologist that the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. If an active nest is encountered during the Project construction, construction shall stop immediately until a qualified biologist can determined (1) that status of the nest, and (2) when work can proceed without risking violation to state or federal laws.

MM-BIO-13 Trash and Debris. The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during Project construction:
▪ Fully covered trash receptacles that are animal-proof shall be installed and used by the operator to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverage containers, and other miscellaneous trash. Trash contained within the receptacles shall be removed at least once a week from the Project site. ▪ Construction work areas shall be kept clean of debris, such as cable, trash, and construction materials. All construction/contractor personnel shall collect all litter, vehicle fluids, and food waste from the Project site on a daily basis.

153515047.1 Page 72 of 121
MM-BIO-14 Invasive Plant Management. To reduce the spread of invasive plant species, landscape plants within 200 feet of native vegetation communities shall not be on the most recent version of the California Invasive Plant Council’s Inventory of Invasive Plants (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php). Post-construction, the Project Applicant shall continually remove invasive plant species on site by hand or mechanical methods, as feasible.

MM-BIO-15 Lighting. Lighting for construction activities and operations within 50 feet of the outside edge of the impact footprint containing habitat for special-status wildlife shall be directed away from natural areas.

2. Impacts to Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.3-38 – 4.3-41) Explanation: The Project site does not contain any sensitive vegetation communities; therefore, direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities are not anticipated to occur, and no additional measures are recommended. No direct impacts would occur.

Indirect Impacts
Short-Term Construction Impacts
No sensitive vegetation communities occur within the 100-foot buffer of the Project site or off-site improvements area (where it extends beyond the Project site buffer). Therefore, implementation of the Project would likely not result in any indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities.

However, implementation of MM-BIO-3 (Designated Biologist Authority) gives the Project’s designated biologist the authority to stop work if construction is not compliant with this CEQA document. MM-BIO4 (Compliance Monitoring) requires that an experienced biologist oversee compliance with the protective measures, including limiting impacts to the Project impact footprint. MM-BIO-5 (Education Program) would provide construction personnel with training related to sensitive vegetation communities that could potentially occur adjacent to the impact footprint (e.g., Joshua tree woodland that may be present outside of the Project’s 100-foot buffer). MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook) provides for documentation that the education program was administered to applicable personnel. MM-BIO-7 (Delineation of Property Boundaries) requires that impacts occur within the fenced, staked, or flagged area that is clearly delineated within the Project impact footprint. Thus, implementation of MM-BIO-3 through MM-BIO-7 would enable the Project to avoid and minimize inadvertent spillover impacts outside of the approved impact footprint.

To reduce fugitive dust resulting from Project construction and to minimize adverse air quality impacts, the Project would employ dust mitigation measures in accordance with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District’s Rules 401 and 403.2, which limit the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction.

153515047.1 Page 73 of 121
MM-BIO-8 (Hazardous Waste) would ensure that a prompt and effective response to any accidental chemical spills would be implemented, and that repair and clean-up of any hazardous waste occurs.

Thus, implementation of MM-BIO-8 (Hazardous Waste) would help to avoid and minimize indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities that could potentially occur adjacent to the impact footprint (e.g., Joshua tree woodland that may be present outside of the Project’s 100-foot buffer) from any construction-related chemical spills.

A SWPPP would be prepared and implemented to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater during construction activities, with the intent of keeping sediment and any other pollutants from moving off site and into receiving waters. BMP categories employed on site would include erosion control, sediment control, and non-stormwater good housekeeping. Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP would help to avoid and minimize the potential effects of stormwater erosion during construction.

Construction of the Project would introduce potential ignition sources to the Project site, including the use of heavy machinery and the potential for sparks during welding activities or other hot work.

However, the Project would be required to comply with Town and state requirements for fire safety practices to reduce the possibility of fires during construction activities. Further, vegetation would be removed from the site prior to the start of construction. Adherence to Town and state regulatory standards during Project construction would reduce the risk of wildfire ignition and spread during construction activities. Therefore, short-term construction impacts involving wildland fires would not be substantial.

Long-Term Operational Impacts
Potential long-term (post-construction) indirect impacts from operation and maintenance activities may include effects of herbicides, changes in water quality, increased wildfire risk, induced demand of the surrounding area, increased traffic and vehicle emissions, and accidental chemical spills.

Indirect impacts to off-site adjacent areas may be considered significant absent mitigation.

MM-BIO-9 (Herbicides) would limit herbicide use to instances where hand or mechanical efforts are infeasible and would only be applied when wind speeds are less than 7 miles per hour to prevent drift into off-site adjacent areas that may potentially contain sensitive vegetation communities.

Implementation of low-impact-development features and BMPs would, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters, including inadvertent release of pollutants (e.g., hydraulic fluids and petroleum), the improper management of hazardous materials, trash and debris, and the improper management of portable restroom facilities (e.g., regular service) in accordance with all relevant local and state development standards. In addition, in accordance with CALGreen requirements (California Green Building Standards Code, CCR, Title 24, Part 11), Project source controls to improve water quality would be provided for outdoor material storage areas, outdoor trash storage/waste handling areas, and outdoor loading/unloading areas. Therefore, impacts to sensitive vegetation communities that could potentially occur on and or adjacent to the impact footprint (e.g., Joshua tree woodland that may be present outside of the Project’s 100-foot buffer) due to changes in water quality would be avoided and minimized through implementation of low-impactdevelopment features and BMPs.

153515047.1 Page 74 of 121
Upon completion of Project construction, with adherence to the Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code and because of the low ignitability of the proposed structures and implementation of fire-resistant and irrigated landscaping, the Project would not facilitate wildfire spread or exacerbate wildfire risk.

Further, given that surrounding off-site fuels consist of moderately spaced vegetation, wildfires in the immediate surrounding area are not common, and it is unlikely that the Project site would be exposed to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. It is not anticipated that the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would exacerbate wildfire risks or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire; thus, with adherence to the Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code, long-term indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities that could potentially occur adjacent to the impact footprint (e.g., Joshua tree woodland that may be present outside of the Project’s 100-foot buffer) associated with increased wildlife risk is not expected to occur.

Implementation of MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5, MM-BIO-6, MM-BIO-7, MM-BIO-8, and MM-BIO-9 are required to reduce indirect impacts to adjacent sensitive vegetation communities that may occur outside of the Project footprint to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.3-48.)

3. Impacts to Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.3-49 – 4.3-50) Explanation: The Project could result in potentially significant impacts to non-wetland waters of the United States and state as a result of Project activities. Short-term and long-term indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters relating to construction activities (edge effects) and trash/pollution would not likely result in significant impacts, especially with the application of the standard BMPs that would be implemented during Project construction. Implementation of MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5, MM-BIO-6, MM-BIO-7, MM-BIO-8, and MM-BIO-16 is required to reduce direct and indirect impacts to a less-than-significant level.

MM-BIO-16 Aquatic Resources Mitigation. The Project site and off-site improvements area support 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 construction activity, the 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 Applicant shall coordinate with CDFW (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 1:1 with purchase of credits (1.61 acres RWQCB/CDFW jurisdiction and 0.25 acres CDFW only 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, Wildlands) or other applicant-sponsored mitigation. Final mitigation ratios and credits shall be determined in consultation with RWQCB and/or

153515047.1 Page 75 of 121
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.
▪ 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.

3. Conflict with Policies or Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.3-50) Explanation:

California Desert Native Plants and Western Joshua Tree The Project would result in direct impacts to 283 western Joshua trees documented within the Project site and off-site improvements area. In addition to western Joshua tree, two desert native plant species were recorded within the Project site during the focused desert native plant survey: one Wiggins’ cholla and one Mojave yucca. Both plants would be directly removed by the Project.

153515047.1 Page 76 of 121
Therefore, because the focused desert native plant survey was positive for western Joshua tree, Wiggins’ cholla, and Mojave yucca, and in accordance with the CDNPA and Chapter 9.76 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, a native plant removal permit must be obtained from the Town prior to the removal of these individuals. These impacts are addressed in the Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan, and Desert Native Plant Relocation Plan, prepared to provide detailed specifications for the Project applicant to meet the requirements of Chapter 9.76 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code to protect, preserve, and mitigate impacts to desert native plants.

Pursuant to MM-BIO-2 (Relocation of Desert Native Plants), the Project applicant will submit an application and applicable fee paid to the Town for removal or relocation of protected native desert plants under Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code Chapter 9.76. The application will include certification from a qualified western Joshua tree and native desert plant expert to determine that proposed removal or relocation of protected native desert plants are appropriate, supportive of a healthy environment, and in compliance with the Town of Apple Valley’s Municipal Code. The application will include the Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan, and Desert Native Plant Relocation Plan. The plan was prepared by a qualified western Joshua tree and native desert plant expert. The Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan addresses the requirements of the Town’s Protected Plant Policy and provides details for the initial survey of the Joshua trees within the Project site and off-site improvements area, detailed specifications for the protection of trees to be preserved on site, and relocation/salvage requirements for those trees requiring removal and relocation. With the incorporation of mitigation, and with adherence to both the CDNPA and the Town of Apple Valley’s Municipal Code, impacts associated with western Joshua tree and desert native plants would be less than significant.

The Project could result in significant impacts to native desert plants and western Joshua trees protected by state and local plant and tree preservation regulations, absent mitigation.

Implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to California desert native plants (western Joshua tree, Wiggins’ cholla, and Mojave yucca cholla) to less than significant.

4. Interfere with Movement of Native Species
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.3-40 – 4.3-41) Explanation: The BSA is not located within an essential connectivity area, natural landscape block, or linkage for the California Desert Linkage Network (BLM 2014). It is approximately 1 mile northeast of an area mapped as a linkage for the California Desert Linkage Network. No significant direct permanent impacts would occur on wildlife movement or use of native wildlife nursery sites associated with Project activities. Existing nearby habitat linkages and wildlife corridor functions would remain intact while construction activities are conducted and following Project completion. Wildlife movement may be temporarily disrupted during the construction phase of the Project, although this effect would be both localized and short-term.

Nearby corridors that could support wildlife movement in the region, such as the Mojave River, which is approximately 16 miles south of the BSA, would not be impacted by the Project.

Additionally, construction-related short-term noise and work in the vicinity would be temporary

153515047.1 Page 77 of 121
and would not be expected to significantly disrupt wildlife movement due to ambient noise conditions and the ability for wildlife to continue to move around the construction area and upland portions of the BSA during and after construction. Temporary disturbance to local species may occur but would not substantially degrade the quality or use of the vegetation communities in the vicinity. Work activities are not currently proposed during the nighttime.

Although the BSA is not located within an essential connectivity area, natural landscape block, or linkage for the California Desert Linkage Network, potential long-term (post-construction) indirect impacts from operations and maintenance activities could disrupt wildlife movement around the Project site due to increased lighting from buildings. Therefore, even though impacts associated with wildlife movement, wildlife corridors, and wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant Compliance with MM-BIO-15 (Lighting) would ensure all lighting during operations and within 50 feet of the outside edge of the impact footprint containing habitat for special-status wildlife would be directed away from natural areas. (DEIR, p. 4.3-40 – 4.3-41.; as revised per FEIR p. 2-7.)

5. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources?
Finding: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.3-43) Explanation: The Project would result in potentially cumulatively considerable impacts to Western Joshua trees. Western Joshua trees are a state candidate species for listing under CESA and are locally protected by the Town of Apple Valley and by the CDNPA. As required by MM-BIO-1 (Conservation of Western Joshua Tree Lands), mitigation for direct impacts to four western Joshua trees that are 5 meters or greater in height, 201 trees 1 meter or greater but less than 5 meters in height, and 78 trees less than 1 meter in height will be fulfilled through payment of the fees required by Section 1927.3 of the WJTCA. In conformance with the fee schedule, mitigation will consist of payment of $1,000 for each western Joshua tree 5 meters or greater in height, $200 for each western Joshua tree 1 meter or greater but less than 5 meters in height, and $150 for each western Joshua tree less than 1 meter in height.

Additionally, as required by MM-BIO-2 (Relocation of Desert Native Plants) and in accordance with Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code Chapter 9.76, the preparation of a Joshua tree and desert native plants relocation plan is required to mitigate impacts to western Joshua trees as a result of the Project. A Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan, and Desert Native Plant Relocation Plan was prepared (Appendix C of Appendix C-1 of the DEIR).

Any potential impacts to special-status wildlife species, such as Mojave desert tortoise, burrowing owl, LeConte’s thrasher, loggerhead shrike, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and nesting birds and raptors would be reduced to less than significant through Project implementation of MM-BIO-3 through MM-BIO-14. Implementing these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant and would significantly reduce the potential for direct or indirect impacts to special-status species. Therefore, there would not be a cumulatively considerable impact on any specialstatus species.

Any potential impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States and/or State of California would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of MM-BIO-3 (Designated Biologist Authority),

153515047.1 Page 78 of 121
MM-BIO-4 (Compliance Monitoring), MM-BIO-5 (Education Program), MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook), MM-BIO-8 (Hazardous Waste), and MM-BIO-16 (Aquatic Resources Mitigation).

Compliance with and implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant and would significantly reduce the potential for direct or indirect impacts to waters of the United States and state. Therefore, there would not be a cumulatively considerable impact to waters of the United States.

As previously discussed the Project would not result in a significant impact to wildlife corridors and linkages, nor to local policies and regional conservation plans. The Project would therefore not contribute to a cumulative impact on these resources.

C. CULTURAL, TRIBAL CULTURAL, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Impacts to Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Finding: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.4-17 – 4.4-18) Explanation: A review of historical aerial photographs indicate that the Project site has not been developed with the exception of the stockpiling activities, metal storage structure, and associated access roads in the southeast corner of the Project site. Additionally, a review of BLM General Land Office (GLO) records indicate that portions of the Project site are part of a serial patent for 1,059.32 acres issued to the State of California in 1951 by authority of the January 21, 1927 Indemnity Selections. However, the records do not appear to show any buildings or structures within the Project site related to that patent.

There are no existing waterways shown within or immediately adjacent to the Project site in historical aerials. The confluence of Bell Mountain Wash and the Mojave River is approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest of the Project site.

The CHRIS records search identified five previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site including two historic period roads (P-36-012649/CA-SBR-012348H and P-36-012652/CA-SBR012351H); one historic period abandoned transmission line segment (P-36-012655/CA-SBR012354)H; and two historic period archaeological sites (P-36-012651/CA-SBR-012350H and P-36- 012657/CA-SBR-012356H). All five recorded cultural resources were previously recommended not eligible for listing in the CRHR. The five previously recorded cultural resources were revisited and the records updated as part of the cultural resources survey conducted for the Project. Surveyors relocated all five resources and concluded the resourced appear consistent with the original documentation and with the findings of not eligible for listing in the CRHR. Therefore, no further considerations related to impacts to cultural resources are required for these resources. Finally, no newly identified cultural resources were encountered within the Project site during the recent pedestrian survey (Appendix D of the DEIR).

The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. However, the potential for intact cultural deposits (archaeological in nature) to exist within native soils to the depths of proposed ground

153515047.1 Page 79 of 121
disturbance is unknown. In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are encountered during Project implementation, an assessment and evaluation of the resource by a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, would be conducted. As a result, the Project has a potential to impact and thus cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a yet unknown historical resource.

Thus, mitigation is required to address impacts related to the inadvertent discovery of yet unknown historical resources, as outlined in MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL 3. MM-CUL-1 requires that all project construction personnel participate in a Workers Environmental Awareness Program training for the proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries. MM-CUL-2 requires the retention of an on-call qualified archaeologist to respond to and address any inadvertent discoveries and conduct spot monitoring. MM-CUL-3 requires construction work occurring within 100 feet of a cultural resource discovery be immediately halted until the qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, can assess and evaluate the discovery pursuant to CEQA. Additionally, MM-CUL-3 requires the inadvertent discovery clause be included on all construction plans. With implementation of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL 3, potentially significant impacts to yet unknown historical resources would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, p. 4.4-17 – 4.4-18)

2. Impacts to Archeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Finding: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.4-18 – 4.4-19) Explanation: The CHRIS database search identified five historic period resources (P-36- 012649/CA-SBR-012348H, P-36-012652/CA-SBR-012351H, P-36-012655/CA-SBR012354H, P-36-012651/CA-SBR-012350H and P-36-012657/CA-SBR-012356H) within the Project site. As discussed above, all five resources were previously recommended ineligible for inclusion in the CRHR and the survey conducted in support of the present Project supports that conclusion. Therefore, no further considerations related to impacts to cultural resources are required for the previously identified resources. No prehistoric or resources of Native American origin were identified within the Project site or within a 0.5-mile records search radius. Additionally, no newly identified cultural resources were encountered within the Project site during the recent pedestrian survey.

Finally, results of the geotechnical report indicate that native older alluvial soils extend within the Project site from surface elevation to maximum depths explored with the exception of one investigated location (LB-9), which encountered fill soils overlying native soils within the northwestern quadrant of site. In locations not exposed to recent alluvial deposits, cultural deposits typically have the potential to exist within A soil horizon (native topsoil) and B soil horizon (native subsoil) typically extending to an approximate depth of 6 feet bgs. However, in areas where environmental conditions include alluvial activity, cultural material may be found considerably deeper. As discussed above, there are no waterways shown as present within the Project site in historical aerials. The nearest waterways include Bell Mountain Wash and the Mojave River, which are located at least 1.5 miles away from the Project site.

153515047.1 Page 80 of 121
In consideration of these factors, the potential for intact archaeological deposits to exist within native soils to the depths of assumed ground disturbance is unknown though no evidence of archaeological resources, meeting the criteria significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, were identified as a result of the study conducted by PaleoWest or the analysis conducted for this EIR. If yet unknown archaeological resources were inadvertently discovered during Project construction and those resources were determined to meet the criteria of a unique archaeological resource or historical resource, there is potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Thus, mitigation is required to address impacts resulting from the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, as outlined in MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL 3. MM-CUL-1 requires that all Project construction personnel participate in a Workers Environmental Awareness Program training for the proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries. MM-CUL-2 requires the retention of an on-call qualified archaeologist to respond to and address any inadvertent discoveries and conduct spot monitoring. MM-CUL-3 requires construction work occurring within 100 feet of a cultural resource discovery be immediately halted until the qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, can assess and evaluate the discovery pursuant to CEQA. Additionally, MM-CUL-3 requires the inadvertent discovery clause be included on all construction plans. With implementation of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-3, potentially significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, p. 4.4-18 – 4.4-19)
MM-CUL-1 Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Training. All construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of any ground disturbing construction activities. A basic presentation shall be prepared and presented by a qualified archaeologist and retained tribal monitor 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. The requirement for mandatory training and attendance by all construction personnel shall be stated on all construction plans. (DEIR p. 4.4-22; as revised per FEIR p. 2-13.)
MM-CUL-2 On-Call Archaeological Construction Monitoring. In consideration of the general sensitivity of the Project site for cultural resources, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained prior to ground disturbing activities. A qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall oversee and adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural deposits. The archaeologist shall be responsible for maintaining monitoring logs. Following the completion of construction, the qualified archaeologist shall provide

153515047.1 Page 81 of 121
an archaeological monitoring report to the lead agency and the SCCIC with the results of the cultural monitoring program.

The project Archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) 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 approved Mitigation Measures (MM) and Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties’ responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the project schedule.

Additionally, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI) for the Project. The Tribal Monitor 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 shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of a suspected find to allow time for the Project archaeologist and Tribal Monitor to identify, evaluate and determine the potential for recovery of cultural resources. (DEIR p. 4.4-22; as revised per FEIR p. 2-14.) 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 may be necessary. (DEIR p. 4.4-23.)

2. Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? AND Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically

153515047.1 Page 82 of 121
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Finding: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.4-20) Explanation: The Project is subject to compliance with AB 52 (PRC Section 21074), which requires consultation with local Native American tribes and consideration of impacts to “tribal cultural resources” as a part of the CEQA process. The Town of Apple Valley, as the CEQA lead agency, notified groups who have requested notification of Projects that are subject to AB 52 compliance and are under the jurisdiction of the agency. Additionally, the Project is subject to compliance with SB 18 (Government Code Section 65352.3), which requires local governments to invite interested California Native American tribal representatives to participate in consultation about proposed General Plan and Specific Plan adoptions or amendments. The Town is considering General Plan Amendment to modify the Town’s Circulation Element to realign Apple Valley Road and, as such, initiated and conducted the required SB 18 consultation.

No previously recorded archaeological resources of Native American origin or tribal cultural resources (TCRs) listed in the CRHR or a local register were identified within the Project site through the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC) records. Additionally, although the NAHC’s SLF database for the Project site was positive for the presence of reported Native American/TCR, that recorded TCR could be anywhere within a 1-square-mile (640-acre) area of the Project site and therefore, does not necessarily equate to the existence of a TCR within the Project site. Moreover, Tribal entities and Native American representatives do no not always report sacred lands or TCRs to the NAHC; as such, the NAHC’s SLF is not necessarily a comprehensive list of known TCRs and searches of the SLF must be considered in concert with other research and not used as a sole source of information regarding the presence of TCRs.

The Town sent notification letters pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 on September 27, 2023, and one tribal entity, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN; formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians), responded providing mitigation measures they recommend be included. However, the Tribe stated they have no concerns related to impacts to a specific TCR as a result of Project implementation. At this time, no TCRs have been identified by California Native American tribes as part of the Town’s AB 52 and SB 18 notification and consultation processes that would warrant discretionary designation of a resource as a TCR. Therefore, the Project would not adversely affect TCRs that are listed or eligible for listing in the state or local register and the Town determined that no substantial evidence has been presented that would demonstrate a significant TCR (pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1) exists within the Project site. The Project requires implementation and compliance with MM-CUL-3, and MM-TCR-1 through MM- TCR-3 to ensure the proper treatment of TCRs in the event of an inadvertent discovery of a TCR.

With incorporation of MM-CUL-3, and MM-TCR-1 through MM- TCR-3, potential impacts associated with TCRs would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

153515047.1 Page 83 of 121
MM-TCR-1 Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work shall follow protocols outlined under MMCUL-3. Additionally, the consulting Tribe(s) shall be contacted regarding any precontact and/or historic-era resources of a Native American origin and be provided information after the qualified archaeologist, as defined within MM-CUL-2, makes their 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, a cultural resources monitoring and treatment plan shall be created by the qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the consulting Tribe(s), and all subsequent discoveries shall be subject to this plan. This plan shall be approved by the Town. 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. (DEIR p. 4.4-24)
MM-TCR-2 Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any ground disturbing activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease, and the discoveries shall be treated in accordance with state and local regulations, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e). No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the consulting Tribe[s]. (DEIR p. 4.4-24; as revised per FEIR p. 2-14)
MM-TCR-3 Dissemination of Cultural Records. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project shall be supplied to the Applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to the consulting Tribe(s). However, access to confidential records from the California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) (i.e., (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) are restricted from disclosure under federal and state laws; thus, researchers must meet access requirements to obtain this data. Access to confidential CHRIS data shall follow the CHRIS THPO Tribal Access Policy (OHP 2019) or have personnel on staff that meet the CHRIS authorized user’s requirements (OHP 2016; OHP 2023). Data security/confidentiality of all CHRIS data provided/acquired shall follow the requirements as outlined in the THPO Tribal Access Policy (OHP 2019). Notwithstanding, non-confidential CHRIS data can be provided for planning purposes and includes a checklist (Summary Records Search) or narrative letter (Extended Records Search) stating whether there are known resources in the study area and offering a recommendation as to sensitivity for recorded and unrecorded cultural resources (OHP 2023). Access to CHRIS information is subject to review and approval of the appropriate Information Center in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer2 (SHPO) (OHP 2016).

The Lead Agency and/or Applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the consulting Tribe(s) throughout the life of the Project. (DEIR p. 4.4-24.) 2 Pursuant to federal and state law, the California State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) directs the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to maintain an inventory of historical resources in California. The SHPO meets this responsibility via the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), which is administered by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) under SHPO authority (OHP 2016).

153515047.1 Page 84 of 121

4. Impacts to Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Finding: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.4-21) Explanation: As documented in the paleontological resources assessment by PaleoWest (Appendix E pf the DEIR), no paleontological resources were identified within the Project site as a result of the institutional records search or desktop geological and paleontological review, and the Project site is not anticipated to be underlain by a unique geologic feature. Areas of the Project site underlain by artificial fill or disturbed areas have no paleontological resource sensitivity or potential; Holocene alluvial fan deposits have low paleontological sensitivity on the surface, increasing to high with depth, as older Pleistocene alluvium may be encountered at an undetermined depth below the ground surface; old alluvial fan deposits have high paleontological resource sensitivity of potential; and the plutonic igneous rocks (granodiorite) have no paleontological resource sensitivity or potential. If intact paleontological resources are located on the Project site, ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the Project, such as grading during site preparation and trenching for utilities, have the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. As such, the Project site is considered to be potentially sensitive for paleontological resources, and without mitigation, the potential damage to paleontological resources during construction associated with the Project is considered a potentially significant impact. Given the proximity of past fossil discoveries in the surrounding area within Pleistocene alluvial deposits, the Project site is highly sensitive for supporting paleontological resources below the depth of fill and Holocene alluvial deposits.

However, implementation of and compliance with MM-CUL-4, would reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Impacts of the Project are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated during construction.

MM-CUL-4 Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program and Paleontological Monitoring.

Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the Project Proponent or Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) 2010 guidelines to prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Project. The PRIMP shall be approved by the Town prior to commencement of any grading activity. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP 2010 guidelines and outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training; where paleontological monitoring is required within the Project site based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports; and procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, including paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microinvertebrate and microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management. The PRIMP shall also include a statement that any fossil lab or curation costs (if necessary due to fossil recovery) are the responsibility of the Project Proponent or Applicant.

In addition, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be on site during initial rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities (including augering) in areas underlain by geological units with high paleontological resource sensitivity or potential

153515047.1 Page 85 of 121
(e.g., Pleistocene alluvium and below a depth of 5 feet below the ground surface in areas underlain by Holocene alluvial fan deposits). No paleontological monitoring is necessary during ground disturbance within artificial fill/disturbed sediments or in areas underlain by plutonic igneous rocks (e.g., granodiorite). In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50- foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.

Upon completion of ground-disturbing activity (and curation of fossils, if necessary), the Project paleontologist shall prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report shall include a discussion of the location, duration, and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, and any recovered fossils, as well as the scientific significance of those fossils and where fossils were curated. (DEIR p. 4.4-25.)

5. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources?
Finding: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.4-21 – 4.4-22) Explanation:

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The geographic scope of the cumulative cultural resources analysis is the region surrounding the Project site. Ongoing development and growth in the broader area may result in a cumulatively significant impact to cultural resources due to the continuing disturbance of undeveloped areas, which could potentially contain significant, buried archaeological or tribal cultural resources. However, as discussed above, the individual, Project-level impacts associated with cultural and tribal cultural resources were found to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures (MM-CUL1 through MM-CUL-3). The Project would be required by law to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources. Other related cumulative projects would similarly be required to comply with all such requirements and regulations, to be consistent with the provisions set forth by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and to implement all feasible mitigation measures should a significant project-related and/or cumulative impact be identified. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Paleontological Resources
Potential cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would result from projects that combine to create an environment where fossils, exposed on the surface, are vulnerable to destruction by earthmoving equipment, looting by the public, and natural causes such as weathering and erosion.

The majority of impacts to paleontological resources are site-specific and are therefore generally mitigated on a project-by-project basis. Cumulative projects would be required to assess the individual

153515047.1 Page 86 of 121
potential Project impacts to paleontological resources. Additionally, as needed, projects would incorporate individual mitigation measures for site-specific geological units present on each individual project site. The Project does not propose construction (including grading/excavation) or design features that could directly or indirectly contribute to an increase in a cumulative impact to paleontological resources, as implementation of and compliance with MM-CUL-4 ensures any significant paleontological resources uncovered during Project excavations would be properly analyzed and salvaged by the on-site paleontological monitor. Therefore, the Project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Project vicinity, would result in lessthan-significant cumulative impacts to paleontological resources, and no further mitigation measures are required. Moreover, impacts to paleontological resources would be avoided and/or mitigated with implementation of a paleontological mitigation program during excavations into paleontologically sensitive geological units. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. As such, cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (DEIR, p. 4.4-21 – 4.4-22.) VII. IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED TO A LESS-THANSIGNIFICANT LEVEL The Town hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR, the following environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than- significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore necessary and included herein:

A. AIR QUALITY

1. Conflict with Air Quality Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (DEIR, p. 4.2-28 – 4.2-29) Explanation: The Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan for the Mojave Desert set forth a comprehensive set of programs that will lead the MDAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The control measures and related emission reduction estimates within the Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable MDAQMD Rules and Regulations, including, but not limited to Rules 401 (Visibile Emissions), 402 (Nuisance), and 403 (Fugitive Dust Control for the Mojave Desert Planning Area). The Project would conform to local land use plans and would comply with all applicable MDAQMD Rules and Regulations. Project construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds for Volotile Organic Compound (VOC), PM (Particulate Matter) and CO after the implementation of MM-AQ-1. However, Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would result in exceedances of regional thresholds for emissions of oxides of nitrogen (Nox) and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10) after implementation of MM-AQ-2 and MM-AQ-3. As such, NOx and PM10 operational emissions are considered significant, and the Project would have the potential to

153515047.1 Page 87 of 121
increase the frequency or severity of a violation in the federal or state ambient air quality for on-going Project operations. On this basis, the Project is considered to potentially conflict with the Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan for the MDAB.

Therefore, impacts associated with conflicting with the MDAQMD would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-28 - 4.2-29.)
MM-AQ-1 Construction Requirements.
▪ Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (e.g., paints) applied to the Project site shall have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 grams per liter.
▪ The Project’s construction manager shall maintain and keep current 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.

The construction logs shall be kept on the construction site at all times and shall be made available to local, regional, or state officials (e.g., officials from the Town of Apple Valley, MDAQMD, or CARB) by request or when conducting an inspection at the Project site.
▪ In addition, the Project’s construction manager or its designee shall provide to all Project construction employees the fact sheet entitled “Preventing Work-Related Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever)” by the California Department of Public Health and ensure all employees are aware of the potential risks the site poses. The Project construction manager or its designee shall schedule mandatory training for all Project construction employees providing information on the occupational responsibilities and requirements contained in these measures to reduce potential exposure to Coccidioides spores.

The training for Project construction employees shall include all the following topics:
▪ What Valley Fever is and how it is contracted.
▪ High-risk areas and types of work and environmental conditions during which the risk of contracting Valley Fever is highest.
▪ Personal risk factors that may create a higher risk for some individuals. ▪ Personal and environmental exposure prevention methods. ▪ Importance of early detection, diagnosis, and treatment. ▪ Recognizing common signs and symptoms of Valley Fever.

153515047.1 Page 88 of 121
▪ Importance of reporting symptoms to the employer and seeking medical attention.
▪ Common treatment and prognosis for Valley Fever.

MM-AQ-2 Operational Requirements
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 or near-zero-emission equipment. This requirement shall apply to indoor and outdoor equipment such as forklifts, fire pumps, handheld landscaping equipment, yard equipment, and office appliances. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements. ▪ Signage. Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify the Project’s threeminute 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).
▪ 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:
▪ 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.

153515047.1 Page 89 of 121
MM-AQ-3 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 the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (DEIR, p. 4.2-29 – 4.2-37) Explanation:

Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Construction and operation of the Project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants from mobile, area, and stationary sources, which may cause exceedances of federal and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS) or contribute to existing nonattainment of AAQS. The following discussion identifies potential short-term construction and long-term operational impacts that would result from implementation of the Project.

The currently existing nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the MDAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of AAQS. The area of the MDAB where the Project is located is currently designated a nonattainment area for federal and state O3 standards and federal and state PM10 standards, the MDAB has experienced a substantial reduction in maximum 8-hour concentrations of Ozone (O3) over the past 30 years, as well as reductions in PM10 over time, as described in the respective MDAQMD O3 and PM10 attainment plans.

CEQA thresholds are established at levels that the air basin can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the AAQS. Based on these considerations, Project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.

Long-Term Operational Impacts
Operation of the Project would generate criteria pollutant emissions from area sources (consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment), energy sources (natural gas combustion for space and water heating), mobile sources (vehicular traffic), off-road equipment (forklifts and yard trucks), and stationary sources (emergency diesel generator testing and maintenance). Project operations would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the MDAQMD for emissions of NOx, and PM10. This impact would be potentially significant without mitigation. Most criteria air pollutants associated with the Project are generated by off-road cargo handling equipment (diesel and CNG fueled) and on-road vehicles. MM-AQ-2 includes the requirement for all off-road cargo handling equipment to be electric, which would reduce the long-term criteria air pollutant emissions substantially. Neither the Project Applicant nor the Town of Apple Valley can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project on-road mobile source emissions beyond what is already required by regulation. After implementation of MM-AQ-2, the Project would still exceed the MDAQMD thresholds

153515047.1 Page 90 of 121
for NOx and PM10. No feasible mitigation measures beyond those already identified exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, even with the incorporation of mitigation, long-term impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is currently in non-attainment would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-29 – 4.2-37.)
Health Effects of Criteria Pollutants
Construction of the Project would result in emissions that would not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants after implementation of MM-AQ- 1., including VOCs generated during construction and CO from operations.

Operation of the Project would result in emissions that would exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants including NOx and PM10, even after implementation of MM-AQ-2. VOCs and NOx are precursors to O3, for which the MDAB is currently designated as in nonattainment with respect to the National AAQS (NAAQS) and California AAQS (CAAQS). Health effects associated with O3 include respiratory symptoms, worsening of lung disease leading to premature death, and damage to lung tissue. The contribution of VOCs and NOx to regional ambient O3 concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increases in O3 concentrations in the MDAB due to O3 precursor emissions tend to be found downwind of the source location because of the time required for the photochemical reactions to occur. Further, the potential for exacerbating excessive O3 concentrations would also depend on the time of year that the VOC emissions would occur, because exceedances of the O3 NAAQS and CAAQS tend to occur between April and October when solar radiation is highest. Due to the lack of quantitative methods to assess this complex photochemistry, the holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O3 precursors is speculative. That being said, because the Project would exceed the MDAQMD NOx threshold during Project operations, the Project could contribute to health effects associated with O3.

Health effects associated with NOx and NO2 (which is a constituent of NOx) include lung irritation and enhanced allergic responses. Because the MDAB is designated as an attainment area for NO2 (and NO2 is a constituent of NOx) and the existing NO2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards, it is not anticipated that the Project would cause an exceedance of the NAAQS and CAAQS standards for NO2. However, because the Project would exceed the MDAQMD NOx threshold during Project operations even with implementation of MM-AQ-2, the Project could contribute to health effects associated with NOx and NO2.

Health effects associated with PM10 include premature death and hospitalization, primarily for worsening of respiratory disease. Operation of the Project would exceed the MDAQMD threshold for PM10. As such, the Project would potentially contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for particulate matter and obstruct the MDAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants. Because the Project has the potential to generate particulate matter during operation, the Project could result in associated health effects.

There are numerous scientific and technological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days, and methods available to quantitatively evaluate health effects may not be appropriate to apply to emissions associated with the Project, which cannot be estimated with a highlevel of accuracy. Notwithstanding, because operation of the Project could result in exceedances of

153515047.1 Page 91 of 121
MDAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10, even after implementation of MM-AQ-2, the potential health effects associated with these criteria air pollutants are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-33 – 4.2-37.)

3. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to air quality? Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (DEIR, p. 4.2-40 – 4.2-41) Explanation: By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the MDAQMD is responsible for the development and implementation of plans to achieve future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, Project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. Individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the MDAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the MDAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact.

The area of the MDAB in which the Project is located is an existing nonattainment area for O3 and PM10 under the NAAQS and/or CAAQS. The poor air quality in the MDAB is the result of existing cumulative emissions from motor vehicles, off-road equipment, commercial and industrial facilities, and other emission sources. Projects that emit these pollutants or their precursors (i.e., VOC and NOx for O3) potentially contribute to the existing poor air quality. Daily construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the MDAQMD significance thresholds with implementation of mitigation measures to reduce VOC emissions from architectural coating (MM-AQ-1). Project operational-source air pollutant emissions, however, would result in exceedances of regional thresholds for emissions of NOX and PM10, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation. With implementation of MM-AQ-2, long-term emissions of CO would be reduced to a less than significant level, but NOx and PM10 emissions would remain over the MDAQMD’s significance thresholds. Although MM-AQ-2 would reduce operational emissions from off-road equipment to the extent feasible, neither the Project Applicant nor the Town of Apple Valley have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, and no feasible MMs exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less-than-significant. As such, Project operational-source NOX and PM10 emissions would exceed applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds would be significant and unavoidable, and thus, cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-40 – 4.2-41.) B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Increase in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (DEIR, p. 4.6-25 – 4.6-26)

153515047.1 Page 92 of 121
Explanation: Construction of the Project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road trucks, and worker vehicles.

Total estimated GHG emissions generated during construction of the Project are approximately 3,800 MT CO2e. Estimated Project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 127 MT CO2e per year.

Operation of the Project would generate GHG emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic), area sources (landscape maintenance equipment operation), energy use (natural gas combustion and utility generation of electricity consumed by the Project), generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, and off-road equipment.

For purposes of CEQA, thresholds, programs, and guidelines adopted by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District are used when available. In the absence of MDAQMD adopted thresholds, programs, and guidelines, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds, programs, and guidelines are used. The Project would result in approximately 79,045 MT CO2e per year, including amortized construction emissions, which would exceed the SCAQMD GHG threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and this would represent a cumulatively potentially significant impact.

Mitigation measures are required to minimize operational-related GHG impacts. Implementation of MM-AQ-2 includes the requirement for all off-road cargo handling equipment to be zero-emission, which would reduce the long-term GHG emissions. In addition, implementation of MM-GHG-1 and MMGHG-2 would reduce GHG emissions associated with energy use, solid waste disposal, and water conservation. The Project would still exceed the applied threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year after mitigation. No feasible mitigation measures beyond those already identified exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant—for example, the majority of operational emissions come from mobile emission sources (e.g., vehicle emissions). Therefore, even with the incorporation of feasible mitigation, long-term impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable increase in GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.6-25 – 4.6-26) MM-GHG-1 The Project Applicant shall implement the following measure in order to reduce operational energy source greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the extent feasible:
▪ Design the Project to, at minimum, meet U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification or otherwise design the Project to reach equivalent reductions in GHG emissions.

Prior to the issue of building permits, documentation demonstrating that the Project has been designed to achieve, at minimum, LEED Silver certification or has otherwise been designed to result in equivalent GHG emission reductions will be submited to the Town’s Planning Department. Design features that will be implemented to achieve, at minimum, LEED Silver certification include the following:
▪ Install Energy Star–rated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances. All light bulbs shall be CFL or LED.

153515047.1 Page 93 of 121
▪ The Project electrical infrastructure shall be designed 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 in specified Project locations (e.g., parking areas, at or near dock doors) at the time of building construction to satisfy CALGreen standards. The Project’s electrical rooms shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the upsizing of electrical equipment to accommodate potential future electrical loads.
▪ Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the Town of Apple Valley, level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations shall be installed on-site for employees for the percentage of employee parking spaces in accordance 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.
▪ 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. ▪ The Project shall comply with the mandatory solar requirements outlined in Title

24. In addition, 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.
▪ 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 energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy management, cleaning products that are water-based or containing low quantities of volatile organic compounds, electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters, on-site meal options such as food trucks, and existing energy incentive programs to future tenants of the Project. ▪ 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 cleaner-than-required engines and equipment, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program.
- The U.S. EPA SmartWay Program, which assists freight shippers, carriers, logistics companies, and other stakeholder partner with the U.S. EPA to

153515047.1 Page 94 of 121
measure, benchmark, and improve logistics operations and reduce air pollutant emissions from the transport of cargo.
▪ 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 threeminute 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).
▪ 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:
- 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.
▪ 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, and biking. Examples of trip reduction measures may include, but are not limited to transit passes, carsharing programs, and ride sharing programs.

MM-GHG-2 To reduce water demands and associated energy use, subsequent development proposals within the Project site would be required to implement a Water Conservation Strategy and demonstrate a minimum 20% reduction in indoor and outdoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand

153515047.1 Page 95 of 121
without implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy). The Town shall approve the Water Conservation Strategy prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project. Included in the Water Conservation Strategy, the Project Applicant shall provide building plans that include the following water conservation measures:
▪ Install low-water use appliances and fixtures
▪ Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces
▪ Implement water-sensitive urban design practices in new construction ▪ Install rainwater collection systems where feasible
▪ Consider the use of artificial turf where feasible
▪ The Project’s landscape plan shall emphasize drought-tolerant plants and use water-efficient irrigation techniques.
▪ All fixtures installed in restrooms and employee break areas shall be U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense certified or equivalent.

2. Conflict with Plans to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (DEIR, p. 4.6-26 – 4.6-35) Explanation:

Project Potential to Conflict with State Reduction Targets and CARB’s Scoping Plan The California State Legislature passed AB 32 to provide initial direction to limit California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and initiate the state’s long-range climate objectives. Since the passage of AB 32, the State has adopted GHG emissions reduction targets for future years beyond the initial 2020 horizon year. CARB is required to develop the Scoping Plan, which provides the framework for actions to achieve the State’s GHG emission targets. While the Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used as the sole basis for project-level evaluations, it is the official framework for the measures and regulations that will be implemented to reduce California’s GHG emissions in alignment with the adopted targets. Therefore, a project would be found to not conflict with the statutes if it would meet the Scoping Plan policies and would not impede attainment of the goals therein.

For the Project, the relevant GHG emissions reduction targets include those established by SB 32 and AB 1279, which require GHG emissions be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 85% below 1990 levels by 2045, respectively. In addition, AB 1279 requires the state achieve net zero GHG emissions by no later than 2045 and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter.

CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan update was the first to address the state’s strategy for achieving the 2030 GHG reduction target set forth in SB 32 (CARB 2017a), and the most recent CARB 2022 Scoping Plan update outlines the state’s plan to reduce emissions and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 in alignment with AB 1279 and assesses progress toward the 2030 SB 32 target (CARB 2022b). As such,

153515047.1 Page 96 of 121
given that SB 32 and AB 1279 are the relevant GHG emission targets, the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plan updates that outline the strategy to achieve those targets, are the most applicable to the Project.

The 2017 Scoping Plan included measures to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency (including the mandates of SB 3503), increase stringency of the LCFS, measures identified in the Mobile Source and Freight Strategies, measures identified in the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Plan, and increase stringency of SB 375 targets (CARB 2017). The 2022 Scoping Plan builds upon and accelerates programs currently in place, including moving to zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil fuelsuse for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high global warming potential (GWP); providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; and displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines) (CARB 2022b). Many of the measures and programs included in the Scoping Plans would result in the reduction of Project-related GHG emissions with no action required at the project-level, including GHG emission reductions through increased energy efficiency and renewable energy production (SB 350), reduction in carbon intensity of transportation fuels (LCFS), and the accelerated efficiency and electrification of the statewide vehicle fleet (Mobile Source Strategy).

As shown in Table 4.6-7 and Table 4.6-8of the Draft EIR, the Project would be consistent with the applicable strategies and measures in the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Scoping Plan, except for achieving the GHG reduction targets set in SB 32; because the Project would exceed the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold, it could prohibit the state from achieving its GHG reduction goals.

The 2045 carbon neutrality goal required CARB to expand proposed actions in the 2022 Scoping Plan to include projects and actions that capture and store carbon in addition to projects and actions that reduce anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions. However, the 2022 Scoping Plan emphasizes that reliance on carbon sequestration in the state’s natural and working lands will not be sufficient to address residual GHG emissions, and achieving carbon neutrality will require research, development, and deployment of additional methods to capture atmospheric GHG emissions (e.g., mechanical direct air capture). Given that the specific path to neutrality will require development of technologies and programs that are not currently known or available, the Project’s role in supporting the statewide goal would be speculative and cannot be wholly identified at this time.

Overall, the Project would comply will all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plans to the extent applicable and required by law. As demonstrated above, the Project would potentially conflict the 2022 Scoping Plan update and with the state’s ability to achieve the 2030 and 2045 GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals.

Potential to Conflict with the Town of Apple Valley Climate Action Plan the Town adopted a CAP in July 2010, with the 2019 CAP Update adopted in 2021 as the most recent update. The 2019 CAP Update supports the Town’s GHG emission reduction targets and identifies measures to reduce municipal and community GHG emissions in the following categories:
transportation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and solid waste management (Town of Apple Valley 2021). The CAP was not subject to CEQA review and does not meet the requirements of Section 3 SB 350 increases California's renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030.

SB 350 also requires the state to double statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.

153515047.1 Page 97 of 121
15183.5b of the State’s CEQA guidelines and is therefore not a recognized Climate Action Plan.

However, the 2019 CAP Update presents a number of strategies that will make it possible for the Town to meet the recommended GHG emissions targets that are consistent with the reduction targets of the state. The Project’s consistency with applicable 2019 CAP Update strategies is therefore based on the overarching categories described within the 2019 CAP Update, rather than the entire menu of policies.

Without mitigation, the Project would not be consistent with many of these strategies. However, with implementation of mitigation, specifically MM-AQ-2, MM-GHG-1 and MM-GHG-2, the Project would be consistent with all strategies and would support the Town’s CAP. ▪ Transportation Measures. The Project would require measures that would support reducing GHGs through the transportation sector. Specifically, implementation of MM-GHG-1 would require the Project to install electrical infrastructure and charging stations to equal at minimum 5% of the total number of parking spaces prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy from the Town. Additionally, the requirement for all cargo handling and landscaping equipment to be zero-emission would not specifically be in the 2019 CAP Update transportation sector, however, this aspect of MM-AQ-2 would also substantially reduce GHG emissions related to fossil fuel consumption by combustion engines.
▪ Energy Efficiency Measures. The Project would, at a minimum, require measures that would support energy efficiency, consistent with Title 24 requirements for increased usage of renewable electricity through the installation of on-site solar panels to meet the Prescriptive Requirements for Photovoltaic Systems (Title 24, Part 6, Section 9.2). Further, MM-GHG-1 would require the Project to demonstrate U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification or equivalent, installation of Energy Starrated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances. In addition, although not specifically focused on energy efficiency, MM-GHG-2 would require the implementation of a Water Conservation Strategy and demonstrate a minimum 20% reduction in indoor and outdoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand. As water conveyance and treatment generates GHGs indirectly due to the electricity involved in the process, reducing water demand would also reduce the amount of electricity required.
▪ Renewable Energy Measures. The Project would, at a minimum, be consistent with Title 24 requirements for increased usage of renewable electricity through the installation of on-site solar panels to meet the Prescriptive Requirements for Photovoltaic Systems (Title 24, Part 6, Section 9.2).
▪ Solid Waste Management Measures. The Project would be consistent with the Solid Waste Management Measures of the 2019 CAP Update due to the Project’s compliance with relevant State and Local regulations (SB 1383).

Potential to Conflict with SCAG’s RTP/SCS
The SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that targets per capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light trucks in the Southern California Region pursuant to SB 375. In addition to demonstrating the Region’s ability to attain the GHG emission-reduction targets set forth by CARB, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS outlines a series of actions and strategies for integrating the transportation network with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. Thus, successful implementation of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS would result in more complete communities with a variety of transportation and housing choices, while reducing automobile use.

153515047.1 Page 98 of 121
The following strategies are intended to facilitate implementation of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and reduce GHGs: focus growth near destinations and mobility options; promote diverse housing choices; leverage technology innovations; support implementation of sustainability policies; and promote a green region (SCAG 2020). The strategies that pertain to residential development and SCAG’s support of local jurisdiction sustainability efforts do not apply to the Project. ▪ Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options. The Project’s compliance with this strategy of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is supported because the Project would introduce new jobs proximate to existing housing, which would reducing vehicle miles traveled. The Project’s proximity to existing infrastructure, designated truck routes and freeways also helps to reduce vehicle miles traveled and local truck traffic congestion. ▪ Leverage Technology Innovations. One of the technology innovations identified in the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS that would apply to the Project is the promotion and support of low emission technologies for transportation, such as alternative fueled vehicles to reduce per capita GHG emissions. For this particular Project, MM-AQ-2 would require that all cargo handling and landscaping equipment to be zero-emission or near-zero-emission. ▪ Promote a Green Region. The third applicable strategy within the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, for individual developments, such as the Project, involves promoting a green region through efforts such as supporting local policies for renewable energy production and promoting more resource efficient development (e.g., reducing energy consumption) to reduce GHG emissions.

The Project’s design and supports this strategy by including rooftop solar and energy star appliances into the Project design as a part of MM-GHG-1.

Based on the analysis above, with mitigation, the Project would be consistent with the SCAG 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS.

Summary
The Project would potentially conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan since the Project exceeds SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT CO2e threshold and would therefore potentially conflict with the GHG emission reduction goals outlined in AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. However, the Project would be consistent with the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, with implementation of MM-AQ-2, MM-GHG-1, and MM-GHG-2. (DEIR, p. 4.6- 26 – 4.6-35)

3. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Impact (DEIR, p. 4.6-35) Explanation: As analyzed in the Project EIR, and for the reasons stated herein, the Project would result in GHG emissions in exceedance of the SCAQMD significance threshold, even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation. Therefore, Project GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable and significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-35.)

153515047.1 Page 99 of 121
VIII. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

A ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives for a project that would feasibly attain the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the project’s significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a).) Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the consideration of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that could reduce or eliminate any significant adverse environmental effects of the Project, including alternatives that may, to some degree, impede the project’s objectives.

PRC Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines defines “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.” The procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of Projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” “[I]n the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects.” Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site. (CEQA Guidelines, §15126.6, subd. (f)(1).) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project.

Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened (i.e., mitigated to an “acceptable level”) solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that impact, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the project. (PRC, §21002) In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility of modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, §15091, subds. (a), (b).) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also PRC, §21081, subd. (b).) The required range of alternatives considered is governed by a “rule of reason” that mandates an EIR set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the

153515047.1 Page 100 of 121
proposed project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. (DEIR, p. 7-1 – 7-23)
B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Project:

1. Develop large-format industrial buildings to stimulate job growth and meet existing demand for large-format industrial buildings in the region.

2. Develop a fiscally sound, jobs-producing, and tax-generating land use in north Apple Valley.

3. Implement general plan goals to concentrate nonresidential uses near existing roadways, highways, and freeways in an effort to isolate and reduce any potential environmental impacts related to truck traffic congestion, air emissions, industrial noise, and biological resources to the greatest extent feasible.

4. Create a project that takes advantage of and enhances existing infrastructure, including the proximity to major regional roadways, railroad service corridors, and other similar infrastructure.

5. Efficiently develop the land to the highest and best allowable land use compatible with the Town’s General Plan and Zoning Code.

C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for the Project:
▪ Alternative Land Uses
▪ Alternate Sites
Finding: The Town rejects each of the Alternative Land Uses and Alternate Sites alternatives, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of each alternative: (1) the alternatives do not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts, (2) the alternatives would likely not further reduce any of the Project’s significant impacts; and (3) the alternatives are technically, financially, and legally infeasible given that they would not reduce significant adverse impacts or considered infeasible to construct or operate. Therefore, these alternatives are eliminated from further consideration. (DEIR p. 7-2 – 7-3)

153515047.1 Page 101 of 121
D. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The Draft EIR evaluated several alternatives to the Project in order to present a reasonable range of options. The alternatives evaluated included:
▪ Alternative 1: No Development Alternative
▪ Alternative 2: No Project Alternative
▪ Alternative 3: Electric Vehicle Charging Station Alternative ▪ Alternative 4: Reduced Development Intensity Alternative The EIR examined the Project alternatives in detail, exploring their comparative advantages and disadvantages with respect to the Project to determine whether any of the alternatives could meet most or all of the Project objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant, unavoidable impacts. Four alternatives that could potentially meet the Project objectives were considered as part of the environmental review for the Project. The following section provides a summary of the alternatives considered. (DEIR p. 7-3 – 7-20) Summary of Alternatives Considered
The EIR examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project to determine whether any of those alternatives could meet most or all of the Project’s objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant impacts. (DEIR, p. 7-4.) The alternatives in the EIR were selected in relation to their potential to reduce the most significant Project impacts:

Alternative 1: No Development Alternative. This alternative would entail no action at the Project site.

Alternative 2: No Project Alternative. This alternative would entail development of a different use allowed by right in the Regional Commercial (C-R) District.

Alternative 3: Electric Vehicle Charging Station Alternative. This alternative would entail development of an electric vehicle (EV) charging station to service local residents and travelers on Interstate 15.

Alternative 4: Reduced Development Intensity Alternative. This alternative would entail development of two warehouses similar to the Project but with an overall building space reduction of 50%.

Alternative 1 – No Development Alternative
Description: The Project site would remain unchanged and would remain a vacant, undeveloped, yet disturbed property with a portion of the site used for stockpiling activities.

The metal storage structure would remain, and on-site conditions would remain similar to existing conditions, and because development activities associated with the Project would not occur, nearly all environmental impacts would be reduced compared with Project conditions.

Exceptions would include impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, population and housing, recreation, and wildfire, all of which would result in no impact either with or without the Project.

153515047.1 Page 102 of 121
Impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would likely be greater under Alternative 1 than with the Project, as the Project’s engineered stormwater drainage system would not be constructed as proposed under the Project. Under existing conditions, storm drain or treatment facilities do not exist on-site and thus, stormwater is not presently collected or treated prior to being discharged off site.

This same stormwater drainage scenario would continue to occur under Alternative 1, resulting in greater impacts related to surface drainage, water quality, erosion, and potentially periodic isolated flooding. (DEIR, p. 7-5.)
Conclusions/Impacts: Under Alternative 1, construction of the Project would not occur. The Project site would remain unchanged, and development activities related to construction and operation of the proposed industrial/warehouse buildings, associated loading docks, truck and vehicle parking, landscaped areas, and all other proposed on- and off-site improvements would not occur. Under Alternative 1, the Project site would remain vacant, undeveloped land, although a portion of the site would presumably continue to be used for stockpiling activities, including the metal storage structure associated with the stockpiling activities. Additionally, the Project site would likely continue to be subject to illegal dumping, trespassing, and unpermitted off-road vehicle use, similar to the existing conditions.

It is feasible that no development would occur on the Project site in the near term or long term due to development types being driven by market conditions. Current market conditions are favorable for projects involving warehouse and distribution facilities in the Town of Apple Valley and surrounding areas. Other development types such as large-format retail and service uses are necessarily driven by local population making the development of those uses on the Project site less economically feasible.

Residential or neighborhood commercial development are not allowed by right on the Project site and would require a General Plan amendment and a zoning change. The proximity of the Calportland mine to the Project site also makes the Project site an unlikely location for residential or neighborhood commercial development. (DEIR, p. 7-4.)
Ability to Meet Project Objectives: Overall, none of the mitigation measures required for the Project would be necessary with Alternative 1, and this Project alternative would not result in any significant adverse and unavoidable impacts. However, Alternative 1 would not develop large-format industrial buildings to stimulate job growth and meet the existing and growing demand for large-format industrial buildings in the region (Objective 1); would not develop a fiscally sound, jobs-producing, and tax-generating land use in north Apple Valley (Objective 2); would not concentrate nonresidential uses near existing roadways, highways, and freeways in an effort to isolate and reduce any potential environmental impacts related to truck traffic congestion, air emissions, industrial noise, and biological resources to the greatest extent feasible (Objective 3); and would not create a project that takes advantage of and enhances existing infrastructure, including the proximity to major regional roadways, railroad service corridors, and other similar infrastructure (Objective 4). Therefore, Alternative 1 would not meet any of the Project objectives. (DEIR, p. 7-5.)
Finding: The Town rejects Alternative 1: No Development Alternative, on the following ground, which provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives.

153515047.1 Page 103 of 121
Alternative 2 – No Project Alternative
Description: Should the Project not be approved, the Project site would likely be developed with another use that is allowed by the current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Under Alternative 2, the Project site would be developed with other land uses, consistent with the property’s Warehouse Distribution Regional Commercial Overlay C-R (I-N) designation. Due to the Project site size of approximately 178 acres, it is feasible to assume an alternative development would be a large-scale retail use.

The Regional Commercial land use category allows retail uses that serve not only the residents and businesses of Apple Valley, but also of the surrounding region. Permitted uses in this designation include auto malls, regional malls, business parks, factory stores and outlets, entertainment commercial, hotels and motels, restaurants, EV charging stations, and institutional and public uses.

The minimum size for a Regional Commercial project site is 10 acres.

No zoning variances are being requested as part of the Project, and thus, the Project would be constructed consistent with the design requirements set forth for the C-R (I-N) designation in the Apple Valley General Plan and Apple Valley Municipal Code. It is assumed that Alternative 2 would involve development of a land use that would be permissible either by right or by a conditional use permit, including the aforementioned land uses listed above. For purposes of this analysis and given the Project site’s proximity to major regional transportation routes (e.g., I-15 and other local truck routes), it is assumed that Alternative 2 would consist of a 600,000-square-foot regional mall on an approximately 80-acre portion of the Project site. Such an alternative could take the form of many smaller buildings or one large building. As discussed in Section 7.3, Project Alternatives Considered but Rejected, of the DEIR (p. 7-2 – 7-3), land uses that are expressly not allowed in the C-R zone— specifically residential—would not be considered under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-5 to 7-6.) Conclusions/Impacts: It is assumed that Alternative 2 would be subject to the same federal, state, and local requirements (e.g., incorporation of a new engineered stormwater drainage system, architectural design review) as the Project. Under Alternative 2, the Project’s development footprint would be reduced compared to the Project. As a result, it is assumed that a similar reduction in the operational intensity and duration of construction activities would occur.

Likewise, a smaller building footprint would be expected to support fewer operational activities than the larger footprint proposed as part of the Project. Thus, the severity of many environmental impacts related to construction and operational phases would be either the same or incrementally reduced under Alternative 2. However, because the development intensity would be reduced substantially under Alternative 2 compared to the Project, certain environmental impacts would be different as a result of this reduction, as the following analysis demonstrates.

Aesthetics
Under Alternative 2, the Project would not be constructed and operated as planned on the Project site.

Alternative 2 would involve the development of a large-format retail use, which would still be the primary visual feature on the Project site; however, the development would be on a smaller scale than the Project. Additionally, Alternative 2 would require nighttime lighting for safety and visibility as it would be assumed the regional mall would operate into the nighttime hours. For these reasons, aesthetics impacts would be similar but reduced under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-7.)

153515047.1 Page 104 of 121
Air Quality
Under Alternative 2, the extent of construction activities would be the similar compared to the Project.

Thus, construction-related air quality emissions would not be reduced. As with the Project, Alternative 2 would require mitigation measures to reduce short-term construction emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). With required mitigation, construction of Alternative 2, would not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD); this is the same outcome that would occur under the Project.

However, long-term operation of Alternative 2 would still likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts due to emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and coarse particulate matter (PM10), which would violate the MDAQMD regional air quality standard and would contribute to an existing air quality violation. Alternative 2 would generate an increase in average daily vehicle trips compared to the Project, and impacts due to a conflict with the regional air quality standard and the level of contribution to an existing air quality violation would remain and actually would be slightly increased with Alternative

2. As such, Alternative 2 would not reduce, or avoid, the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact due to operational air contaminant emissions.

As with the Project, impacts to nearby sensitive receptors would be significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2. Similar to the Project, emissions under Alternative 2 would be above the MDAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, air quality impacts would not be reduced to less-than-significant levels under Alternative 2 and may even be increased due to the increase in tailpipe emissions from the increased trip generation. (DEIR, p. 7-7.)
Biological Resources
Under Alternative 2, the allowable land uses would be constructed and operated on the entire Project site, and development intensity would not be reduced. Alternative 2 would develop 80 acres of the Project site; however, the Development Code includes design standards related to landscaping, which require the entire Project site be landscaped, resulting in a similar overall development footprint. As such, the Project site and potential suitable habitat would still be disturbed as a result of development activities, which would not reduce impacts from a biological resources perspective. Therefore, biological resources impacts would be similar under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-7.) Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Under Alternative 2, a regional mall would be constructed and operated on the Project site with a similar development intensity. Similar to the Project, the entirety of the Project site would need to be disturbed to various extents, which would result in the same potential to disturb presently unknown/unrecorded cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources as the Project. Therefore, cultural resources impacts would be similar under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-8.) Energy
The level of construction activities would be reduced under Alternative 2 compared to the Project.

Thus, construction-related energy usage would be incrementally reduced as compared to the Project.

Alternative 2 would generate more vehicle trips per day, and although it would have less building space than the Project, it would likely require an increase in climate control; thus, on-site and mobile energy

153515047.1 Page 105 of 121
consumption would be increased compared to the Project. Therefore, energy impacts would not be reduced under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-8.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to air quality, the extent of construction activities would be similar but slightly reduced under Alternative 2 compared to the Project. Thus, construction-related GHG emissions would be incrementally reduced. Alternative 2 would generate an increase in vehicle trips per day due to the uses on site assumed to consist of a 600,000-square-foot regional mall. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with long-term operation of Alternative 2 would be increased compared to the Project. As discussed above, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to generating GHG emissions. Implementation of the mitigation measures under the Project and Alternative 2 would not reduce potential operation-related GHG emissions. However, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and the associated emission reductions cannot be accurately quantified at this time, and GHG emissions impacts are inherently cumulative in nature. Similar to the Project, impacts would still remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 7-8.) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative 2, allowable land uses would be constructed and operated on the site, and with a similar development intensity. Similar to the Project, construction of Alternative 2 would involve a variety of hazardous substances and wastes to be stored, used, and generated on the Project site, including fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, cleaning solvents, paints, and storage containers. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, explosions, or pressure releases involving hazardous materials would represent a potential threat to human health and the environment if not properly treated. Incorporation of best management practices and compliance with regulations would still be required under Alternative 2, which mandates, among other requirements, safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safety equipment, and preparation of emergency action/prevention plans.

Operation of the regional mall would similarly involve the use of commercially available cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and various other commercially available products during the day-to-day operation. Similar to the Project, these materials could be stored on the Project site; however, storage would be required to comply with the manufacturer’s guidelines and recommendations as well as federal, state, and local requirements for transport, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials. As such, hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be similar under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-8.)
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative 2, a new engineered stormwater drainage system would be constructed on the Project site as proposed under the Project. Under existing conditions, no storm drain or treatment facilities are currently found on site, and thus, stormwater is not presently collected or treated on the Project site prior to being discharged off site. However, under Alternative 2, the on-site stormwater drainage system would be designed to comply with all state, regional, and local regulations related to site stormwater drainage and water quality during both construction and operation of the alternative, regardless of the size of the development. Therefore, hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-9.)

153515047.1 Page 106 of 121
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the Project site’s existing General Plan and Zoning Code. Given the substantial similarities in uses between the Project and Alternative 2, Alternative 2 would otherwise not conflict with any plans, policies, or ordinances adopted for the purposes of mitigating or avoiding environmental effects. Therefore, land use and planning impacts would be similar under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-9.)
Noise
Noise associated with Alternative 2 would occur during short-term construction activities and under long-term operation. The types of construction activities conducted on the Project site would be similar under Alternative 2 and would generally cover the same physical area. The types of construction equipment used and the types of construction activities conducted on site would be similar under Alternative 2, and the peak daily noise levels generated during the construction phase would also be similar.

Under long-term operational conditions, noise generated by Alternative 2 would primarily be associated with vehicles traveling to and from the site and on-site vehicle idling, maneuvering, and parking. Alternative 2 would generate an increase in daily trips compared to the Project and, as such, would contribute to an increase in traffic-related noise to local roadways compared to the Project. The increase in traffic noise associated with Alternative 2 would continue to be noticeable to residents along the roadway segments impacted by the Project. Therefore, noise impacts would be slightly increased, but similar, under Alternative 2 due to the increase in traffic trips and associated noise. (DEIR, p. 7-9.)
Public Services
Under Alternative 2, allowable land uses would be constructed and operated on the Project site at a similar development intensity as the Project. Service demand is primarily tied to population, not building size. Alternative 2 would employ a similar number of workers, based on employment estimates for retail services and would similarly be consistent with the Town of Apple Valley General Plan.

Therefore, impacts to public services would be similar under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-9.) Transportation and Traffic
The trip generation rate used to analyze the Project’s estimated trip generation (refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the Project [Appendix J]) assumed that the Project would support a mix of all warehouse types except High-Cube Sort Fulfillment, which is the most intensive type of warehouse and is not expected for the Project. The average trip generation rate for all warehouse types except High-Cube Sort Fulfillment is 2.36 tripes per 1,000 square feet of floor space.

Based on the trip generation rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2021 Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, a 600,000-square-foot regional mall would result in daily trips of

37.01 trips per day per 1,000 square feet, which equals 22,206 trips per day, 504 AM peak-hour trips, and 2,040 PM peak-hour trips. Mixed warehousing (excluding high-cube sort), which was the land use used to analyze the Project, would generate 8,637 passenger car equivalent daily trips, 878 trips during the AM peak hour, and 878 trips during the PM peak hour. As such, allowable uses, such as a regional mall, could potentially result in greater PM peak hour and daily trip generation compared with

153515047.1 Page 107 of 121
the Project, even if the development footprint is reduced. Thus, there would be a potential for increased impacts associated with traffic congestion, tailpipe air and GHG emissions, and traffic noise under Alternative 2.

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are largely dependent on the specific land use type of a particular project and the location of that project. Thus, the average trip length for passenger vehicle and truck trips associated with the Project would essentially remain constant. In addition, the Project’s VMT per employee would also stay relatively the same under Alternative 2 as the Project’s VMT per employee.

Therefore, transportation impacts with regard to VMT would be similar under Alternative 2.

With regard to the increase of hazards due to design and incompatible uses, improvement measures would still be required for Alternative 2. Additionally, street improvements under Alternative 2 would be subject to plan review by the Town’s Fire Department to ensure proper access for fire and emergency response and would be designed with adequate width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by the Town’s firefighting apparatus and to provide alternative emergency ingress and egress. Therefore, hazards and emergency access impacts would be similar under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-10.)
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative 2, the allowable land uses would be constructed and operated on the Project site with a similar development intensity. All other on- and off-site improvements proposed as part of the Project are assumed to still be required under Alternative 2. As such, the same wet and dry utilities would be required, with construction and operational characteristics of these on- and off-site improvements being similar to the Project. Therefore, utilities and service systems impacts would be similar under Alternative 2. (DEIR, p. 7-10.)
Ability to Meet Project Objectives: All of the mitigation measures required for the Project would also apply to Alternative 2, as the development intensity and/or site coverage would be similar to the Project, and thus, construction and operation characteristics should also be relatively similar. There is the possibility under Alternative 2, however, that some impacts associated with air quality and GHG, and noise may be greater than those resulting from implementation of the Project, given that some of the other allowed land uses in the C-R (I-N) zone have a higher peak hour and/or daily trip generation rate.

As a retail service land use on the Project site, Alternative 2 would be expected to satisfy many of the Project objectives, including develop a fiscally sound, jobs-producing, and tax-generating land use in north Apple Valley (Objective 2); concentrate nonresidential uses near existing roadways, highways, and freeways in an effort to isolate and reduce any potential environmental impacts related to truck traffic congestion, air emissions, industrial noise, and biological resources to the greatest extent feasible (Objective 3); create a project that takes advantage of and enhances existing infrastructure, including the proximity to major regional roadways, railroad service corridors, and other similar infrastructure (Objective 4); and efficiently develop the land to the highest and best allowable land use compatible with the Town’s General Plan and Zoning Code (Objective 5). Alternative 2 would not meet Objective 1, which is to develop large-format industrial to stimulate job growth and meet existing demand for large-format industrial buildings in the region. (DEIR, p. 7-10 to 7-11.)

153515047.1 Page 108 of 121
Findings: The Town rejects Alternative 2, No Project, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality and GHG; and (2) the alternative would generate fewer jobs and tax revenues and fails to meet many of the Project objectives.

Alternative 3 – Electric Vehicle Charging Station Alternative Description: Under Alternative 3, the Project site would be developed with other land uses, consistent with the property’s C-R (I-N) designation. For purposes of this analysis and given the Project site’s proximity to major regional transportation routes (e.g., I-15 and other local truck routes), it assumed that Alternative 3 would consist of a light-duty EV charging station with 100 charging stalls including solar canopies, associated battery/electrical infrastructure, and storage on approximately 25 acres of the Project site. Alternative 3 would not include commercial amenities such as fast-food restaurants or convenience stores but would include restrooms for customers. Because Alternative 3 would be constructed on a 25-acre portion of the 178-acre Project site, stockpiling activities would likely continue on the approximately 20- acre portion at the northeast corner of the Project site, and the metal storage structure is assumed to remain in place. (DEIR, p. 7-11.)
Conclusions/Impacts: It is assumed that Alternative 3 would be subject to the same federal, state, and local requirements (e.g., incorporation of a new engineered stormwater drainage system, architectural design review) as the Project.

Aesthetics
Under Alternative 3, the Project would not be constructed and operated as planned on the Project site.

Alternative 3 would involve the development of a 100-stall EV charging station, which would still be the primary visual feature on the Project site; however the development would be on a smaller scale than the Project. The EV charging station solar canopy would create a shorter development profile than the Project; therefore, the massing and scale of the EV charging station would have less visual impact compared to the Project. Additionally, Alternative 3 would require nighttime lighting for safety and visibility as it would be assumed the EV charging station would operate 24 hours per day but would similarly be required to comply with the Town’s lighting ordinance. For these reasons, aesthetic impacts would be reduced under Alternative 3.

Air Quality
Under Alternative 3, the extent of construction activities would be reduced compared to the Project.

Thus, construction-related air quality emissions would be reduced. As with the Project, Alternative 3 would require mitigation measures to reduce short-term construction emissions of VOCs. With required mitigation, construction of Alternative 3, would not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by MDAQMD; this is the same outcome that would occur under the Project.

However, long-term operation of Alternative 3 would result in less criteria air pollutant emissions because vehicles traveling to and from the site would not result in criteria air pollutant emissions from internal combustion engines, which are the primary source of NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter emissions. Minimal particulate matter emissions would result from tire wear and

153515047.1 Page 109 of 121
tear and braking. As such, Alternative 3 would reduce, or avoid, the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact due to operational air contaminant emissions.

Impacts to nearby sensitive receptors would be reduced under Alternative 3 and would likely not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, air quality impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels under Alternative 3. (DEIR, 7-11 to 7-12.) Biological Resources
Under Alternative 3, a light-duty EV charging station would be constructed and operated on a 25-acre portion of the Project site; however, the Development Code includes design standards related to landscaping, which require the entire Project site be landscaped, resulting in a similar overall development footprint. As such, the project site and potential suitable habitat would still be disturbed as a result of development activities, which would not reduce impacts from a biological resources perspective. Therefore, biological resources impacts would be similar under Alternative 3. (DEIR, 7-12.) Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Under Alternative 3, the light-duty EV charging station would be constructed and operated on the Project site. Similar to the Project, the entirety of the Project site would need to be disturbed to various extents to comply with the Development Code, which requires the entire Project site be landscaped, resulting in the same potential to disturb presently unknown/unrecorded cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources as the Project. Therefore, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources impacts would be similar under Alternative 3. (DEIR, 7-12.) Energy
The level of construction activities would be reduced under Alternative 3 compared to the Project.

Thus, construction-related energy usage would be incrementally reduced as compared to the project.

Alternative 3 would have less building space than the Project as proposed; however, because Alternative 3 would include charging EVs, the electricity consumption would likely be increased compared to the Project. Petroleum fuel consumption during operations would be reduced under Alternative 3 as vehicles visiting the EV charging station would be assumed to be fully electric or hybrid vehicles using little to no petroleum fuel. Accordingly, overall energy usage associated with long-term operation of Alternative 3 would be slightly reduced or similar compared to the Project. (DEIR, 7-12.) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to air quality, the extent of construction activities would be reduced under Alternative 3 compared to the Project. Thus, construction-related GHG emissions would be incrementally lessened.

However, long-term operation of Alternative 3 would result in less carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions because vehicles traveling to and from the site are assumed to be either electric and/or hybrid vehicles. Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in CO2 or other GHG emissions from internal combustion engines, which are a primary source of CO2 emissions. Alternative 3 would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact due to operational GHG emissions to less than significant. (DEIR, 7-12.)

153515047.1 Page 110 of 121
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative 3, allowable land uses would be constructed and operated on the site, with a reduced development intensity. Similar to the Project, construction of Alternative 3 would involve a variety of hazardous substances and wastes to be stored, used, and generated on the Project site, including fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, cleaning solvents, paints, and storage containers. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, explosions, or pressure releases involving hazardous materials would represent a potential threat to human health and the environment if not properly treated. Incorporation of best management practices and compliance with regulations would still be required under Alternative 3, which mandates, among other requirements, safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safety equipment, and preparation of emergency action/prevention plans.

Operation of the allowable land uses would reduce the use of commercially available cleaning products but would similarly involve the use of cleaning supplies during the day-to-day operation. Similar to the Project, these materials could be stored on the Project site; however, storage would be required to comply with the manufacturer’s guidelines and recommendations as well as federal, state, and local requirements for transport, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials. As such, hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be similar under Alternative 3. (DEIR, 7-12 to 7-13.) Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative 3, a new engineered stormwater drainage system would be constructed on the Project site as proposed under the Project. Under existing conditions, no storm drain or treatment facilities are currently found on site, and thus, stormwater is not presently collected or treated on the Project site prior to being discharged off site. However, under Alternative 3, the on-site stormwater drainage system would be designed to comply with all state, regional, and local regulations related to site stormwater drainage and water quality during both construction and operation of the alternative, regardless of the size of the development. Therefore, hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar under Alternative 3. (DEIR, 7-13.)
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the Project, Alternative 3 would be consistent with the Project site’s existing General Plan and Zoning Code. Alternative 3 would not conflict with any plans, policies, or ordinances adopted for the purposes of mitigating or avoiding environmental effects. Therefore, land use and planning impacts would be similar under Alternative 3. (DEIR, 7-13.) Noise
Noise associated with Alternative 3 would occur during short-term construction activities and under long-term operation. The types of construction activities conducted on the Project site would be similar under Alternative 3 and would generally cover the same physical area, but would be shorter in duration.

The types of construction equipment used and the types of construction activities conducted on site would be similar under Alternative 3, and the peak daily noise levels generated during the construction phase would also be similar.

Under long-term operational conditions, noise generated by Alternative 3 would primarily be associated with vehicles traveling to and from the site and on-site vehicle idling, maneuvering, and parking.

153515047.1 Page 111 of 121
Alternative 3 would generate an increase in daily trips compared to the Project and, as such, would contribute to an increase in traffic-related noise to local roadways compared to the Project. The increase in traffic noise associated with Alternative 3 would continue to be noticeable to residents along the roadway segments impacted by the Project. Therefore, noise impacts would be slightly increased but similar under Alternative 3 due to the increase in traffic trips and associated noise. (DEIR, 7-13.) Public Services
Under Alternative 3, allowable land uses would be constructed and operated on the Project site, at a similar development intensity as the Project. Service demand is primarily tied to population, not building size. Alternative 3 would not employ any employees. Therefore, impacts to public services would be reduced under Alternative 3. (DEIR, 7-13.)
Transportation and Traffic
The trip generation rate used to analyze the Project’s estimated trip generation (refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the Project [Appendix J]) assumed that the Project would support a mix of all warehouse types except High-Cube Sort Fulfillment, which is the most intensive type of warehouse and is not expected for the Project. The average trip generation rate for all warehouse types except High-Cube Sort Fulfillment is 2.36 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor space.

Warehousing uses often have lower trip generation rate (either daily or peak hour) than other land uses that are permitted by right or conditional permit in the C-R zone. As discussed in Section 4.13, the Project would generate 8,367 daily passenger car equivalent trips. Although trip generation rates for EV charging stations have not been standardized, based on the trip generation rates in the ITE 2021 Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, for Gasoline/Service Stations (ITE Code 944), a service station without convenience store would result in 172.01 trips per day per vehicle fueling position; therefore, Alternative 3 would be expected to generate 17,201 daily trips. It should be noted that EV charging stations likely have a lower turnover rate than gasoline service stations due to extended charging times (e.g., vehicles usually spend 20 minutes or more charging, whereas petroleum fueled vehicles usually spend less than 10 minutes fueling), and the peak times are also likely different than gasoline service stations; therefore, daily trips generated by Alternative 3 using ITE trip generation rates for gasoline service stations may be overstated. Therefore, it should be considered that the overall impacts related to trip generation would likely be similar to the Project.

Impacts related to Project VMT were determined to be less than significant because it did not increase service population VMT with Project conditions. Alternative 3 would fall within the category of project types described in Section 4.13.4, Impacts Analysis, that qualify to be screened out from conducting project-specific VMT analysis as a local serving fueling station (although there is a distinction between an EV charging station and a fueling station, for purposes of VMT analysis the uses are comparable).

Therefore, transportation impacts with regard to VMT would be similar under Alternative 3.

With regard to the increase of hazards due to design and incompatible uses, improvement measures would still be required for Alternative 3; additionally, street improvements under Alternative 3 would be subject to plan review by the Town’s Fire Department to ensure proper access for fire and emergency response and would be designed with adequate width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by the Town’s firefighting apparatus and to provide alternative emergency ingress and egress. Therefore, hazards and emergency access impacts would be similar under Alternative 3. (DEIR, 7-14.)

153515047.1 Page 112 of 121
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative 3, the allowable land uses would be constructed and operated on the Project site.

All other on- and off-site improvements proposed as part of the Project are assumed to still be required under Alternative 3. As such, the same wet and dry utilities would be required, with construction and operational characteristics of these on- and off-site improvements being similar to the Project.

Therefore, utilities and service systems impacts would be similar under Alternative 3. (DEIR, 7-14.) Ability to Meet Project Objectives: Although Alternative 3 would likely reduce significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality impacts and GHG emissions, it would not satisfy many of the Project objectives, including Objective 1, which is to develop large-format industrial buildings to stimulate job growth and meet existing demand for large-format industrial buildings in the region; Objective 2, which is to develop a fiscally sound, jobs-producing, and taxgenerating land use in north Apple Valley; or Objective 5, which is to efficiently develop the land to the highest and best allowable land use compatible with the Town’s General Plan and Zoning Code. (DEIR, p. 7-14 to 7-15.)
Findings: The Town rejects Alternative 3. Reduced Project, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet many of the Project objectives.

Alternative 4 – Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Description: In accordance with CEQA Section 15126.6, the purpose of conducting a Project alternative comparative analysis is to identify potential alternatives to the Project that are capable of avoiding or substantially reducing any significant adverse impacts associated with the Project, even if the alternatives may impede attainment of project objectives or prove less cost efficient. As a reminder, the Project EIR has identified the following Project impacts that would be significant and unavoidable.

As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, the Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the MDAQMD for emissions of NOx and PM10. Although mitigation measures have been recommended to minimize operational-related air quality impacts (MM-AQ-1), no feasible mitigation measures or Project design features beyond those already identified exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, even with the incorporation of mitigation, long-term impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non-attainment would be significant and unavoidable.

Operation of the Project could result in exceedances of the MDAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PM10, and the Project would potentially result in health effects associated with those pollutants.

Because construction of the Project would not exceed any MDAQMD thresholds (after implementation of MM-AQ-1), and operation of the Project would not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds for CO, VOC, SOx or fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and because the MDAQMD thresholds are based on levels that the Mojave Desert Air Basin can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the ambient air quality standards and the ambient air quality standards are established to protect public health and welfare, the Project is not anticipated to result in health effects associated with CO, VOC, SOx or PM2.5.

However, because operation of the Project could result in exceedances of MDAQMD significance

153515047.1 Page 113 of 121
thresholds for NOx and PM10, even after implementation of mitigation measures, the potential health effects associated with criteria air pollutants are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. For these reasons, impacts associated with the conflicting with the MDAQMD would be significant and unavoidable.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR, the Project would result in potentially significant impacts with regard to generating GHG emissions. Implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-1 would reduce potential air quality impacts (in Section 4.2 in the DEIR) and mitigation measures MM-GHG-1, MM-GHG-2 and MM-GHG-3 would also reduce operation-related GHG emissions. However, the effectiveness of the mitigation and the associated emission reductions cannot be accurately quantified at this time and GHG emissions impacts are inherently cumulative in nature. As such, impacts on the Project-level and cumulatively would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 7-15.)
Conclusions/Impacts: Under Alternative 4, the Project’s development footprint would be reduced by 50% compared to the Project. As a result, it is assumed that a similar reduction in the operational intensity and duration of construction activities would occur. Likewise, a smaller building footprint would be expected to support fewer operational activities than the larger footprints proposed as part of the Project. Thus, the severity of many environmental impacts related to construction and operational phases would be either the same or incrementally reduced under Alternative 4. However, because the development intensity would be reduced substantially under Alternative 4 compared to the Project, certain environmental impacts would differ as a result of this reduction, as the following analysis demonstrates.

Aesthetics
Under Alternative 4, the Project would be constructed and operated as planned on the Project site, with the exception that the size of the proposed development would be reduced by 50%, equating to the 1,302,223 square feet (approximately 30 acres) of extra space on the Project site that would likely be developed with a similar landscape concept to that surrounding the industrial buildings. A reduction in building square footage would reduce the scale and massing of the buildings. Additionally, the increase in landscaped area would soften the visual impact of the buildings. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would still involve the development of approximately, 1,302,223 square feet of industrial space, which would still be the primary visual feature on the Project site. For these reasons, aesthetics impacts would be similar but lessened under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-16.) Air Quality
Under Alternative 4, the extent of construction activities would be reduced compared to the Project.

Thus, a 50% reduction in Project size would reduce construction-related air quality emissions approximately 50%. As with the Project, Alternative 4 would require mitigation measures to reduce short-term construction emissions of VOCs. With required mitigation, Alternative 4, would not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the MDAQMD during construction; this is the same outcome that would occur under the Project.

Operations under Alternative 4 would generate fewer vehicle trips per day due to the reduction in the amount of building space. Accordingly, air pollutant emissions associated with long-term operation of Alternative 4 would be lessened by approximately 50% compared to the Project.

153515047.1 Page 114 of 121
However, Alternative 4 would still require implementation of mitigation measures similar to those imposed for the Project. Even with incorporation of mitigation measures, long-term operation of Alternative 4 would still likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts due to emissions of NOx and PM10, which would violate the MDAQMD regional air quality standard and would contribute to an existing air quality violation. Because Alternative 4 would generate fewer average daily vehicle trips than would occur under the Project, impacts due to a conflict with the regional air quality standard and the level of contribution to an existing air quality violation would be minimized, but still not eliminated or reduced to less-than-significant levels. As such, Alternative 4 would reduce, but not avoid, the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact due to operational air contaminant emissions.

As with the Project, impacts to nearby sensitive receptors would be significant and unavoidable under Alternative 4. Similar to the Project, emissions under Alternative 4 would be above the MDAQMD thresholds of significance. However, these impacts to sensitive receptors would be reduced under Alternative 4 due to the reduction in daily vehicular trips compared to the Project. Therefore, air quality impacts would be lessened, but not reduced to less-than-significant levels, under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-16 to 7-17.)
Biological Resources
Under Alternative 4, the Project would be constructed and operated as planned on the entire Project site, although the development intensity would be reduced. Compared to the Project, Alternative 4 would develop less of the Project site, resulting in a smaller overall building footprint. However, in accordance with the Town’s development standards, these areas would not be allowed to be completely unimproved, and instead would still need to be landscaped. As such, any vacant land and potential suitable habitat in these areas would still be disturbed as a result of landscaping activities, reducing any benefits from a biological resources perspective. Therefore, biological resources impacts would be similar under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-17.)
Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Under Alternative 4, the Project would be constructed and operated as planned on the Project site, but with a reduced development intensity. Compared to the Project, Alternative 4 would develop less of the Project site with buildings, parking and loading areas, and other associated improvements, resulting in a smaller overall building footprint on the site that would disturb less land. However, as previously discussed, Alternative 4 would likely not be able to maintain vacant areas on the Project site, but instead would still need to landscape these locations. As such, the entirety of the Project site would need to be disturbed to various extents, which would result in the same potential to disturb presently unknown/unrecorded cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources as the Project.

Therefore, cultural resources impacts would be similar under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-17.) Energy
The level of construction activities would be reduced under Alternative 4 compared to the Project.

Thus, construction-related energy usage would be lessened. Alternative 4 would also generate fewer vehicle trips per day due and would have a less building space than the Project as proposed, result in less on-site and mobile energy consumption. Accordingly, energy usage associated with long-term operation of Alternative 4 would be lessened compared to the Project. Therefore, energy impacts would be reduced under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-17 to 7-18.)

153515047.1 Page 115 of 121
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to air quality, the extent of construction activities would be reduced under Alternative 4 compared to the Project. Thus, construction-related GHG emissions would be lessened. Alternative 4 would also generate fewer vehicle trips per day due to the reduction in the amount of building space.

Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with long-term operation of Alternative 4 would be lessened compared to the Project. As discussed above, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to generating GHG emissions. Implementation of the mitigation measures under the Project and Alternative 4 would reduce potential operation-related GHG emissions. However, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and the associated emission reductions cannot be accurately quantified at this time and GHG emissions impacts are inherently cumulative in nature. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would be reduced under Alternative 4, but would still remain significant and unavoidable.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative 4, the Project would be constructed and operated as planned on the site, with the exception that the development intensity would be reduced. Incorporation of all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, including the EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control, CAL/OSHA, RCRA, and the Apple Valley Fire Protection District concerning the use of hazardous materials would still be required under Alternative 4, which mandates, among other requirements, the removal and disposal of on-site debris and used tires from the Project area in accordance with all applicable guidelines. As such, under Alternative 4, the Project site cleanup activities would be conducted pursuit to all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Therefore, hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be similar under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-18.) Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative 4, the new engineered stormwater drainage system would be constructed on the Project site as proposed under the Project. Under existing conditions, no storm drain or treatment facilities are currently found on site, and thus, stormwater is not presently collected or treated on the Project site prior to being discharging off site. However, under Alternative 4, the Project and its on-site stormwater drainage system would be designed to comply with all state, regional, and local regulation related to site stormwater drainage and water quality during both construction and operation of the Project, regardless of the size of the Project. Therefore, hydrology and water quality impacts would be similar under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-18.)
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the Project, Alternative 4 would be consistent with the Project site’s existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Given the substantial similarities in uses between the Project and Alternative 4, Alternative 4 would otherwise not conflict with any plans, policies, or ordinances adopted for the purposes of mitigating or avoiding environmental effects. Therefore, land use and planning impacts would be similar under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-18.)

153515047.1 Page 116 of 121
Mineral Resources
Alternative 4 would result in similarities to the Project, since the Project would still be constructed on a site-designated MRZ-3a and would result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources of unknown significance. However, due to the lack of any known significant mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, the Project and Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts related to the loss of availability of any known mineral resources. The Project site would continue to not be designated for mining by the Town’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. (DEIR, p. 7-18.)
Noise
Noise associated with Alternative 4 would occur during short-term construction activities and under long-term operation. The types of construction activities conducted on the Project site would be similar under Alternative 4 would generally cover the same physical area. However, because Alternative 4 would result in construction of less building area on site, it is anticipated that the duration of noise impacts during the building construction and architectural coating phase would decrease under Alternative 4 compared to the Project. Nonetheless, the types of construction equipment used, and the types of construction activities conducted on site would be similar under Alternative 4, and the peak daily noise levels generated during the construction phase would also be similar but for a shorter duration.

Under long-term operational conditions, noise generated by Alternative 4 would primarily be associated with vehicles traveling to and from the site, and on-site vehicle idling, maneuvering, and parking. Alternative 4 would generate fewer daily trips than the Project, and, as such, would contribute less traffic-related noise to local roadways than the Project. However, the decrease in traffic noise associated with Alternative 4 would still be noticeable along the roadway segments impacted by the Project. Therefore, noise impacts would be reduced but similar under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-19.) Public Services
Under Alternative 4, the Project would be constructed and operated as planned on the Project site, with a reduced building size by 50%, equating to the 1,302,223 square feet (approximately 30 acres).

Service demand is primarily tied to population, not building size. Alternative 4 would employ approximately half the number of workers, based on employment estimates for warehouse/logistics in San Berardino County and would similarly be consistent with the Town of Apple Valley General Plan.

Therefore, impacts to public services would be reduced but similar under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-19.) Transportation
VMT is largely dependent on the specific land use type of a particular project and the location of that project. While a reduction in a Project’s size could reduce the overall VMT associated with a given project, reducing a project’s square footage would not necessarily have an effect on a project’s average trip length. Thus, while under Alternative 4 the Project’s development footprint would be reduced by 50% compared to the Project, the average trip length for passenger vehicle and truck trips associated with the Project would essentially remain constant. In addition, because a reduction in Project size would correlate to a similar reduction in on-site workforce, the Project’s VMT per employee

153515047.1 Page 117 of 121
would also stay relatively the same under Alternative 4 as the Project’s VMT per employee. Therefore, transportation impacts with regard to VMT would be similar under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-19.) However, in regard to the Project’s less than significant queueing and hazards impacts, even with the reduction in building-square footage and corresponding reduction in trip generation, study intersections would continue to experience queuing issues without required frontage improvements.

Improvement measures would still be required for Alternative 4; as such, transportation impacts with regard to queueing and hazards impacts would be similar under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-19.) Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative 4, the Project would be constructed and operated as planned on the Project site, with the exception that the size of the proposed development would be reduced by 50%. All other onand off-site improvements proposed as part of the Project are assumed to still be required under Alternative 4. As such, the same wet and dry utilities would be required, with construction and operational characteristics of these on- and off-site improvements being similar to the Project.

Therefore, utilities and service systems impacts would be similar under Alternative 4. (DEIR, p. 7-20.) Ability to Meet Project Objectives: Based on the above, given that Alternative 4 would result in incremental reductions in both construction activity, daily operational trips on Project area roadways, and a reduction in the scale of the proposed buildings, Alternative 4 would result in incremental reductions in the severity of impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and noise. In the case of air quality and GHG, the reductions in Project-related trips under Alternative 4 would not be substantial enough to reduce impacts below a significance level that is substantial and unavoidable although emissions would be lessened. Impacts associated with energy and noise are less than significant under both the Project and Alternative 4 scenarios.

Impacts associated with biological resources, cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources, geology and soils, hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems would generally be the same under Alternative 4 compared to the Project.

All of the same mitigation measures required for the Project would be necessary for Alternative 4, although no new measures would be required. Additionally, Alternative 4 would meet all Project objectives, albeit to a lesser extent as proposed under the Project because of the approximately 50% reduction in the Project’s size. In particular, because of its reduced size, Alternative 4 would produce fewer jobs (Objective 2), would generate less tax revenue (Objective 2), would not efficiently develop the land to the highest and best use of the Project site (Objective 5), and would not assist in meeting demand for large-format logistics and warehouse facilities to the same degree as the Project (Objectives 1). (DEIR, p. 7-20.)
Findings: The Town rejects Alternative 4. Reduced Development Intensity, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to reduce the significant and unavoidable GHG impact; and (2) the alternative would generate fewer jobs and tax revenues and would not develop the property to its highest and best use.

153515047.1 Page 118 of 121
E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Three of the four Project alternatives considered herein would lessen at least one environmental impact relative to the Project. Alternative 2 would not reduce any environmental impact relative to the Project. As previously addressed, if the No Project/No Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative; the EIR must also evaluate another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives.

Based on a comparison of Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4, significant and unavoidable environmental impacts associated with air quality and GHG emissions would be avoided under Alternative 3, whereas impacts under Alternatives 2 and 4 would be lessened but not avoided. Impacts to aesthetics, energy, noise, and public services would be lessened under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2 and similar compared to Alternative 4. Impacts associated with biological resources; cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; transportation; and utilities and services systems would be similar under Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 comparatively. Overall, based on these findings, Alternative 3 would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. (DEIR, p. 7-20 – 7-23.) IX. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
▪ The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; ▪ The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
▪ The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
▪ The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

Change in Land Use that Commits Future Generations to Similar Uses According to the Town of Apple Valley General Plan and the Apple Valley Municipal Code, the land use and zoning designations for the Project site are Regional Commercial (C-R) (Town of Apple Valley 2009, 2019). Additionally, the Project site is located within the Warehouse Distribution Regional Commercial Overlay (I-N), as designated on the Town’s Zoning Map. As discussed in Section 4.9 of the Project EIR, Land Use and Planning, the Project is consistent with the Project site’s land use and zoning designations applied by the Town of Apple Valley General Plan and the Apple Valley Municipal Code.

As such, although construction of the Project would develop a total of 2,604,446 square feet of industrial/warehouse space on the Project site, the Town already committed the site to industrial/warehouse (and similar) uses when the Town designated and zoned the site as Regional Commercial (C-R) and designated it within the Warehouse Distribution Regional Commercial (I-N) Overlay zone on the Town’s Zoning Map.

153515047.1 Page 119 of 121
Land uses surrounding the Project site primarily consist of vacant land and the Calportland aggregate mine. However, similar existing and approved industrial facilities are located in the broader Project area within 2 to 3 miles of the Project site. Since the Project site is located near existing urbanized uses, including other industrial uses, the Project would result in land use changes that would commit future generations to uses that already occur in the Project area. Thus, implementation would commit future generations to similar uses, given that this proposed use is already found throughout the Town. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.)
Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
Potential environmental accidents of concern include those events that would adversely affect the environment or public due to the type of quantity of materials released and the receptors exposed to that release. Construction activities associated with the Project would involve some risk of environmental accidents. However, these activities would be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and would follow professional industry standards for safety. Once operational, any materials associated with environmental accidents would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Use of any such materials would not adversely affect the environment or public due to the type or quantity of materials released and the receptors exposed to that release. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.)
Large Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources
The commitment of nonrenewable resources includes issues related to increased energy consumption and lost access to mining reserves. There would be an irretrievable commitment of labor, capital, and materials used during the construction and operation of the Project. Nonrenewable resources would primarily be committed in the form of fossil fuels such as fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by equipment associated with construction of the Project. Consumption of other nonrenewable or slowly renewable resources would also occur. These resources would include lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, and metals such as steel, copper, and lead.

To ensure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, CEQA requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of Projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy (PRC Section 21100[b][3]). Energy conservation implies that a project’s cost-effectiveness be reviewed not only in dollars, but also in terms of energy requirements. For many projects, cost-effectiveness may be determined more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs. A lead agency may consider the extent to which an energy source serving a project has already undergone environmental review that adequately analyzed and mitigated the effects of energy production.

Accordingly, based on the energy consumption thresholds set forth in both Appendix F and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project’s estimated energy demands (both short-term construction and long-term operational demands) were evaluated (see Section 4.5, Energy, of the DEIR). The overall purpose of the energy analysis was to evaluate whether the Project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

As discussed in Section 4.5 of the DEIR, the Project would comply with California Title 24 energy efficiency requirements. The Project would incorporate mitigation measures that, when implemented,

153515047.1 Page 120 of 121
would reduce consumption of energy resources to the extent possible. On this basis, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.) X. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways a project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), a project would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would:
▪ Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
▪ Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas);
▪ Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
▪ Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines mandate that growth inducement must not be assumed and that a discussion of the ways the Project could foster or economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. .

The Project would require a temporary construction workforce and a permanent operational workforce, both of which could potentially induce population growth in the Project area. The temporary workforce would be needed to construct the two industrial/warehouse buildings and associated improvements.

The number of construction workers needed during any given period would largely depend on the specific stage of construction, but would likely range from a dozen to several dozen workers on a daily basis.

Because the future tenants are not known yet, the number of jobs that the Project would generate cannot be precisely determined. Thus, for purposes of analyses, employment estimates were calculated using average employment density factors reported by the Southern California Association of Governments. The Southern California Association of Governments reports that for every 1,195 square feet of warehouse space in San Bernardino County, the average numbers of jobs supported is one employee (Natelson Company Inc. 2001). The Project would include 2,604,446 square feet of industrial/warehouse space, excluding associated improvements. As such, the estimated number of employees required for operation would be approximately 2,179.

According to the 2021 U.S. Census, the population of the Town was approximately 76,224 residents (U.S.

Census Bureau 2021). According to the Town’s General Plan, upon build-out, the Town could support a population of 185,858 residents (Town of Apple Valley 2009). As such, the Project-related increase of approximately 2,179 employees would represent a nominal percentage of the Town’s projected future population upon General Plan buildout. Therefore the Project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements could likely be met by the Town’s existing labor force without people needing to relocate into the Project region, and the Project would not stimulate population growth or a population concentration above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans.

153515047.1 Page 121 of 121
Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth, are those that may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in the area. The Project would involve installation of new water and sewer lines in the Project vicinity. The purpose of these new utilities is solely to serve the needs of the Project, and not to provide capacity for future projects or growth. Although new roadway construction is planned as part of the Project (i.e., construction improvements along outer I-15 Road), the construction of these roadways would occur only at the Project frontage and as necessary to provide for adequate circulation in the Project area; thus, the Project would not result in indirect population growth by providing vehicular access to an area presently lacking such access.

Based on the proximity of the Project site to existing facilities, the average response times in the Project area, the ability for nearby cities to respond to emergency calls, and the fact that the Project site is already located within the Apple Valley Fire Protection District and Apple Valley Police Department service areas, the Project would be adequately served by public services without the construction of new, or the expansion of existing, facilities. Although the Project could potentially result in an incremental increase in calls for service to the Project site compared to existing conditions, this increase is expected to be nominal (as opposed to new residential or regional commercial land uses, which do result in greater increase in calls for service) and would not result in the need for new or expanded fire or police facilities. Lastly, since the Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the Town, it is not anticipated that many people would relocate to the Town as a result of the Project, and an increase in school-age children requiring public education is not expected to occur as a result. Thus, the need for new or expanded school facilities is not required.

In conclusion, the Project could cause population growth through new job opportunities. However, this growth falls within Town and regional growth projections for population and housing. The Project would not remove obstacles to population growth, and would not cause an increase in population such that new community facilities or infrastructure would be required outside of the Project site. Lastly, the Project is not expected to encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, as explained above. For these reasons, the Project is not considered to be significantly growth inducing. (Draft EIR, p. 6-1 – 6-2.)

153514794.1 rev March 18, 2025 Page 1 of 3
XI.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
“CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approved, a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15021, subd. (d).) CEQA allows lead agencies to approve projects that damage the environment if economic, social or other considerations make it infeasible to mitigate the significant effects of a project on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002.) To reflect the ultimate balancing of competing public objectives when the agency decides to approve a project that will cause one or more significant effects on the environment, an agency must prepare a statement of overriding considerations.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15021, subd. (d), 15093.)
A statement of overriding considerations is warranted when, in the case of a development project, adverse impacts that cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The statement of overriding considerations must set forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, subd. (a), 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley (Project) would result in significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, this Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared.

A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Approval of the Project will result in significant adverse environmental effects in relation to air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.

B. FINDING OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the Town’s judgment, the benefits of the Project outweigh its unavoidable significant impacts.

The Town finds that each of the overriding considerations expressed as benefits and set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for such a finding. Each finding is considered individually sufficient to outweigh the Project’s significant effects. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the documents identified for inclusion in the Record of Proceedings.

The Town has considered the EIR, the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and other written materials presented to and prepared by the Town, as well as verbal and written testimony received, and hereby determines that implementation of the Project would result in the following substantial public benefits:

153514794.1 rev March 18, 2025 Page 2 of 3

1. The Project would provide much-needed jobs in the High Desert/Victor Valley region to help further the balancing of the jobs/housing ratio by developing warehouse space to fulfill the needs of the growing industrial sector in an area where demand currently outpaces the availability of such space. The limited availability of industrial facilities can result in delays in the time it takes for consumer products and goods to reach the public. The Project would provide a total of approximately 2,604,446 square-feet of distribution/warehouse uses with associated office spaces and loading areas. The Project would benefit the Town and the region by supporting the goods movement industry in decreasing lead times for delivery of consumer products and providing much needed employment opportunities. The addition of permanent jobs would contribute to indirect economic benefits when wages are spent on goods and services within the Town, which spending will also generate sales tax revenues for the Town’s General Fund.

2. The Project encourages economic growth and industry diversity in the Town by providing warehouse/distribution facilities for businesses wishing to locate and invest in Apple Valley.

The Project would increase annual property tax revenues by approximately $5,547,470 annually in property tax revenue (of which the Town will receive approximately $523,611 annually) as the Project would increase the property tax value and would also generate additional revenues through the collection of other taxes, licenses, and fees associated with business operation. Taxes and fee revenues generated by constructing and operating the Project would also increase the Town’s General Fund by approximately $605,704 annually in property taxes In lieu of motor vehicle licensing fee (MVLF), and approximately $75,654 annually in off-site sales tax revenues. This results in an approximate total annual revenue of $1,204,969 being generated by the Project for the Town. The Project would also support temporary construction jobs and approximately 1,736 permanent jobs. The generation of these jobs would result in both direct and indirect economic benefit to the community when wages are spent on goods and services within the Town, further increasing sales tax revenues for the General Fund. In addition to the fiscal revenue analysis, the Project is estimated to pay one-time Development Impact Fees to the Town in the amount of approximately $2,417,4472,863,380.

Although not analyzed in the Fiscal Revenue Analysis (DPFG 2025), the Project could potentially generate on-site sales tax if the end user elects to use it as a fulfillment center. This would result in an additional source of revenues for the Town.

3. The Project is located in the northwestern part of the Town, which is within the High Desert/Victor Valley region of San Bernardino County. With its close proximity to existing major regional roadways and other similar infrastructure, the Project takes advantage of and enhances existing infrastructure which also helps reduce secondary environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the Project consistent with the Project objectives #3 and #4 (DEIR, p. 3-4 to 3-5). The Project site is located directly east of I-15, north of Falchion Road and south of Norco Street. The Project site and its immediate surroundings can be seen in Figure 3-3, Project Aerial. Regional access to the Project site is provided via I-15, which is located adjacent to the Project site’s western boundary. An existing north/south I-15 interchange is located approximately 1-mile north of the Project site. Off-site improvements to roadways are located within the vicinity of the Project and would occur at Falchion Road between Outer Highway 15 and Apple Valley Road, Norco Street between Outer Highway 15 and Apple Valley Road, Outer Highway 15 between Falchion Road and Norco Street, and Apple

153514794.1 rev March 18, 2025 Page 3 of 3
Valley Road between Falchion Road and Norco Street. The Project would include various offsite street improvements to adjacent roadways to ensure efficient off-site circulation, including extending the roadways, widening and improving roadways, and providing new frontage. The proximity of an existing north/south I-15 interchange located 1 mile north of the Project site means Project related truck traffic would not need to travel through residential portions of the Town.

4. The proposed Project would result in the development of a Project that is consistent with the development patterns envisioned in the Town’s General Plan (GP) and is consistent with the general plan land use designation of Warehouse Distribution Regional Commercial Overlay CR(I-N), consistent with Project objective #5 (DEIR, p. 3-5).

5. The proposed Project would use the Project’s proximity to I-15 to provide needed warehouse space to businesses wishing to invest in the Town. These facilities take advantage of the area’s proximity to regional transportation corridors, facilitating goods movement on a local, regional and national scale, consistent with Project objectives #3 and #4 (DEIR, p. 3-4 to 3-5).

Development of the proposed Project in this area is consistent with the GP and underlying zoning for industrial uses furthering the Town’s vision of creating a cohesive, high-quality business park environment to meet existing and growing demand for warehouse and logistic facilities consistent with Project objective #1 (DEIR, p. 3-4).

After weighing the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project identified in the EIR, the Town hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental impacts of the Project, and further determines that the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts are acceptable.

Accordingly, the Town adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, recognizing that significant unavoidable impacts will result from implementation of the Project. Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, as discussed in the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); (ii) rejected alternatives to the Project, as discussed in the EIR; and (iii) recognized the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, the Town hereby finds that the benefits of the Project, as stated, are determined to be overriding considerations that warrant approval of the Project and outweigh and override its significant unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, and thereby justify the approval of the Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley Project.

FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-1
4 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 requires that, upon certification of an EIR, “the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the Project or conditions of Project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during Project implementation.” (PRC Section 21000–21177.) This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was developed in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the PRC and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L.), and includes the following information:
▪ List of mitigation measures
▪ Timing for implementation of the mitigation measures
▪ Party responsible for implementing or monitoring the mitigation measures ▪ Date of completion of monitoring
The Town of Apple Valley must adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed Project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of Project approval.

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-2
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
Mitigation Measures
Air Quality
MM-AQ-1 Construction Requirements.
▪ Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (e.g., paints) applied to the Project site shall have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 grams per liter. ▪ The Project’s construction manager shall maintain and keep current 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.
▪ The construction logs shall be kept on the construction site at all times and shall be made available to local, regional, or state officials (e.g., officials from the Town of Apple Valley, MDAQMD, or CARB) by request or when conducting an inspection at the Project site.
▪ In addition, the Project’s construction manager or its designee shall provide to all Project construction employees the fact sheet entitled “Preventing Work-Related Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever)” by the California Department of Public Health and ensure all employees are aware of the potential risks the site poses. The Project construction manager or its designee shall schedule mandatory training for all Project construction employees providing information on the occupational responsibilities and requirements contained in these measures to reduce potential exposure to Coccidioides spores.

The training for Project construction employees shall include all the following topics:
▪ What Valley Fever is and how it is contracted.
▪ High-risk areas and types of work and environmental conditions during which the risk of contracting Valley Fever is highest.

Prior to
construction
Town of
Apple Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-3
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ Personal risk factors that may create a higher risk for some individuals. ▪ Personal and environmental exposure prevention methods. ▪ Importance of early detection, diagnosis, and treatment. ▪ Recognizing common signs and symptoms of Valley Fever. ▪ Importance of reporting symptoms to the employer and seeking medical attention. ▪ Common treatment and prognosis for Valley Fever.

MM-AQ-2 Zero-Emission or Near-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, fire pumps and appliances operating on the Project site shall be zeroemission or near-zero-emission equipment. This requirement shall apply to indoor and outdoor equipment such as forklifts, handheld landscaping equipment, yard equipment, and office appliances. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.

During Project
operation
Town of
Apple
Valley/Build
ing Manager

MM-AQ-3. 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 the California Environmental Quality Act.

Prior to tenant
occupancy
Town of
Apple Valley

Biological Resources
MM BIO-1: Conservation of Western Joshua Trees. Mitigation for direct impacts to 4 western Joshua trees that are 5 meters or greater in height, 201 trees 1 meter or greater but less than 5 meters in height, and 78 trees less than 1 meter in height will be fulfilled through a payment of the elected fees as described in Section 1927.3 of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, or through obtaining an Incidental Take Permit pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081. In conformance with the reduced fee schedule of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, mitigation will consist of payment of $1,000 for each western Joshua tree 5 meters or greater in height, $200 for each western Joshua tree 1 meter or greater but less than 5 meters in height, and $150 for each western Joshua tree less than 1 meter in height.

Prior to issuance
of grading
permits
Town of
Apple Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-4
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
MM BIO-2: Relocation of Desert Native Plants. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit an application and applicable fee paid to the Town of Apple Valley for removal or relocation of protected native desert plants under Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code Chapter 9.76, as required, and shall schedule a preconstruction site inspection with the appropriate authority. In addition, a plot plan shall be approved by the appropriate Town of Apple Valley Review Authority (County Certified Plant Expert, Planning Commission, or Town Council) indicating exactly which trees or plants are authorized to be removed.

The application shall include certification from a qualified western Joshua tree and native desert plant expert(s) to determine that proposed removal or relocation of protected native desert plants are appropriate, supportive of a healthy environment, and in compliance with the Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code. Protected plants subject to Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code Chapter 9.76 may be relocated on site or within an area designated for the species.

The application shall include a detailed plan for removal of all protected plants on the Project site. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified western Joshua tree and native desert plant expert(s). The plan shall include the following measures:
▪ Salvaged plants shall be transplanted expeditiously to either their final on-site location or to an approved off-site area. If the plants cannot be expeditiously taken to their permanent relocation area at the time of excavation, they may be transplanted in a temporary area (stockpiled) prior to being moved to their permanent relocation site(s). ▪ Western Joshua trees shall be marked on their north-facing side prior to excavation.

Transplanted western Joshua trees shall be planted in the same orientation as they currently occur on the Project site, with the marking on the north side of the trees facing north at the relocation site(s).
▪ Transplanted plants shall be watered prior to and at the time of transplantation. The schedule of watering shall be determined by the qualified tree expert and desert native plant expert(s) to maintain plant health. Watering of the transplanted plants shall continue under the guidance of a qualified tree expert and desert native plant expert(s) until it has been determined that the transplants have become established in the permanent relocation site(s) and no longer require supplemental watering.

Prior to issuance
of grading
permits and
during ground
clearing activities
Town of
Apple Valley
(County
Certified
Plant Expert,
Planning
Commission,
or Town
Council)

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-5
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
MM BIO-3: Designated Biologist Authority. The designated biologist shall have authority to immediately stop any activity that does not comply with the biological resources mitigation measures and/or to order any reasonable measure to avoid the unauthorized take of an individual western Joshua tree or special-status wildlife species.

During site
disturbance/
grading/
construction
Town of
Apple Valley/
Biologist
MM BIO-4: Compliance Monitoring. The designated biologist shall be on site daily when impacts occur. The designated biologist shall conduct compliance inspections to minimize incidental take of western Joshua trees and impacts to other sensitive biological resources; including Mohave ground squirrel, if present; prevent unlawful take of western Joshua trees; and ensure that signs, stakes, and fencing are intact, and that impacts are only occurring outside the permitted impact footprint. Weekly written observation and inspection records that summarize oversight activities and compliance inspections and monitoring activities required by the Incidental Take Permit shall be prepared.

Species Connectivity Database Observation Reporting. During all Project ground disturbing activities, the Qualified Biologist shall report any collision-related mortalities of special status-species that may occur within adjacent roadways (I-15 Frontage Road, Falchion Road, Norco Road and Apple Valley Road in the immediate project vicinity) of the Project site to the California Roadkill Observation System. In addition, the qualified Biologist shall report any identifiable recently sprouted native and nonnative plant species that occur within the Project area during Project activities to the CalFlora Plant Observation database.

During site
disturbance/
grading/
construction
Town of
Apple Valley/
construction
contractor
MM BIO-5: Education Program. An education program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all persons employed or otherwise working in the Project area shall be administered before performing impacts. The WEAP shall consist of a presentation from the designated biologist that includes a discussion of the biology and status of western Joshua trees, burrowing owls, and loggerhead shrikes, and other biological resources mitigation measures described in the California Environmental Quality Act document. The training shall also discuss the invasive plant species currently present within the Project area as well as those that may pose a threat to or have the potential to invade the Project area through implementation of ground disturbing activities. The discussion shall describe the potential long-lasting effects of introduced invasive species that may encroach on native plant species and continue to spread following the During site
disturbance/
grading/
construction
Town of
Apple Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-6
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
construction of the Project and beginning of industrial work. Interpretation for non-Englishspeaking workers shall be provided, and the same instruction shall be provided to all new workers before they are authorized to perform work in the Project area. Upon completion of the WEAP, employees shall sign a form stating they attended the program and understand all protection measures. This training shall be repeated at least once annually for long-term and/or permanent employees who will be conducting work in the Project area.

MM BIO-6: Construction Monitoring Notebook. The designated biologist shall maintain a construction-monitoring notebook on site throughout the construction period that shall include a copy of the biological resources mitigation measures with attachments and a list of signatures of all personnel who have successfully completed the education program. The permittee shall ensure that a copy of the construction monitoring notebook is available for review at the Project site upon request by the Town.

During site
disturbance/
grading/
construction
Town of
Apple
Valley/Biologi
st
MM BIO-7: Delineation of Property Boundaries. Before beginning activities that would cause impacts, the contractor shall, in consultation with the designated biologist, clearly delineate the boundaries with fencing, stakes, or flags, consistent with the grading plan, within which Project impacts will take place. All impacts outside the fenced, staked, or flagged areas shall be avoided, and all fencing, stakes, and flags shall be maintained until the completion of impacts in that area.

Prior to
construction or
any ground
disturbance
Town of
Apple
Valley/Biologi
st
MM BIO-8: Hazardous Waste. The applicant shall immediately stop work and, pursuant to pertinent state and federal statutes and regulations, arrange for repair and cleanup by qualified individuals of any fuel or hazardous waste leaks or spills at the time of occurrence, or as soon as it is safe to do so.

During site
disturbance/
grading/
construction
Town of
Apple Valley/
construction
contractor
MM BIO-9: Herbicides. The applicant shall limit herbicide use for invasive plant species and shall use herbicides only if it has been determined that hand or mechanical efforts are infeasible. To prevent drift, the permittee shall apply herbicides only when wind speeds are less than 7 miles per hour. All herbicide application shall be performed by a licensed applicator and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

During site
disturbance/grad
ing/construction
Town of
Apple Valley
MM BIO-10: Pre-construction Clearance Surveys for Mojave Desert Tortoise and Avoidance. One pre-construction clearance survey in accordance with current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol shall be conducted to reevaluate locations of Within 14 to 21
days prior to the
start of
Town of
Apple

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-7
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
potential Mojave desert tortoise burrows within the Project limits so take of Mojave desert tortoise can be avoided. The pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted on the Project site at any time following construction of a desert tortoise–proof fence encompassing the Project site that would ensure that tortoises cannot enter the Project after clearance surveys are completed. If no Mojave desert tortoises are found during the surveys, no further mitigation would be required; however, desert tortoise–proof fence encompassing the Project site shall remain in place until Project construction is completed and shall be monitored by a qualified biologist in compliance with current USFWS protocol.

Should Mojave desert tortoise be located during the clearance survey, all methods used for handling desert tortoises during the clearance surveys must be in accordance with the USFWS Desert Tortoise Field Manual or Project-specific guidance contained in a habitat conservation plan 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 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 habitat conservation plan or Incidental Take Permit.

Should Mojave desert tortoise be located during the clearance survey, the Project would result in the loss of 165.4 acres of suitable habitat for Mojave desert tortoise. Mitigation for direct impacts to 165.4 acres shall be fulfilled through conservation of suitable Mojave desert tortoise habitat through the purchase of credits at a minimum of 1:1 inkind habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, for a total of 165.4 acres or as otherwise determined through coordination with USFWS and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. construction
activities; after
construction of
exclusionary
fencing.

Valley/Biologi
st
MM-BIO-11: Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl and Avoidance.

MM-BIO-11.1 Focused Non-Breeding Season Surveys. Focused non-breeding season surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in accordance with protocols First Survey
within 14 days
prior to site
Town of
Apple

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-8
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
established in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; then California Department of Fish and Game) 2012 Staff Report or the most recent guidance. As outlined in the 2012 Staff Report, non-breeding season surveys will occur from September 1 to January 31. If burrowing owl are not detected, a pre-construction survey shall be completed, as described in 11.2. If burrowing owls are detected during these surveys, avoidance and preparation of a Burrowing Owl Plan will occur as outlined in MM-BIO-11.3 and MM-BIO-11.4.

MM-BIO-11.2 Pre-Construction Survey. One pre‐construction burrowing owl survey shall be completed no more than 14 days before initiation of site preparation or grading activities, and a second survey shall be completed within 24 hours of the start of site preparation or grading activities. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction surveys, the Project site and off-site improvement areas shall be resurveyed. Surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in accordance with protocols established in the 2012 (or most recent version) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Evidence of owl activity may include presence of owls themselves, burrows, and owl sign at burrow entrances such as pellets, whitewash or other “ornamentation,” feathers, prey remains, etc. If it is evident that the burrows are actively being used by burrowing owl, avoidance and preparation of a Burrowing Owl Plan will occur as outlined in MM-BIO-11.3 and MM-BIO-11.4.

MM-BIO-11.3 Avoidance. The Project proponent shall clearly delineate nodisturbance buffers of 250 feet radius around all occupied burrows within the Project site and approximately 400 feet of the Project site, where legally accessible, with posted signs demarcating the avoidance area and by using stakes, flags, and/or rope or cord to minimize the disturbance of burrowing owl habitat. The Project proponent shall delineate occupied burrows with different materials than those used to delineate the Project site. No Project activities shall be allowed to encroach into established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until it is determined that occupied burrows have been vacated. The Project proponent shall remove and disturbance/grad
ing
Second Survey
within 24 hours
prior to the start
of site
disturbance/grad
ing
Valley/Biologi
st

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-9
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
properly dispose of all materials used for delineation immediately upon completion of the Project.

MM-BIO-11.4 Burrowing Owl Plan. If burrowing owls are detected on the Project site, the Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval at least 30 days prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected after grounddisturbing activities have been initiated, a Burrowing Owl Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval within two weeks of detection. Project activities shall not occur within 400 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include but is not limited to 1) impact assessment that details the number and location of occupied burrow sites, and acres of burrowing owl habitat with a qualitative description of the habitat vegetation characteristics that will be impacted; 2) details on avoidance actions and monitoring such as proposed buffers, visual barriers and other actions; 3) site monitoring; and 4)minimization and compensatory mitigation actions that will be implemented.

Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method, may be a potentially significant impact under CEQA, and has the possibility to result in take. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall identify compensatory mitigation for the loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat consistent with the “Mitigation Impacts” section of the 2012 Staff Report and shall implement CDFW-approved mitigation prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities, as outlined in MM-BIO-11.5 below. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls. If no suitable habitat is available nearby, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW review and approval.

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-10
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
MM-BIO-11.5 Compensatory Mitigation. No take of burrowing owl shall occur without prior authorization in the form of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081. The Project Applicant shall adhere to measures and conditions set forth within the ITP. Anyone who handles burrowing owl during clearance activities must have the appropriate authorizations from CDFW. Notification shall be made in accordance with the conditions of the ITP. Should burrowing owl be located during the non-breeding season or clearance survey, the Project would result in the loss of 165.4 acres of suitable habitat for burrowing owl. Mitigation for direct impacts to 165.4 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 165.4 acres.

MM-BIO-11.6 Burrowing Owls Observed During Construction. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during Project implementation and construction, the Project proponent shall notify CDFW immediately in writing.

MM-BIO-12: Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Special-status bird species that have a moderate potential to occur within the Project include burrowing owl, LeConte’s thrasher, and loggerhead shrike. The Project also contains trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that provide opportunities for other non-sensitive birds and raptors to nest on site. Construction activities shall avoid the migratory bird nesting season (typically February 1 through August 31) to reduce any potential significant impact to birds that may be nesting in the survey area. Regardless of the time of year, a pre-construction avian nesting clearance survey of the Project site and within 500 feet of all impact areas must be conducted to determine the presence/absence of protected migratory birds and active nests. The avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to the start of construction in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If an active bird nest is found within the Project area or within 500 feet of the Project area, the nest shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans, along with an appropriate buffer established around the nest, which shall be determined by the biologist based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance. The nest area and buffers shall be monitored daily by Within 72 hours
prior to site
disturbance/grad
ing and
construction
Town of
Apple
Valley/Biologi
st

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-11
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
the qualified biologist and avoided until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is vacated and the juveniles have fledged. The nest area shall be demarcated in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. On-site construction monitoring shall be conducted when construction occurs in close proximately to an active nest buffer.

The buffer shall remain in place until is determined by the qualified biologist that the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. If an active nest is encountered during the Project construction, construction shall stop immediately until a qualified biologist can determined (1) that status of the nest, and (2) when work can proceed without risking violation to state or federal laws.

MM-BIO-13: Trash and Debris. The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during Project construction:
▪ Fully covered trash receptacles that are animal-proof shall be installed and used by the operator to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverage containers, and other miscellaneous trash. Trash contained within the receptacles shall be removed at least once a week from the Project site.
▪ Construction work areas shall be kept clean of debris, such as cable, trash, and construction materials. All construction/contractor personnel shall collect all litter, vehicle fluids, and food waste from the Project site on a daily basis.

Prior to, during,
and after
construction/
grading
Town of
Apple Valley/
Lahontan
RWQCB/
CDFW
MM-BIO-14. Invasive Plant Management. To reduce the spread of invasive plant species, landscape plants within 200 feet of native vegetation communities shall not be on the most recent version of the California Invasive Plant Council’s Inventory of Invasive Plants (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php). Post-construction, the Project Applicant shall continually remove invasive plant species on site by hand or mechanical methods, as feasible.

During operation Town of
Apple
Valley/Buildi
ng Manager
MM-BIO-15. Lighting. Lighting for construction activities and operations within 50 feet of the outside edge of the impact footprint containing habitat for special-status wildlife shall be directed away from natural areas.

During
construction
Town of
Apple Valley
MM-BIO-16. Aquatic Resources Mitigation. The Project site and off-site improvements area support 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 construction activity, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Lahontan Prior to, during,
and after
construction
Town of
Apple Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-12
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
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 Applicant shall coordinate with CDFW (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 1:1 with purchase of credits (1.61 acres RWQCB/CDFW jurisdiction and 0.25 acres CDFW only 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, Wildlands) or other applicant-sponsored mitigation. 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 Applicantsponsored 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.
▪ 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.

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-13
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
▪ 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) Training. All construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities. A basic presentation shall be prepared and presented by a qualified archaeologist and retained tribal monitor 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 grounddisturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the on-call archaeologist and if appropriate, Tribal representative.

The requirement for mandatory training and attendance by all construction personnel shall be stated on all construction plans.

Prior to ground
disturbing
activities
Town of
Apple Valley/
Archaeologist
MM-CUL-2: On-Call Archaeological Construction Monitoring. In consideration of the general sensitivity of the Project site for cultural resources, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained prior to ground disturbing activities. A qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall oversee and adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter 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 SCCIC with the results of the cultural monitoring program.

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 INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-14
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
The project Archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) 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 approved Mitigation Measures (MM) and Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties’ responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the project schedule.

Additionally, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI) for the Project. The Tribal Monitor shall be onsite 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 shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of a suspected find to allow time for the Project archaeologist and Tribal Monitor to identify, evaluate and determine the potential for recovery of cultural resources.

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 may 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 INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-15
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
MM-CUL-4. Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program and Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the Project Proponent or Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) 2010 guidelines to prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Project. The PRIMP shall be approved by the Town prior to commencement of any grading activity. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP 2010 guidelines and outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training; where paleontological monitoring is required within the Project site based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports; and procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, including paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microinvertebrate and microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management. The PRIMP shall also include a statement that any fossil lab or curation costs (if necessary due to fossil recovery) are the responsibility of the Project Proponent or Applicant.

In addition, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be on site during initial rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities (including augering) in areas underlain by geological units with high paleontological resource sensitivity or potential (e.g., Pleistocene alluvium and below a depth of 5 feet below the ground surface in areas underlain by Holocene alluvial fan deposits). No paleontological monitoring is necessary during ground disturbance within artificial fill/disturbed sediments or in areas underlain by plutonic igneous rocks (e.g., granodiorite). In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50- foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.

Upon completion of ground-disturbing activity (and curation of fossils, if necessary), the Project paleontologist shall prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report shall include a discussion of the location, duration, and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, and any Prior to any site
grading
Town of
Apple
Balley/Paleo
ntologist

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-16
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
recovered fossils, as well as the scientific significance of those fossils and where fossils were curated.

MM-TCR-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work shall follow protocols outlined under MM-CUL-3. 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, makes their 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, a cultural resources monitoring and treatment plan shall be created by the qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the consulting Tribe(s), and all subsequent discoveries shall be subject to this plan. This plan shall be approved by the Town. 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.

During ground
disturbance,
grading, and/or
construction
Town of
Apple Valley
MM-TCR-2: Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any ground disturbing activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease, and the discoveries shall be treated in accordance with state and local regulations, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e). No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the consulting Tribe[s].

During ground
disturbance,
grading, and/or
construction
Town of
Apple Valley
MM-TCR-3: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project shall be supplied to the Applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to the consulting Tribe(s). However, access to confidential records from the California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) (i.e., (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) are restricted from disclosure under federal and state laws; thus, researchers must meet access requirements to obtain this data. Access to confidential CHRIS data shall follow the CHRIS THPO Tribal Access Policy (OHP 2019) or have personnel on staff that meet the CHRIS authorized user’s requirements (OHP 2016; OHP 2023). Data security/confidentiality of all CHRIS data provided/acquired shall follow the requirements as outlined in the THPO-Tribal Access Policy (OHP 2019). Notwithstanding, Prior to ground
disturbance
consistent with
MM TCR-1
Town of
Apple Valley

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-17
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
non-confidential CHRIS data can be provided for planning purposes and includes a checklist (Summary Records Search) or narrative letter (Extended Records Search) stating whether there are known resources in the study area and offering a recommendation as to sensitivity for recorded and unrecorded cultural resources (OHP 2023). Access to CHRIS information is subject to review and approval of the appropriate Information Center in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer1 (SHPO) (OHP 2016).

The Lead Agency and/or Applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the consulting Tribe(s) throughout the life of the Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM-GHG-1. The Project Applicant shall implement the following measure in order to reduce operational energy source greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the extent feasible:
▪ Design the Project to meet, at minimum, U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification or otherwise design the Project to reach equivalent reductions in GHG emissions. Prior to the issue of building permits, documentation demonstrating that the Project has been designed to achieve, at minimum, LEED Silver certification or has otherwise been designed to result in equivalent GHG emission reductions will be submitted to the Town’s Planning Department. Design features that will be implemented to achieve, at minimum, LEED Silver certification include the following:
- Install Energy Star–rated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances. All light bulbs shall be CFL or LED.
- The Project electrical infrastructure shall be designed 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).

Prior to the
issuance of
building permits
Town of
Apple Valley
1 Pursuant to federal and state law, the California State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) directs the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to maintain an inventory of historical resources in California. The SHPO meets this responsibility via the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), which is administered by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) under SHPO authority (OHP 2016).

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-18
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
- Electrical conduit shall be installed in specified Project locations (e.g., parking areas, at or near dock doors) at the time of building construction to satisfy CALGreen standards.

The Project’s electrical rooms shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the upsizing of electrical equipment to accommodate potential future electrical loads. - Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the Town of Apple Valley, level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations shall be installed on-site for employees for the percentage of employee parking spaces in accordance 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.
- 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. - Provide information on energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy management, and existing energy incentive programs to future tenants of the Project.
• The Project shall comply with the mandatory solar requirements outlined in Title 24. In addition, 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. • 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 energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy management, cleaning products that are water-based or containing low quantities of volatile organic compounds, electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters, on-site meal options such as food trucks, and existing energy incentive programs to future tenants of the Project.

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-19
Table 4.1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure or Project Design Feature
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible
for
Monitoring Initials Date
• 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 cleaner-than-required engines and equipment, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program. - 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.
▪ 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 threeminute 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). ▪ 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:

4 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FINAL EIR FOR INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APPLE VALLEY 14802 APRIL 2025 4-20
Table 4.1. 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. - 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, and biking. Examples of trip reduction measures may include, but are not limited to transit passes, carsharing programs, and ride sharing programs.

MM-GHG-2. To reduce water demands and associated energy use, subsequent development proposals within the Project site would be required to implement a Water Conservation Strategy and demonstrate a minimum 20% reduction in indoor and outdoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand without implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy). The Town shall approve the Water Conservation Strategy prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project.

Included in the Water Conservation Strategy, the Project Applicant shall provide building plans that include the following water conservation measures:
▪ Install low-water use appliances and fixtures
▪ Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces
▪ Implement water-sensitive urban design practices in new construction ▪ Install rainwater collection systems where feasible
▪ Consider the use of artificial turf where feasible
▪ The Project’s landscape plan shall emphasize drought-tolerant plants and use waterefficient irrigation techniques. ▪ All fixtures installed in restrooms and employee break areas shall be U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense certified or equivalent.

Prior to the
issuance of first
occupancy permit
Town of
Apple Valley

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 - 08

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN

OF APPLE VALLEY APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. GPA 2023-002 TO MODIFY THE

GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT STREET
SYSTEM EXHIBIT IN THE AREA OF ASSESSOR’S
PARCEL NUMBER APN 0472-031-08, EAST OF
INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF FALCHION ROAD AND

SOUTH OF NORCO STREET IN THE TOWN OF APPLE
VALLEY.

WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Synergy Consulting on behalf of FGFW IV, LLC, on August 10, 2022 to construct the Inland Empire North Logistics Center eCommerce warehouse development (the Project) on approximately 178 acres of land bounded by Interstate 15 on the west, Falchion Road on the south and Norco Street on the north, within the northwest part of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Project requests a General Plan Amendment to amend the Circulation Element’s “General Plan Exhibit II-6, Town of Apple Valley Street System”; and,
WHEREAS, the requested amendments include re-alignment of Apple Valley Road eastward to the east boundary of Assessor Parcel Number 0472-031-08, to vacate an approximately 1000-foot-long dedicated section of Apple Valley Road right-of-way that currently projects into the Project site and to re-classify Norco Street from a “Major Road” to a “Collector”; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time members of the public were given opportunity to speak on the project and EIR, and such public comment and testimony were accepted; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing of March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-003 recommending by a vote of 4-0-1 (4 in favor, none opposed, one absence) that the Town Council certify the EIR on the basis of its compliance with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.

Resources Code, §21000 et seq.; 14 CCR §15000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, following the public hearing of March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 2025-004 recommending that the Town Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2023-002, and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing of March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 2025-005 recommending that the Town Council conditionally approve Project entitlements including Tentative Parcel Map No. 20625 and Development Permit No. 2022-014; and

RESOLUTION 2025-08
WHEREAS, Development Code Sections 9.11.020.B and C and Table 9.11.020- A, state the appropriate review authorities for projects seeking multiple permit approvals, some of which may require Planning Commission approval and others of which may only be approved by the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Development Code Section 9.02.050.H, the Town Council is the decision-making authority for General Plan Amendments, and is required to hold at least one public hearing on proposed amendments following public notice and may approve, modify, or deny such amendments based on Planning Commission recommendation and the required Findings, provided that any modification not previously considered by the Commission shall be referred back to the Commission for a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, a notice of Town Council 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 April 22, 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, Findings are made pursuant to the Development Code, as stated below, in support of adoption of a resolution by the Town Council approving General Plan Amendment No. 2023-002 in connection with the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and
WHEREAS, all materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located with the Town of Apple Valley, located at 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, California.

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. The Town prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2023090366) that analyzed the project’s environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA”), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.), and the Town’s Local CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR was made available for public review for 45 days between September 30, 2024 and November 13, 2024. The document was made available online at the Town of Apple Valley website and copies were available for review at the Apple Valley Town Hall, Development Services Building and San Bernardino County Library. In response to comments received on the DEIR, the Town prepared a Final EIR, published on March 7, 2025. The FEIR is incorporated herein by reference. Town Resolution No. 2025-07 certifies the FEIR, and

RESOLUTION 2025-08
adopts Findings of Fact, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Section 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment is in general conformity with the General Plan in that it is consistent with the Regional Commercial General Plan land use designation, the “C-R” zoning district, and the eCommerce Overlay, and will facilitate improved area circulation, vehicular and pedestrian safety, and development of the Project site for two eCommerce facilities and associated improvements.

Section 4. After considering all evidence presented at the public hearing held on April 22, 2025, both oral and documentary, and after being fully informed, the Town of Apple Valley Town Council does hereby adopt and approve the requested General Plan Amendment Findings included as Exhibit A of this Resolution and does approve and adopt Amendments to the General Plan Circulation Element “General Plan Exhibit II-6, Town of Apple Valley Street System”, included as Exhibits B.1 and B.2 of this Resolution.

Section 5. 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 6. 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 7. 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 on this 22nd day of April, 2025.
______________________________
Scott Nassif, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
La Vonda M-Pearson, Town Clerk

RESOLUTION 2025-08
EXHIBIT A:

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS
Development Code Section 9.02.050.H.3 requires the following findings be made prior to approval of a General Plan Amendment:

The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and standards of all elements of the General Plan and will further those goals, policies and standards;
FACTS: The proposed General Plan Amendment would re-align Apple Valley Road to the east perimeter of the site, would vacate a section of Apple Valley Road right-of-way that Projects up through the middle of the site, and would re-classify Norco Street from a “Major Roadway” to a “Collector”. These actions are anticipated to significantly improve future vehicle circulation and flow and enhance capacity and safety in the Project area and the wider region. The Project GPA actions align with and are reflected in the Town’s General Plan Circulation Element Update, which is currently in process. The Circulation Element Update has not yet been adopted by the Town, thus requiring the Project to request a General Plan Amendment, since the current Circulation Element does not reflect these changes. Adoption of the Circulation Element Update is anticipated in mid2025 and reflects the proposed Project, as mentioned. The proposed amendments do not impact any other sections or chapters of the Town General Plan.

The General Plan as amended will comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the Town;
FACTS: The Project’s requested General Plan Amendment does not propose changes to any General Plan language and only proposes official Map changes with the re-alignment of Apple Valley Road and re-classification of Norco Street to a “Collector” designation.

The Town has deemed these changes as warranted, given current and anticipated future traffic volumes and circulation patterns. No policy language is proposed to be changed.

The General Plan Amendment furthers the public interest and promotes the general welfare of the Town by providing for a logical pattern of land uses and clarifying various land use policies for the Town.

FACTS: The proposed amendments are encouraged by the Town, envisioned by the Town’s ongoing General Plan Circulation Element Update process, and have been determined to significantly improve the future vehicle circulation and flow, capacity and safety in the immediate area as well as the greater area by the Town Engineer and the Town’s consulting engineer. No land use policies or language are proposed to be changed.

RESOLUTION 2025-08
EXHIBIT B.1:

Amendments to “General Plan Exhibit II-6, Town of Apple Valley Street System” of the General Plan Circulation Element

RESOLUTION 2025-08
EXHIBIT B.2
Proposed vacation of existing dedicated Apple Valley Road ROW area within APN 0472-031-08 (also reflected on proposed Tentative Parcel Map)

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 - 09

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN

OF APPLE VALLEY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 20625 AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2022-
014 TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY
LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF

FALCHION ROAD AND SOUTH OF NORCO STREET IN
THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, CA (APN 0472-031-08).

WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Synergy Consulting on behalf of FGFW IV, LLC, on August 10, 2022 to construct the Inland Empire North Logistics Center eCommerce warehouse development (the “Project”) on approximately 178 acres of land bounded by Interstate 15 on the west, Falchion Road on the south and Norco Street on the north in the northwest part of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Project includes a General Plan Amendment to re-align Apple Valley Road eastward, to vacate a section of Apple Valley Road right-of-way on the Project site, and to re-classify Norco Street from a “Major Road” to a “Collector”; and WHEREAS, the Project includes a Tentative Parcel Map, pursuant to Chapter

9.71, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town Municipal Code, to subdivide the parcel into two parcels accommodating two warehouse buildings totaling approximately 2.6 million square feet, and associated on and off-site improvements; and WHEREAS, the Town Development Code requires approval of a Development Permit for the proposed Project pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 9.17.020.B; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Sections 9.11.020.B and C and Table 9.11.020-A, state appropriate review authorities for projects seeking multiple permit approvals, some of which may require Planning Commission approval and others of which may only be approved by action of the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-003 recommending that the Town Council certify the EIR on the basis of its compliance with all requirements of the Public Resources Code and the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted Resolution No. 2025-004 recommending the Town Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2023-002, and adopted Resolution No. 2025-005 recommending the Town Council approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 20625 and Development Permit No. 2022-014; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.02.050.H, the Town Council is the decision-making authority for General Plan Amendments, and is required to hold at least one public hearing on proposed amendments following public notice and may approve, modify, or deny such amendments based on Planning Commission recommendation and the required Findings, provided that any modification not previously considered by the Commission shall be referred back to the Commission for a recommendation; and

RESOLUTION 2025-09
WHEREAS, a notice of Town Council public hearing was duly published and posted in the manner and for the time prescribed by law, and was also direct mailed to all property owners within a 700-foot radius of the Project site boundaries; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, commencing at 6:30 P.M. in the Town of Apple Valley Council Chambers, the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley conducted a public hearing at which time all persons wishing to testify regarding the Project were heard; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.02.050.H, Town Council approval of a General Plan Amendment shall be by resolution and the proposed Amendment shall become effective upon passage of the resolution ordering such amendment; and
WHEREAS, Findings are made pursuant to the Development Code, as stated below, in support of Town Council adoption of a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 20625 and Development Permit No. 2022-014 for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and
WHEREAS, all materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based shall be located with the Town of Apple Valley located at 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, California.

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. The Town prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2023090366) that analyzed the project’s environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA”), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.), and the Town’s Local CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR was made available for public review for 45 days between September 30, 2024 and November 13, 2024. The document was made available online at the Town of Apple Valley website and copies were available for review at the Apple Valley Town Hall, Development Services Building and San Bernardino County Library. In response to comments received on the DEIR, the Town prepared a Final EIR, published on March 7, 2025. The FEIR is incorporated herein by reference. Town Resolution No. 2025-07 certifies the FEIR, and adopts Findings of Fact, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Section 3. The Tentative Parcel Map and Development Permit are in general conformity with the General Plan in that they are consistent with the Regional Commercial General Plan land use designation and the C-R zoning district “eCommerce Overlay” and will allow for development of an eCommerce facility and associated improvements.

Section 4. After considering all evidence presented at the public hearing held on

RESOLUTION 2025-09
April 22, 2025, both oral and documentary, and after being fully informed, the Town of Apple Valley Town Council does hereby approve the requested Tentative Parcel Map and Development Permit approval by the Findings included as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

Section 5. The Town Council does hereby approve the Project’s Conditions of Approval, included as Exhibit B to this Resolution.

Section 6. 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 7. 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 8. 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 on this 22nd day of April, 2025.
______________________________
Scott Nassif, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
La Vonda M-Pearson, Town Clerk

RESOLUTION 2025-09
EXHIBIT A:

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS
Tentative Parcel Map
Development Code Section 9.71.040(A)(5) requires the following Findings be made in order to approve a Tentative Parcel Map:

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).

FACTS: The applicant proposes subdividing the Project’s single parcel into two parcels to facilitate development of two eCommerce facilities. The created lots would meet all development standards and requirements as prescribed in the Development Code and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. By its size, shape and configuration, the site is suitable for subdivision and the proposed development could be carried out in a manner consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and with the “C-R” Regional Commercial zoning designation and “eCommerce overlay” zone. Conditions of Approval have been added to ensure that the Project meets the intent of the General Plan, Zoning, Town Subdivision Code and the State Subdivision Map Act.

The Planning Commission 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).

FACTS: The Project consists of subdividing one parcel into two for the purpose of eCommerce-related development in an area planned for such activities in the General Plan and Zoning Code. It would therefore not adversely impact housing needs or future housing development within the Town as it does not affect residentially designated lands.

The Project would support and create economic opportunities in the form of property taxes and job creation. The Project will also provide for installation of utilities and construction of area streets. The proposed uses and density are permitted under the General Plan Regional Commercial land use designation as well as under the C-R zoning and eCommerce overlay. Further, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density and would allow the property to be developed in a manner consistent with the General Plan’s Goal and Objective of promoting well-designed industrial development.

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

FACTS: The two parcels that would be created by this subdivision would be sufficiently sized at about 95 and 76 acres to provide for both natural heating and cooling on site.

RESOLUTION 2025-09
The Project design includes robust landscaped and open space areas with a relatively dense future tree canopy that would provide for natural heating and cooling. Further, as the site is developed, construction will be subject to implementation of natural heating and cooling requirements per the energy requirements of Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code.

The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission finds that the proposed waste discharge would result in, or add to, a violation of said requirements, the Planning Commission may disapprove the subdivision (Subdivision Map Act Section 66474.6).

FACTS: A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan was prepared for the Project in August 2023, and a final WQMP will be required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Based on the WQMP, detailed preliminary sanitary sewer utility plans have been prepared. The sewer design would not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitats, cause serious public health problems, nor result in violations of the California Water Code.

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.

FACTS: The proposed subdivision does not contain any lands of 15 percent or greater slopes, and thus, no further Findings are required.

Development Permit
Code Section 9.17.080.A requires the following Findings be made before approval of a Development Permit:

That the location, size, design, density and intensity of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, the purpose of this Code, the purpose of the zoning district in which the site is located, and the development policies and standards of the Town;
FACTS: As proposed, the Project complies with all applicable design and development standards as identified in the Regional Commercial (C-R) zoning district, and is permitted under the “eCommerce overlay”, which allows for new eCommerce warehouse developments, with approval of a Development Permit. The Project site is not adjacent to sensitive land uses. The site is approximately 178 acres and can accommodate the two proposed large warehouse buildings and all associated required improvements as required per the Development Code including fire lanes and hydrants, stormwater retention to accommodate a 100-year storm event and filtering, parking, landscaping, setbacks, street improvements and all on- and off-site utilities. The Project is consistent

RESOLUTION 2025-09
with the goals and policies of the General Plan regarding intensity, density and uses. The Project deviates from the currently adopted General Plan Circulation Element with the three features noted in the above discussions. A General Plan Amendment has been requested to modify the currently adopted General Plan Circulation Element Map with the three noted features from the above discussion, as the current Circulation Element does not reflect the three noted features. The GPA will align the Project with the circulation and classifications identified in the Circulation Element Update Plan.

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 and does not unnecessarily block public views from other buildings or from public ways, or visually dominate its surroundings;
FACTS: The Project site is located directly adjacent to and abutting Interstate 15 to its west and by ongoing quarry mining activities to the east and otherwise the area is largely undeveloped and vacant. The subject area is planned for commercial and industrial development. and would integrate into the existing surrounding environment. The proposed buildings will not exceed the height limitations for the zoning district, as the buildings would be about 53 feet in height, where the maximum height allowed is 100 feet. The buildings would not result in negative impacts to any natural landforms, rock outcroppings or scenic views. The proposed Project’s buildings are situated well within the required setbacks and neither building would exceed the maximum Floor Area Ratio.

The Project would be expected to blend in well with the surrounding environment and development.

That the materials, textures and details of the proposed construction, to the extent feasible, are compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures and that quality in architectural design is maintained to enhance the visual environment of the Town; FACTS: As mentioned, the Project site is located directly adjacent to and abutting Interstate 15 to its west and by ongoing active quarry mining to the east and is bordered to the north and south by vacant, undeveloped parcels. The Project would integrate well into the existing surrounding environment. The proposed architectural designs, materials, paint palette and other details would complement the surrounding environment as well as future nearby development. Robust landscaping materials are proposed along all four public rights-of-way. For these reasons, eCommerce warehouse development on the site would not result in significant negative impacts on the visual character or quality of the area.

That the amount, location, and design of open space and landscaping conforms to the requirements of the Code, enhances the visual appeal and is compatible with the design and function of the structure(s), site and surrounding area; FACTS: The Project exceeds the minimum landscaping requirements and is therefore expected to comply with this Finding.

RESOLUTION 2025-09
That excessive and unsightly grading of hillsides does not occur, and the character of natural landforms such as knolls and the Mojave River and that existing vegetation and Joshua Trees are adequately protected and preserved where feasible as required by the Code.

FACTS: The Project site is relatively flat and would not require grading of hillsides. The Project site does not contain any notable natural landforms, rock outcroppings, tributaries of the Mojave River or any other critical or significant viewsheds. The site contains 144 existing Western Joshua Trees in various states of health, as mapped during a comprehensive Joshua Tree survey completed in 2022. The trees’ characteristics are thoroughly documented in the Project’s “Biological/Regulatory Resource Evaluation”, dated 9/20/22. Construction of the Project would result in the removal of all Joshua Trees from the site. The Project therefore requires issuance of an “Incidental Take Permit” from the California Department of Fish & Wildlife as well as extensive compensatory mitigation in the amount of $55,900 in mitigation fees. In addition, a mitigation measure noted in the EIR requires submittal of an application for removal of the trees along with a detailed site plan prepared by a qualified Joshua Tree specialist, indicating which trees are to be removed and which trees are planned for transplanting to new locations to be protected and preserved where feasible, in accordance with the Code. The mitigation measures are called out in the Project EIR mitigation measures, which themselves are in turn required by reference, as a Project Condition of Approval.

Exhibit B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: GPA 2023-002, TPM 20625, DP 2022-014 Note: Many of the Conditions of Approval presented herewith are provided for informational purposes and are otherwise required by the Municipal Code. Failure to provide a Condition of Approval herein that reflects a requirement of the Municipal Code does not relieve the applicant and/or property owner from full conformance and adherence to all requirements of the Municipal Code.

PLANNING DIVISION
General
P1. Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2023-002, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20625 and Development Permit 2022-014 by the Town of Apple Valley Town Council is understood as acknowledgement of the Conditions of Approval by the applicant, unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Section 9.12.250, Appeals, of the Town of Apple Valley Development Code.

P2. The Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map approvals shall become effective ten (10) working days after the date of the decision unless an appeal is filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.12.250, Appeals, of the Town of Apple Valley Development Code.

P3. The project shall comply with the provisions of State law and 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, pursuant to Development Code Section 9.12.210, 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 Development Permit expiration date, should the project proponent wish to seek extension, pursuant to Development Code Section 9.12.220.

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 Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map 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 (Dev. Code Section 9.71.160).

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 (Dev. Code Section 9.12.230).

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.

Landscaping and Irrigation
P8. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit pursuant to Development Code Chapter 9.75, “Water Conservation/Landscape Regulations”.

P9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits subject to approval by the Planning Division.

P10. Drought-tolerant xeriscape “waterwise” landscaping techniques are encouraged for use in parkway areas, typically to consist of drought-tolerant, native type plants, trees and groundcover (Dev. Code Section 9.47.050.A.7).

P11. All required and installed landscaping shall incorporate and maintain a functioning automatic sprinkler system (Dev. Code Chapter 9.75).

P12. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, orderly, disease and weed-free manner at all times (Dev. Code Chapter 9.75).

P13. 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 needed access driveways and walkways, shall be fully landscaped and maintained in a disease and weed-free manner at all times.

P14. Project site detention basins shall be landscaped with native vegetation, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division.

P15. 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 (Dev. Code Section 9.75.060.A.2.b).

P16. Decorative masonry walls, hedges and/or landscape berms, thirty-six to forty-two (36-42) inches high, measured from finished grade of the parking area, shall be used adjacent to public rights-of-way to screen parking fields. Heights of screening walls, hedges and/or berms may be reduced where the parking field is 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 (Dev. Code Section 9.75.060.A.2.c).

P17. The project proponent shall annex into a Landscape Assessment Management District to provide ongoing maintenance of common retention/detention basins (Dev.

Code Section 9.47.030.B.12).

Screening, Fencing and Walls
P18. 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.

P19. 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, pursuant to Code Section 9.37.060.

P20. 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.

P21. All proposed fencing adjacent to streets shall be constructed of decorative materials such as wrought iron or materials of equal quality and incorporating appropriate decorative enhancements, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.

P22. No roof-mounted equipment shall be placed on the building unless screened as an integral part of the architecture and as specifically approved by the Planning Division (except for solar collection panels).

P23. 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 (Dev. Code Section 9.47.060.A).

Signage
P24. All identification signs shall be reviewed by the Town as part of a separate sign program and permit and are subject to final approval by the Planning Division (Dev.

Code Section 9.74.100).

Parking
P25. All parking requirements shall be met and the project’s parking shall comply with the standards identified in Development Code Chapter 9.72.

P26. All parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with double or hairpin lines (Code Sec. 9.72.060.B.4).

P27. Required parking spaces shall be provided for handicapped persons in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and all applicable Town Development Code standards, including Code Section 9.72.060. Handicappedaccessible 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 and Recycling Enclosures
P28. Trash/recycling enclosures shall be designed and installed consistent with Development Code Sections 9.35.090, 9.46.080 and all other Town Standards.

P29. Trash/recycling enclosures shall reflect the architectural design (trellis canopy or