Apple Valley City Council
April 22, 2025

other similar feature) of the approved project, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division, and shall comply with Development Code Sections 9.35.090 and

9.46.080.

Construction-related
P30. Construction activities shall not impede traffic flow or required accessible paths of travel.

P31. The site shall be maintained clean, sanitary, and free of litter and any other undesirable debris or materials and shall be cleaned of loose debris on a daily basis.

P32. Prior to approval of a building permit for the project, the following agencies shall provide written verification to the Planning Division that all conditions of approval and applicable regulations have been met:
• Apple Valley Fire Protection District
• Apple Valley Public Works Division
• Apple Valley Building and Safety Division
• Apple Valley Engineering Division
• Liberty Utilities
• Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
Site Lighting and Photometrics
P33. Light standard models shall be selected and painted to blend architecturally with buildings, pedestrian areas and other hardscape elements.

P34. Lighting fixtures shall be located in such a manner that no light or reflected glare is directed off-site and shall provide that no light is directed above a horizontal plane passing through the bottom of the fixture.

P35. Parking lot lighting shall conform to all requirements of the Town Development Code and Uniform Building Code.

Architectural
P36. Building renderings as approved shall be the anticipated and expected appearance of all structures upon completion.

P37. The Community Development Director or their designee shall have the authority to approve minor architectural changes on items such as window treatments, color combinations, facade treatments and architectural relief. Questions on the interpretation of this provision, or changes not clearly within the scope of this provision, shall be submitted to the Director for consideration under a Development Permit Revision (Dev. Code Section 9.12.230.D).

Grading, Drainage and Utilities
P38. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval.

P39. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.

Lot Line Changes
P40. All lot line changes shall be processed and recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit per Gov’t Code Sections 66410-66499.

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

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

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

ER4. The project shall be constructed utilizing only “Tier 4” construction equipment, to be verified by Town Staff during periodic field inspection.

Fee payment
F1. The Project’s Traffic Impact Assessment Pro-Rata “Fair Share” fees are included in the project’s environmental mitigation measures. These fees shall be paid by the project proponent prior to issuance final inspection approval or certificate of occupancy.

F2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay “Level 1” statutory school development impact fees, pursuant to and as required by California Government Code Section 65995. The amount of the fees to be paid shall be those in effect at the time that the project is prepared to pull a grading permit.

F3. All required fees shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

CEQA Mitigation Measures
CEQA1. All mitigation measures identified in “_Environmental Impact Report Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley State Clearinghouse No. 2023090366”, including its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are hereby adopted by reference and shall be implemented as Conditions of Approval and made a part of this project to the satisfaction of Town Staff.

ENGINEERING DIVISION
EC1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage plan with street layouts shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer showing provisions for receiving and conducting offsite and onsite tributary drainage flows around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties. This plan shall consider retaining onsite drainage flows from a 100- year design storm.

EC2. Street improvement plans shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval.

EC3. All streets abutting the development shall be improved a minimum half-width of 28 feet with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the development side.

EC4. Falchion Road adjacent to the property shall be improved to the Town's half-width Major Road standards.

EC5. Apple Valley Road adjacent to the property shall be improved to the Town's halfwidth Major Divided Arterial standards.

EC6. Norco Street adjacent to the property shall be improved to the Town’s half-width Industrial/Collector Road Standards
EC7. Outer I-15 adjacent to the property shall be improved to the Town’s half-width Commercial/Industrial Road standards.

EC8. A 52-foot-wide half-width road dedication along Falchion Road adjacent to the property shall be granted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to issuance of Grading Permit.

EC9. A 128-foot full-width road dedication along Apple Valley Road adjacent to the property shall be granted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to issuance of Grading Permit.

EC10. A 33-foot (plus 6-foot) wide half-width road dedication adjacent to the property for Norco Street shall be granted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to issuance of Grading Permit.

EC11. A 60-foot wide full-width road dedication adjacent to the property for Outer I-15 shall be granted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to issuance of Grading Permit.

EC12. The existing right-of-way easement for the original Apple Valley Road alignment, encroaching into the project, shall be vacated prior to grading permit issuance.

EC13. During the grading of the roads, soils testing of the road subgrades by a qualified soils engineering firm shall be performed to determine appropriate structural road

section. Minimum asphalt concrete thickness for all streets shall be 0.33 foot.

EC14. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Town prior to performing any work in any public right of way.

EC15. Final improvement plans and profiles shall indicate the location of any existing utility which would affect construction and shall provide for its relocation at no cost to the Town.

EC16. A final grading plan shall be submitted to the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit for review and approval. A grading permit shall not be issued until street improvement plans have been submitted to the Town Engineer for review and substantial completion of the street plans has been attained as determined by the Town Engineer.

EC17. Utility lines shall be placed underground in accordance with the requirements of the Town.

EC18. Traffic impact fees adopted by the Town (Ordinance No. 42) shall be paid by the developer.

EC19. Any developer fees including but not limited to drainage fees shall be paid by the developer as per Town enactment.

EC20. Any required street striping shall be thermoplastic as approved by the Town Engineer.

EC21. Retention/detention basins greater than 1 acre in size shall not be greater than 8 feet in depth (unless otherwise approved by the Town Council). The sides of any retention/detention basins shall be 4:1 or flatter slopes.

EC22. The retention basin/drainage channel shall also include Town Standard two-stage dry wells or other approved system to help facilitate the rapid removal of storm water.

EC23. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shall be required.

EC24. All additional traffic mitigation measures included on Tables 8-1 and 8-2, listed in Section 8.3 in the “FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS- INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER APN: 0472-231-08,” dated April 2, 2024, prepared by David Evans and Associates, shall be required prior to final occupancy.

EC25. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests. If the developer fails to acquire those interests the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the grading permit for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the Town acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by Town to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the Town prior to commencement of the appraisal. Additional security may be required as recommended by the Town Engineer and Town Attorney.

EC26. The applicant/developer prior to completion of the required improvements, an "Agreement for Construction of Improvements" shall be required. In accordance

with the California Labor Code, any such Agreement will contain a statement advising the developer that certain types of improvements will constitute a public project as defined in California Labor Code, Sections 1720, and following, and shall be performed as a public work, including, without limitation, compliance with all prevailing wage requirements.

EC27. Applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals from Caltrans and the County of San Bernardino for plans, permits, right of way requirements and street vacations prior to grading permit issuance.

EC28. The realignment of the quarry haul route and all associated property rights and interests shall be approved by all affected property owners prior to grading permit issuance as approved by the Town Engineer.

EC29. The quarry haul route shall be constructed to appropriate standards as approved by the Town Engineer prior to building permit issuance.

PUBLIC WORKS
PW1. Sewage disposal shall be by extension off the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA) interceptor on east side (Victorville) of I-15 freeway.

PW2. Submit plans to Town of Apple Valley Public Works Department for review. Plans must be approved by VVWRA and the Town of Apple Valley Public Works Department.

PW3. Sewer connection fees are required.

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

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

BC3. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be submitted to and approved by the Engineering and Building Departments prior to issuance of a grading permit and/or any land disturbance.

BC4. All utilities shall be placed underground in compliance with Town Ordinance No.

89. BC5. All cross lot drainage requires easements and may require improvements at the time of development.

BC6. Comply with State of California Disability Access requirements.

BC7. A pre-grading meeting is required prior to beginning any land disturbance. This meeting will include the Building Inspector, General Contractor, Grading Contractor, soils technician and any other parties required to be present during the grading process such as Biologist, Paleontologist.

BC8. Dust palliative or hydro seed will be required on those portions of the site graded but not constructed (phased construction).

BC9. Page two of the submitted building plans will be the conditions of approval.

BC10. Construction must comply with 2022 California Building Codes.

BC11. Best Managements Practices (BMP’s) are required for the site during construction.

BC12. Provide Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) or Alternative Compliance Plan.

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

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

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

FP3. All combustible vegetation, such as dead shrubbery and dry grasses, shall be removed from each building site a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet from any combustible building material, including the finished structure. This does not apply to single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery, or similar plants, which are used as ground cover if they do not form a means of transmitting fire. (California Public Resources Code, Sec. 4291)
FP4. Prior to combustible construction, the development, and each phase thereof, shall have two points of paved access for fire and other emergency equipment, and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations. Each of these points of access shall provide an independent route into the area in which the development is located.

FP5. Fire lanes shall be provided with a minimum width of thirty-six (36) feet, maintained, and identified. Thirty-six (36) feet access will start at both points of ingress and continue through the site.

FP6. A turnaround shall be required at the end of each roadway one hundred fifty (150) feet or more in length and shall be approved by the Fire District. Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) feet.

FP7. Turning radius on all roads within the facility shall not be less than 22 feet inside and minimum of 40 feet outside turning radius with no parking on street, or 47 feet with parking. Road grades shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) unless approved by the Chief (Apple Valley Fire Protection District Ordinance 59).

FP8. Plans for fire protection systems designed to meet the fire flow requirements specified in the Conditions of Approval for this project shall be submitted to and approved by the Apple Valley Fire Protection District and water purveyor prior to the installation of said systems. Unless otherwise approved by the Fire Chief, onsite fire protection water systems shall be designed to be looped and fed from two (2) remote points.

System Standards:

Fire Flow 4,000 GPM @ 20 psi Residual pressure
Duration 4 hours
Hydrant Spacing 330 feet

If blank, flow to be determined by calculation when additional construction information is received. Install per AVFPD Standard Series #101 FP9. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background.

FP10. Commercial and industrial developments shall have street addresses and location approved by the Fire District. Where the building setback exceeds 200 feet from the roadway, additional non-illuminated contrasting (18) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entrance. When these developments have rear doors of each unit, the unit number shall be a minimum of 6 inches and shall contrast with their background (Apple Valley Fire Protection District, Ordinance 59).

FP11. A letter shall be furnished to the Fire District from the water purveyor stating that the required fire flow for the project can be met prior to the Formal Development Review Committee meeting.

FP12. Prior to issuance of building permit, the developer shall pay all applicable fees as identified in the Apple Valley Fire Protection District Ordinance.

MOJAVE DESERT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
MD1. Prepare and submit to MDAQMD prior to commencing earth-moving activity, a dust control plan that describes all applicable dust control measures that will be implemented at the project.

MD2. Signage compliant with Rule 403 Attachment B shall be erected at each Site entrance not later than the commencement of construction.

MD3. Use a water truck to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and actively spread water during visible dusting episodes to minimize visible fugitive dust emissions. For projects with exposed sand or fines deposits (and for projects that expose such soils through earthmoving), chemical stabilization or covering with a stabilizing layer of gravel will be required to eliminate visible dust/sand from sand/fines deposits.

MD4. All perimeter fencing shall be wind fencing or the equivalent, to a minimum of four feet of height or the top of all perimeter fencing. The owner/operator shall maintain the wind fencing as needed to keep it intact and remove windblown dropout. This wind fencing requirement may be superseded by local ordinance, rule or projectspecific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.

MD5. All maintenance and access vehicular roads and parking areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel or asphaltic pavement sufficient to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. Take actions to prevent project-related

trackout onto paved surfaces and clean any project-related trackout within 24 hours. All other earthen surfaces within the project area shall be stabilized by natural or irrigated vegetation, compaction, chemical or other means sufficient to prohibit visible fugitive dust from wind erosion.

MD6. Obtain District permits for any miscellaneous process equipment that may not be exempt under District Rule 219 including but not limited to: Internal Combustion Engines with a manufacture's maximum continuous rating greater than 50 brake horsepower.

MD7. Comply with all applicable provisions listed in Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust Control.

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

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

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

LIBERTY UTILITIES
LU1. Offsite water mains do not exist on Falchion Road fronting this development.

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

LU3. Water main extension contract between the developer and Liberty Apple Valley is required and must comply with Rule 15 of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Subject to the terms of the contract, the cost of facilities installed as advances will be reimbursed to the developer at 2.5 percent per year for 40 years with no interest. Extend 16” diameter pipeline approximately 2.1 miles along Falchion Road and to the south on Apple Valley Road connecting to existing main near Ohna Road.

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

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

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

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

LU8. Water facilities need to be installed in dedicated public Rights-of-Ways and/or public utility easements and need to be identified and shown on the water

improvement plans. These dedications and/or easements are needed to install, maintain, repair, connect, operate and inspect the proposed water facilities with unobstructed vehicular access.

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

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

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

LU12. Conditions of Approval shall be tied to the recording of the project’s Final Map.

Per the State Subdivision Map Act, the Town shall not issue a grading permit, including rough grading, until recordation of the Final Map. Alignments for new water lines shall also be established prior to recordation of Final Map.

LU13. Be advised that the property is located outside the service area of Liberty Utilities.

Upon application and approval by the CPUC of the addition of the above property to the Liberty service area, Liberty will render service to the property.

END OF CONDITIONS

1 Memorandum
To: Herb Krumsick, FGFW IV, LLC
Care of: Samuel Alhadeff, Lewis Brisbois
From: Peter Piller, Managing Principal
Jared Rodio, Manager
Date: March 2025
Re: Inland Empire North Logistics Center - Fiscal Revenue Analysis The Inland Empire North Logistics Center Project (the “Project”) is proposed for two industrial buildings comprising 1,507,326 square feet and 1,097,120 square feet for a total building square footage of 2,604,446.

At the request of FGFW IV, LLC, DPFG has prepared a fiscal revenue analysis to estimate the major fiscal tax revenue that the Project is expected to generate when at full build-out and under stabilized operating conditions for the Town of Apple Valley (“Town”).

Our Fiscal Revenue Analysis of the Project estimates that it will generate approximately $5,547,470 annually in property tax revenue (of which the Town will receive approximately $523,611 annually), approximately $605,704 annually in Property Taxes In lieu of 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 is also expected to generate approximately 1,736 full time equivalent jobs which will result in approximately 1,857 seasonal jobs.

In addition to the fiscal revenue analysis, we estimate that the Project will pay one-time Development Impact Fees to the Town in the amount of approximately $2,863,380. The Project will also be responsible for a fair share payment of approximately $2,232,158.

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

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

The three components of economic impact are further described below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Construction Period” commences upon initial site development and ends upon completion of all industrial structures. The Construction Period is expected to be approximately 2 years. Direct inputs were comprised of approximately $198,000,000 which includes the Hard and Soft costs for the development of the Project exclusive of the land price. Construction of the Project will contribute to the creation of new direct, indirect, and induced jobs County-wide. Direct jobs created during the Construction Period consist of the employees constructing the Project, whereas the indirect and induced jobs created during this phase relate to (i) the other industries that need to produce additional goods and services to meet the demand from contractors/businesses directly involved in the construction of the Project and (ii) discretionary spending of the construction employees.

Labor income during the construction period includes employment compensation and benefits paid to workers. The direct effect on labor income during the Construction Period is comprised of labor income paid to construction employees on site. The indirect effect on labor income includes the income of those employees of businesses providing goods and services to the contractors/businesses working directly on the site. The induced effect on labor income is comprised of the income of employees working at businesses that experience growth from the discretionary spending of the direct and indirect employees. Overall, the Project is estimated to generate an average of approximately $61,576,000 annually in labor income over the Construction Period for a total cumulative labor income of approximately $123,151,000.

3 Ongoing annual direct effects represent the anticipated economic effects of the Project once the site is stabilized. Ongoing annual direct effects on employment relate to the employees working at the Project, whereas the indirect and induced jobs created during this phase relate to the other industries that produce goods and services that support the new businesses of the Project and local spending by the new employees and residents of the Project. The project is anticipated to create approximately 1,736 full-time equivalent employees. Full-time equivalent employees for the Project were based on occupancy and the square feet per employee estimates according to the anticipated tenant type. Because IMPLAN’s definition of employment includes “all jobs” (i.e., full-time, part-time, and seasonal), IMPLAN industry sector conversion factor of 1.162 for warehousing and storage in the County of San Bernardino. This resulted in a total direct employee (i.e., total “headcount” jobs) of approximately 1,857 employees.

The direct effect on labor income during the Permanent Ongoing Period includes the labor income paid to on-site employees of the Project. The indirect and induced effects on labor income consist of the income of those employees associated with businesses that service the Project, as well as the income of the new employees generated by the increased demand for goods and services from the Project. Overall, the Project is estimated to generate approximately $156,388,000 annually in labor income.

Although not analyzed in this report, the Project could potentially generate on-site sales tax if used as a fulfillment center. This would result in a significant increase in the revenues to the Town. The Project is also likely to stimulate growth around the site. This is due to the Projects location to the freeway and the required infrastructure to service the site. It is likely that additional development focused on serving the personnel onsite as well as commuters along the freeway will be developed. This could include truck stops, restaurants, and gas stations which will be able to use the new infrastructure and rely on the increase in traffic from the site. This anticipated adjacent development will add to the Town’s income stream due to the growth in the infrastructure and market share.

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

Appendix:

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

4 Appendix A:

Site Plan

263'-0" 580'-0" 190'-0" 116'-0" 190'-0" 660'-0" 190'-0" 229'-0" 130'-0" 393'-6" 1842'-0" 498'-6" 2233'-0" 424'-1" 766'-1" 69'-3"
40'-0"
40'-0" 40'-0"
40'-0" 40'-0"
40'-0"
40'-0"
56'-0" 40'-0"

DRIVEWAY
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY
27'-0" 36'-0" 40'-0"
40'-0" BUILDING 2 1,097,120 SF BUILDING 1 1,507,326 SF

MATCH LINE MATCH LINE
SEE 1/2-DRC-A1.02 SEE 1/1-DRC-A1.02 SEE 1/1-DRC-A1.02 SEE 1/1-DRC-A1.01 MATCH LINE SEE 1/2-DRC-A1.02 SEE 1/2-DRC-A1.01
SEE 1/2-DRC-A1.01 MATCH LINESEE 1/1-DRC-A1.01

DRIVEWAY
27'-0"
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY
40'-0"
40'-0" 40'-0"
40'-0" 36'-0"

DRIVEWAY
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY
40'-3" ARCHITECTURAL MASTER SITE PLAN 1" = 120'-0" DRC-A1.00 SCALE MASTER SITE PLAN 1 CHECKED SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER JOB No. DRAWN 22-132 No. ISSUANCE DATE REN. 12-31-23 NO. C-33677 I
HO
L
RC
ST
O
TE
A
F
C
A
LI E
ED
SN
E
ST
C
VE
K . A
IA
FORN
IT
H
TC
NG

E STEVE HONG CONSULTANTS
Plot Date: 4/24/2023 9:16:01 AM Last Save By: steve Login: Steve Hong L:\Projects\JLL\22-132 JLL, Victorville And Apple Valley, Carney Commerce Center\03 - Design\04 - Entitlements And CD\DRC-A1.00.dwg CIVIL ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STEVE HONG 4 5 9 0 M A C A R T H U R B L V D. S U I T E 5 0 0 N E W P O R T B E A C H C A 9 2 6 6 0 PROJECT MANAGER: STEVE HONG 714 - 822 - 1171, [email protected] DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC 18484 OUTER HIGHWAY 18 NORTH SUITE 225 APPLE VALLEY CA 92307 760-524-9123 EMAIL [email protected] ATTN: DEAN PARADISE DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC 18484 OUTER HIGHWAY 18 NORTH SUITE 225 APPLE VALLEY CA 92307 760-524-9123 EMAIL [email protected] ATTN: DEAN PARADISE TRUE NORTH Page 216 of 283 5 Appendix B:

Fiscal Revenue Analysis Tables

Table 1
Fiscal Revenue and Economic Benefit Analysis Summary
FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
Recurring Annual Revenues: 2024 - 2025
Property Taxes $ 523,611 Table 4
Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF 605,704 Table 5
Offsite Sales Tax 75,654 Table 6
Total Annual Tax Revenue $ 1,204,969
Jobs Labor Income Jobs Labor Income
Direct Effect Direct Effect Direct Effect Direct Effect 637 $ 48,488,000 1,857 $ 112,192,000
Indirect Effect Indirect Effect Indirect Effect Indirect Effect 82 $ 5,550,000 480 $ 26,517,000
Induced Effect Induced Effect Induced Effect Induced Effect 146 $ 7,538,000 341 $ 17,679,000
Average Annual Number
of Jobs
Average Annual
Labor Income
Average Annual
Number of Jobs
Average Annual
Labor Income
865 $ 61,576,000 2,678 $ 156,388,000
Cumulative Labor
Income
$ 123,151,000
Footnotes:
(a) See Table 8 for support and detailed description of categories. (b) See Table 9 for support and detailed description of categories. 2-Year Construction Period

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

Table 2
Land Use and Assessed Value Assumptions
FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
Building 1 1,507,326 $ 213.00 321,060,438
Building 2 1,097,120 $ 213.00 233,686,560
Subtotal Industrial 2,604,446 $ 554,746,998
Total Project Assessed Value $ 554,746,998
Footnotes:
(a) Industrial estimated value per Table 3.

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

Table 3
Estimated Commercial Uses Property Value Using Income Method FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
Industrial
Gross Square Feet 2,604,446

REVENUE
Average Monthly NNN Rental Rate per s.f. (a) $ 1.19
Total Scheduled Annual NNN Rents $ 37,191,489

EXPENSES
Vacancy (%) (a) 6.80%
Vacancy ($) $ 2,529,021
Unreimbursed Expenses (b) 6,932,494
Total Expenses $ 9,461,515
NET OPERATING INCOME $ 27,729,974
CAP RATE (c) 5.00%
TOTAL VALUE $ 554,599,482
VALUE PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT 212.94
VALUE PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT (ROUNDED) 213.00
Footnotes:
(a) Industrial monthly NNN rental rate and vacancy per CBRE Inland Empire Industrial, Q3 2024 Report.
(b) Operating Expenses for Warehouse estimated at 20.0% of revenue. (c) Industrial cap rate per CBRE North America Cap Rate Survey First Half 2024 for Class A Stabilized Industrial property in the Inland Empire.

Table 4
Share of the Basic Tax Calculation
FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
Agency Code Agency 21029
AB01 GA01 COUNTY GENERAL - GTL 14.78014800%
AB02 GA01 E.R.A.F. - GTL 22.38059600%
BF04 GA01 FLOOD ZONE 4 - GTL 2.33486600%
BF08 GA01 FLOOD ADM 3-6 - GTL 0.08935800%
BL01 GA01 CO FREE LIBRARY - GTL 1.43098600%
BS01 GA01 SUPT OF SCHL-CO WIDE GT 0.50716100%
BS01 GA02 SUPT OF SCHL-R.O.P. GTL 0.08694800%
BS01 GA03 SUPT OF SCH-PHY HAND GTL 0.19953100%
BS01 GA04 SUPT OF SCH-MENT RET GTL 0.16024000%
BS01 GA05 SUPT OF SCHL-DEV CTR GTL 0.05227600%
CC03 GA01 APPLE VALLEY TOWN-GTL 9.43872900%
SC66 GA01 VICTOR VLY COMM COLL GTL 6.64175000%
SU06 GA01 APPLE VLY UNIF GTL 31.08224600%
UD44 GA01 CSA 60 - GTL 1.02456200%
WF01 GA01 APPLE VALLEY FIRE - GT 9.26376400%
WY20 GI01 ##MOJAVE WTR - GTL L& 0.52683900%
Total 100.00%
Acreage 177.89
100%
Total Assessed Value $ 554,746,998
Base 1% Ad-Valorem Tax 1.00%
Base Ad-Valorem Revenue $ 5,547,470
Town of Apple Valley Allocation 9.44%
Total Town of Apple Valley Property Taxes $ 523,611
Footnotes:

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

Table 5
Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF
FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
FY 2024/25 In Lieu MVLF Allocation to Town $ 9,377,100 (a) FY 2024/25 Town of Apple Valley Assessed Value 8,588,212,468 (b) Total Project Assessed Value from Table 2 554,746,998
AV Growth from Project 6.459%
Annual Town Property Taxes In Lieu of MVLF $ 605,704
Footnotes:
(b) Per County of San Bernardino Assessor-Recorder-Clerk Office 2024 Assessment Roll.
(a) Per Town of Apple Valley Annual Budget for FY 2024-25; General Fund Revenues by Line Item (Page 37).

Table 6
Off-Site Sales Tax Revenue - Commercial
FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
Non-Residential Worker Retail Spending Pattern Analysis Lunch Goods and Services Transportation Dinner / Drinks Total Avg. Weekly Expenditures Before / During / After Work (a) $ 16 $ 160 $ 38 $ 13 $ 227 Avg. Annual Expenditures Before / During / After Work (b) 790 8,007 1,884 653 11,333 Percentage of Purchases Made Closer to Work 100% 50% 50% 50% Average Annual Expenditures Closer to Work $ 790 $ 4,003 $ 942 $ 327 $ 6,062 Median Salary for Survey Respondents (c) 87,500 87,500 87,500 87,500 Median Salary for Town of Apple Valley (d) 62,898 62,898 62,898 62,898 Adjustments Factor for Difference in Income 72% 72% 72% 72% Adjusted Avg. Annual Expenditures per Employee $ 568 $ 2,878 $ 677 $ 235 $ 4,357 Town share of Avg. Annual Expenditures per Employee (1%) $ 6 $ 29 $ 7 $ 2 $ 44 Total number of Employees per Table 7 1,736
Total Town share of Avg, Annual Expenditures per Employee $ 75,654 Footnotes:
(b) Assumes a 50 week work year.
(d) Estimate of median salary per U.S. Census Beareu Quick Facts Sheet for Town of Apple Valley, CA. (a) Estimate of average national weekly suburban office worker spending per Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age published by the International Council of Shopping Centers, dated 2012.
(c) Median salary for respondents per Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age published by the International Council of Shopping Centers, dated 2012.

Table 7
Full Time Equivalent Employment
FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
Tenant Type Bldg. SF Estimated SF per
Employee (a)
Estimated
Employees
Building 1 1,507,326 1,500 1,005
Building 2 1,097,120 1,500 731
Subtotal Business and Warehouse 2,604,446 1,736
Total Estimated Employees 1,736
Footnotes:
(a) Estimated employees per square foot per the United States Green Building Council default occupancy count and DPFG estimates based on industry knowledge and review of various data sources.

Business and Warehouse

Table 8
Construction Period Impacts
FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
Employment Impact Jobs Description
Direct Effect 637 Represents direct onsite construction-related jobs.

Indirect Effect 82 Represents jobs created as a result of new business to business spending in the local economy.

Induced Effect 146 Represents jobs created as a result of spending by new direct and indirect employees in the local economy.

Total 865
Labor Income Impact Labor Income Description
Direct Effect $ 48,488,000 Represents direct onsite construction labor income.

Indirect Effect 5,550,000 Represents labor income generated as a result of new business to business spending in the local economy.

Induced Effect 7,538,000 Represents labor income generated as a result of spending by new direct and indirect employees in the local economy.

Total $ 61,576,000
Labor Income Impact Labor Income Description
Direct Effect $ 96,976,000 Represents direct onsite construction labor income.

Indirect Effect 11,100,000 Represents labor income generated as a result of new business to business spending in the local economy.

Induced Effect 15,075,000 Represents labor income generated as a result of spending by new direct and indirect employees in the local economy.

Total $ 123,151,000
Footnotes:
(a) Calculated using IMPLAN, a nationally recognized economic modeling system. San Bernardino County is the study area. Jobs are reported as all jobs (full-time, part-time, and seasonal).

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

Table 9
Ongoing Annual Impacts
FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
Employment Impact Total Jobs Description
Direct Effect (b) 1,857 Represents direct onsite jobs created by the operations of the new facilities.

Indirect Effect 480 Represents jobs created as a result of new business to business spending in the local economy.

Induced Effect 341 Represents jobs created as a result of spending by new direct and indirect employees in the local economy.

Total 2,678
Labor Income Impact Total Labor Income Description
Direct Effect $ 112,192,000 Represents labor income generated by the operations of the new facilities Indirect Effect 26,517,000 Represents labor income generated from new business to business spending in the local economy.

Induced Effect 17,679,000 Represents labor income generated by spending of new direct and indirect employees in the local economy.

Total $ 156,388,000
Footnotes:

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

Table 10
Top 10 Industries Affected during Construction Period
FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
Rank Industry Jobs
1 51 - Construction of new manufacturing structures 637 2 472 - Employment services 12
3 417 - Truck transportation 9
4 395 - Wholesale - Machinery, equipment, and supplies 6 5 447 - Other real estate 8
6 477 - Landscape and horticultural services 5
7 396 - Wholesale - Other durable goods merchant wholesalers 4 8 453 - Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment rental and leasing 3 9 457 - Architectural, engineering, and related services 3 10 421 - Couriers and messengers 3
(a)
(b)
Top 10 Industries Affected during Construction Period Annually (a) (b) Footnotes:

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

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

Table 11
Top 10 Industries Affected from Ongoing Annual Operations from Commercial Site FGFW IV, LLC - Apple Valley
Rank Industry Jobs
1 422 - Warehousing and storage 2,039
2 447 - Other real estate 89
3 472 - Employment services 66
4 421 - Couriers and messengers 20
5 519 - Dry-cleaning and laundry services 12
6 470 - Office administrative services 11
7 476 - Services to buildings 9
8 534 - Other local government enterprises 11
9 475 - Investigation and security services 8
10 477 - Landscape and horticultural services 7
(a)
Top 10 Industries Affected during Construction Period Annually (a) Footnotes:

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

6 Appendix C:

Development Impact Fees

I. Development Impact Fees
Fee Unit of Measure Quantity Total Fees
Town of Apple Valley
Law Enforcement Facilities [a] $ 0.001 Per Square Foot 2,604,446 $ 2,604 Storm Drainage Facilities [a] 0.114 Per Square Foot 2,604,446 296,907 Sanitary Sewer Facilities [a] 0.684 Per Square Foot 2,604,446 1,781,441 General Government Facilities [a] 0.034 Per Square Foot 2,604,446 88,551 General Park Fee/Quimby [a] 0.006 Per Square Foot 2,604,446 16,148 A.V. Fire Fees [a] 0.089 Per Square Foot 2,604,446 231,796 Transportation Impact Fees [a] 0.169 Base & Per Square Foot 2,604,446 445,933 Subtotal Estimated Development Impact Fees: $ 2,863,380 II. Fair Share Calculations
Cost Percentage Total
Near Term
Stoddard Wells Rd / Outer Highway 15 [b] $ 50,000 92.3% $ 46,167 Stoddard Wells Rd / W Frontage Rd [b] 50,000 89.8% 44,877 Stoddard Wells Rd / Outer Highway 15 / I-15 NM Ramps [b] 1,400,000 31.2% 436,348 Stoddard Wells Rd / Quarry Rd [b] 800,000 30.7% 245,560 Quarry Rd / I-15 SB Ramps [b] 200,000 32.2% 64,372
Long Term
Stoddard Wells Rd / Outer Highway 15 [b] $ 500,000 36.4% $ 181,756 Outer Highway 15 / I-15 NB Ramps [b] 500,000 66.8% 334,025 Stoddard Wells Rd / W Frontage Rd [b] 500,000 32.8% 163,922 Stoddard Wells Rd / Outer Highway 15 / I-15 NM Ramps [b] 1,400,000 21.3% 297,605 Stoddard Wells Rd / Quarry Rd [b] 800,000 23.3% 186,237 Quarry Rd / I-15 SB Ramps [b] 200,000 24.8% 49,533
Falchion Rd / Outer Hwy 15 [b] 500,000 36.4% 181,756
Subtotal Estimated Fair Share: $ 2,232,158
Footnotes:
(b) Per Developer.
(a) Fee amounts and units of measure per the Town of Apple Valley Schedule J - Development Impact Fees FY 23-24. Fees escalate yearly by the increase in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, Los Angeles Average.

Lewis Brisbois - Apple Valley Project
Development Impact Fees
Mar-25

1 Inland Empire North Logistics Center
GPA 2023-002, TPM 20625, DP 2022-014
Agenda Report, Planning Commission, March 19, 2025
Planning Commission Agenda Report
DATE: March 19, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
CASE NUMBERS: GPA 2023-002, TPM No. 20625, DP 2022-014
APPLICANT: Synergy Consulting
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment, Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 178-acre lot into two lots to construct two eCommerce warehousing buildings totaling approximately

2.6 million square feet. The General Plan Amendment would realign Apple Valley Road and reclassify Norco Street to a “Collector”.

LOCATION: The project site is bounded by Interstate 15 and frontage road to the west, Norco Street to the north, Falchion Road to the south and an aggregate quarry and undeveloped lands to the east (APN 0472-031-08).

ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the project. The EIR identifies mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate potentially significant impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for which mitigation measures can be applied to avoid or substantially reduce environmental effects. Findings of Fact have been prepared to explain the Town’s conclusions as to potential environmental impacts. Significant and unavoidable impacts are identified in relation to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for which a Statement of Overriding
Considerations has been prepared.

CASE PLANNER: Richard Hirsch, Contract Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Approve with Conditions

2 Inland Empire North Logistics Center
GPA 2023-002, TPM 20625, DP 2022-014
Agenda Report, Planning Commission, March 19, 2025

SITE DESCRIPTION
A. Site Characteristics
The project site is a 178-acre property in the northwest part of the Town, between the I15 freeway on the west, CalPortland aggregate quarry operations to the east, Falchion Road and vacant lands to the south and Norco Street and vacant lands to the north. The site is largely vacant and undeveloped, with a few unpaved quarry access roads and a few other signs of previous activity and land disturbance. Approximately 20 acres at the southeast corner of the site is currently used for stockpiling spoils and other materials from the nearby mining activities, including a metal storage structure. Topography includes a series of small rolling hills, sloping gradually downward from east to west toward I-15. Eight storm flow paths traverse across the site toward culverts under I-15.

The site has 283 Joshua trees in various states of health, as well as sporadic native brush and shrubs.

B. Designations and Uses
Area General Plan
designations Zoning districts Existing Land Uses
Project Site Regional Commercial
C-R, Regional
Commercial,
“eCommerce overlay”
Vacant, undeveloped,
mining spoils and shed
North Regional Commercial C-R, “eCommerce
overlay”
Roads and vacant,
undeveloped lands
East Mineral Resources I-RE, Resource
Extraction
Aggregate mining,
undeveloped
West Interstate, Victorville
beyond
Interstate, Victorville
beyond
Interstate 15, frontage
road (Outer)
South Regional Commercial C-R, “eCommerce
overlay”
Roads and vacant,
undeveloped lands
The “C-R” Regional Commercial zoning district is intended for a range of retail, office, personal and business services, scaled to serve the needs of the Town and surrounding region, and located close to Interstate 15, state highways and arterial roads. The C-R zone implements the General Plan Regional Commercial land use designation.

Ecommerce warehousing and distribution centers such as the proposed project, are allowed as “Permitted Uses” per Development Code Table 9.35.030.A. Footnote 7 of the table states that “in the C-R District, new eCommerce fulfillment and distribution centers shall only be allowed within the 978 acres bounded by the I-15 freeway to the west, Dante Road to the south, “Caplet Street” (now Cordova Road) to the north and the C-R District’s boundary to the east” (see Attachment 2, C-R zone eCommerce Overlay area map). Such uses in the overlay area are subject to Code Section 9.35.040 (development standards), Chapter 9.47 (industrial design), Chapter 9.72 (parking) and Chapter 9.75 (landscaping).

3 Inland Empire North Logistics Center
GPA 2023-002, TPM 20625, DP 2022-014
Agenda Report, Planning Commission, March 19, 2025

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes two eCommerce warehouse buildings with loading dock doors and office space as well as associated site improvements. The buildings would be on two parcels resulting from a parcel map process (see Attachment 3). “Building 1” would be about 1.51m square feet with a 1.497m square foot footprint and 266 loading docks on a 96-acre lot with 809 standard parking stalls and 678 trailer stalls. “Building 2” would be about 1.097m square feet with a 1.087m square foot footprint and 202 loading docks on a 76-acre lot with 574 standard parking stalls and 659 trailer stalls. Both buildings would have open warehouse layouts with both having 20,000 square feet of office, stacked in two stories of 10,000 square feet each, providing administrative functions for the primary eCommerce warehousing activities. Interior clerestory height would be 42 feet for both buildings.

The two parcels would be accessed by four driveways each to Norco Street and Falchion Road. Other site improvements would include landscaping, stormwater improvements, trash enclosures, bicycle parking and outdoor sitting and employee dining areas (see Attachment 4, Drawings). The project also includes re-alignment and construction of Apple Valley Road along the site’s east boundary between Falchion Road and Norco Street.

Business activities would be conducted primarily within the buildings except ingress/egress and circulation of trucks and passenger vehicles, loading/unloading of trailers and movement of materials around the site via forklifts, pallet jacks, yard hostlers and similar equipment. While no tenants have been identified at this time, future operations are expected to require up to 1,736 full-time employees and would be conducted around the clock, every day of the week. Business operations could potentially include “high-cube transload and short-term storage”, “high-cube cold storage warehouse”, “high-cube fulfillment center warehouse-non-sorting”, “high-cube parcel hub warehousing”, “general warehousing” and/or numerous other uses of similar intensity. “High-cube fulfillment center-sorting” is not currently anticipated as a facility use. In accordance with the project’s Final EIR, should the project owner or future tenant desire to conduct uses considered “more intense” than those listed, further environmental review in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would be required.

ANALYSIS
A. Town-issued entitlements
General Plan Amendment (GPA): The project requests a General Plan Amendment to change the adopted Circulation Element map, including re-alignment of Apple Valley Road from its current alignment to the site’s east perimeter, vacation of a 1000-foot rightof-way section of Apple Valley Road that projects into the site from Falchion Road, and re-classification of Norco Street from a “Major Road” to a “Collector”. Code Section

9.02.050, Subsections F and H, requires Planning Commission review of GPA’s with a recommendation to Town Council. The project and all requested entitlements therefore

4 Inland Empire North Logistics Center
GPA 2023-002, TPM 20625, DP 2022-014
Agenda Report, Planning Commission, March 19, 2025
require final consideration and decision by Town Council.

Development Permit: Per Dev. Code Section 9.17.020.B.2, commercial, office and industrial developments greater than 100,000 square feet require approval of a development permit by the Planning Commission.

Tentative Parcel Map (TPM): A two-lot subdivision is typically eligible for a “Lot Split” under Code Section 9.71.080.B.1. However, because the project requests a General Plan Amendment, it is not eligible for a Lot Split and requires a Tentative Parcel Map and Final Map. TPM’s typically require review and approval by the Planning Commission. However, in this case, due to the request for a GPA, the Commission will provide a recommendation to Town Council, which will have final review authority over the project.

B. Development Standards
The project complies with all applicable development standards and regulations per Table

9.35.040-A for the C-R zone, as shown in the attached Development Standards compliance chart (Attachment 5).

C. General Plan Circulation Element Update Process
The Town is currently in the process of updating its General Plan Circulation Element Map. The draft Map reflects and aligns with the project’s proposed street design and improvements, including the proposed re-alignment of Apple Valley Road eastward, vacation of the existing Apple Valley Road right-of-way dedication area that projects into the site and a re-classification of Norco Street from “Major Road” to “Collector”. The Town Engineer and Fehr & Peers, the Town’s traffic engineering consultant that is preparing the Circulation Element Update, have evaluated the proposed changes to the area’s circulation and have determined that they serve to improve vehicle circulation, flow and safety in the project area and meet the future vehicle capacity and circulation needs of the Town. The Circulation Element Update is currently in its environmental impact analysis phase and has not yet been considered for adoption.

D. Property line adjustments
About four acres of right-of-way area at the northwest corner of Lot 1 adjacent to I-15 Outer/Frontage Road would be vacated and added to Lot 1. This area has been deemed surplus area and no longer needed for the frontage road, which is to be re-aligned closer to the freeway. Also, the property owner and CalPortland are likely to exchange two small areas at the southeast corner of Lot 2 due to the Apple Valley Road re-alignment.

E. Quarry access road/easement
The existing quarry access roads traversing diagonally across the project site would be combined into one 50-foot-wide road and re-routed along the north/east site perimeter to ensure continued access between surrounding CalPortland quarry lands lying east and west of the site. A Memorandum of Understanding has been executed between the project proponent and CalPortland memorializing this agreement.

5 Inland Empire North Logistics Center
GPA 2023-002, TPM 20625, DP 2022-014
Agenda Report, Planning Commission, March 19, 2025
F. Parking
The project complies with all parking standards as identified in Code Chapter 9.72.

Detailed analysis of the parking calculations may be found in Attachment 6.

G. Traffic Circulation and Site Access
Regional access to the site is provided from northbound Interstate 15, Exit 154, to Outer Highway/I-15S, and then to Falchion Road. In the project area, Apple Valley and Falchion Roads are paved, while Norco Street is graded but unpaved. Falchion and Norco are designated as “Major Roads” (104-foot rights-of-way) on the existing General Plan Circulation Element Plan, while Apple Valley Road is designated as a “Major Divided Arterial” (128-foot right-of-way). Norco Street is proposed to be reclassified as a “Collector” street (66-foot width), while Falchion and Apple Valley Roads would remain in their current classifications. Apple Valley Road would be re-aligned along the site’s east boundary, would cross Norco Street, continue northward, merging with the Solano Road alignment at the intersection of Grudley Street about 1,500 feet north of the site and then intersecting with the Stoddard Wells Road freeway interchange (see Attachment 7, Proposed Area Circulation). As mentioned, the proposed street design and classifications align with the intent and design of the draft Circulation Element Update. The project is required to construct the following improvements per Town Engineering requirement, with the noted improvements reflecting the proposed Circulation Element, rather than the currently adopted version.
• Dedication of a 52-foot half width/construction of Falchion Road from I-15 to Apple Valley Road, including at project frontage;
• Dedication of a 33-foot half width/construction of Norco Street from I-15 to Apple Valley Road, including at project frontage;
• Dedication and construction of a 64-foot half width/construction of the realignment of Apple Valley Road between Falchion and Norco.

The site would be accessed by eight driveways, including four each onto Norco Street and Falchion Road. No direct access would be provided to the I-15 frontage road or to Apple Valley Road. Employee/visitor parking areas would be open, however, access to both buildings’ truck courts/dock/storage areas would be gated.

H. Architecture
The project proposes two 53-foot-tall warehouse buildings consisting of concrete tilt-up walls accented by scoring, reveals and metal louvers. Both buildings depict 9’ x 10’ loading dock doors extending along the east and west walls, with a few doors up to 12’ x 14’. The designs incorporate a variety of architectural strategies to create a contemporary, high-quality eCommerce industrial park facility. Vertical and horizontal elements break up the overall sense of massing. Varying building materials are depicted throughout the design including robust wall articulation, multiple roof planes and lines, cornice caps, and other architectural embellishments. The buildings also incorporate metal canopies, prominent glass entryways and vertical dark-grey accent lintels at the corners. Windows are tempered reflective, blue-tinted “vision” and “spandrel glass”. All rooftop mechanical

6 Inland Empire North Logistics Center
GPA 2023-002, TPM 20625, DP 2022-014
Agenda Report, Planning Commission, March 19, 2025
equipment would be screened by parapets. The color scheme proposes complementary shades of grey, taupe, blue and white. Overall, Staff finds that the proposed building designs meet the Town’s architectural design intent as identified in the General Plan and Development Code (see Attachment 4, Drawings).

I. Landscaping
Extensive landscaping is proposed along all four street rights-of-way, including a large variety of native and drought-tolerant trees, shrubs, smaller plants, and groundcover as well as inert materials such as decomposed granite, boulders and river rock. Landscaping is also proposed around the bases of both buildings, within parking fields and throughout the site, generally. However, no landscaping or trees are proposed within the gated truck court areas, and minimal landscaping is proposed along the shared property line between the two resulting lots.

J. Fencing, walls, screening
Eight-foot decorative wrought iron fencing is proposed to enclose the proposed truck courts on both the east and west sides of both buildings as well as around parking fields along Norco Street, with all operational areas being secured with locking gates. A combination of earthen berms, hedges and low walls up to three feet in height are proposed around parking fields adjacent to Falchion and two small areas on Norco, to screen vehicle headlights and visual impacts of these areas from surrounding streets.

K. Utilities
A hydrology study was prepared for the project in August 2022. Town Guidelines require analysis of 100-year and 10-year 24-hour storms and demonstration that the project will not exceed 90% of pre-development runoff for a 100-year, or 95% for a 10-year, event.

Expected 10-year storm volume would exceed pre-development volumes and the hydrology study provides design features to mitigate this impact. The civil plans indicate four Stormtech infiltration systems to provide on-site stormwater retention adequate to reduce the project’s impact on stormwater flows, thus meeting Town requirements. A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan has also been prepared.

An 8-inch sanitary sewer line would be installed to serve the site and would be dedicated to the Town. The line would follow the quarry access route under I-15, turn north along the frontage/outer road, and then turn east onto Norco Street, terminating approximately 500 feet west of re-aligned Apple Valley Road. Each site would be built with one lateral connecting to the new line.

New water service lines would be constructed, including 16-inch lines in Norco Street and Apple Valley Road and an 8-inch line within Falchion Road. The new lines are planned to be dedicated to Liberty Utilities. The project applicant is currently processing a request for the site to be annexed into the Liberty Utilities service area. Two laterals per each building will connect to the lines in Norco and Falchion.

L. Development Impact Fees
Below are the development impact fees that would be collected for the project. Additional information regarding the project’s fiscal and economic benefits is included in the attached

7 Inland Empire North Logistics Center
GPA 2023-002, TPM 20625, DP 2022-014
Agenda Report, Planning Commission, March 19, 2025
Fiscal Revenue Analysis (Attachment 8).

Development Impact Fees (per square foot)
Traffic Impact $0.2024
Law Enforcement Facilities $0.001
Storm Drainage Facilities $0.114
General Government Facilities $0.034
General Park or Quimby Fee $0.0062
Sanitary Sewer Facilities $0.684
Fire District $0.09
M. AB52 / SB18 Tribal Notifications
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes “that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project that is subject to CEQA”. Since an EIR has been prepared, Tribal notification is required pursuant to AB 52. Notifications were sent to four potentially affected Tribes on September 8, 2023, pursuant to the official list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires local governments to consult with both federally and non-federally recognized potentially affected Native American tribes before adopting General Plan Amendments, where such actions may affect tribal cultural resources, in order to mitigate potential impacts on resources. Such notifications were sent to eight potentially affected tribes, also on September 8, 2023, pursuant to the official list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission.

N. CEQA compliance
Based on an initial study and technical studies, the Town determined that the proposed project would require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate potential environmental impacts and provide the public and responsible agencies with detailed information about the project’s potential adverse impacts.

A 30-day “Notice of Preparation” period and scoping meeting were completed between September 18, 2023 and October 17, 2023 during which four comments were received.

A Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared providing detailed information regarding short-term, long-term, direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects and an analysis of project alternatives. The DEIR identifies extensive mitigation measures that would minimize or eliminate the project’s adverse impacts and demonstrates that most environmental impacts associated with the project can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adoption of mitigation measures.

A “Notice of Availability” and the DEIR were circulated and posted per Town and State Law for 45 days from September 30, 2024 through November 13, 2024. The DEIR and NOA were sent to the State Clearinghouse and County’ Clerk’s Office and were uploaded to the Town website for public review. The NOA was also directly sent to public agencies and other interested parties. Copies of the DEIR and its appendices were placed at Town

8 Inland Empire North Logistics Center
GPA 2023-002, TPM 20625, DP 2022-014
Agenda Report, Planning Commission, March 19, 2025
Hall, the Planning Department and at the San Bernardino County Library. During the public review period, the Town received (14) comment letters.

Based on the analysis and comments, the Town prepared a Final EIR (FEIR) following the 45-day DEIR review period. The FEIR contains changes to the DEIR, the Comment Letters and detailed Responses, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). CEQA Findings of Fact were prepared, listing the specific project impacts and mitigation measures and providing the legal record documenting the Town's reasoning for approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared addressing the project’s “significant and unavoidable” impacts to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and providing justification for the Town to approve the project based on “benefits” that would be expected from the project, including economic, fiscal and community benefits, that would outweigh the negative environmental impacts. The Town posted the FEIR on the Town website and sent direct notification to commenting public agencies and other parties that had requested to be notified.

The project’s environmental documentation, including the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, may be viewed on the Town’s environmental web page, here: https://www.applevalley.org/services/planning-division/environmental.

O. Western Joshua Trees
The project site contains 283 Western Joshua Trees, in various states of health, as mapped during surveys conducted in 2022-2023, all of which would be impacted by construction. Joshua Trees are a “Threatened” candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act and therefore, removal or relocation requires obtaining an “Incidental Take Permit” (ITP) from the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and either paying calculated fees or purchasing credits from a CDFW-approved conservation bank. 57 trees meet the criteria for likelihood of transplant success and must be transplanted, per Code Section 9.76.040. A Relocation Plan was prepared by a Desert Native Plant expert meeting County criteria. The Plan includes a detailed matrix showing each tree’s details and recommended best practices for relocation, storage, and care of the trees in their new locations. The applicant is also required to submit a tree removal application per Code Chapter 9.76. These requirements are stated in the EIR mitigation measures, which will become project Conditions of Approval, by reference in the project’s Conditions of Approval document (see Attachment 9, Joshua Tree Impact map).

P. Town noticing
On March 7, 2025, a Public Hearing Notice was sent to surrounding property owners located within 1,300 linear feet of the project site boundaries, was posted to the Town Bulletin Board and website, a public notice sign board was installed at the site, and the Public Hearing Notice was published in Valleywide Newspaper.

Q. Tentative Parcel Map, Development Permit Findings
Findings for approval must be made prior to Planning Commission recommending approval of the requested entitlements, pursuant to the Town Development Code. The

9 Inland Empire North Logistics Center
GPA 2023-002, TPM 20625, DP 2022-014
Agenda Report, Planning Commission, March 19, 2025
Findings and their associated Facts are included as Exhibits to the attached resolution.

R. Authority
Code Section 9.17.020.B.2 empowers the Planning Commission to consider and approve commercial and industrial developments greater than 100,000 square feet by issuance of a development permit. Section 9.71.04.A.1 empowers the Commission to consider and approve Tentative Parcel Maps. Code Section 9.02.050F directs the Commission to review and make recommendations to Town Council regarding General Plan Amendments. Considering that the GPA requires Town Council approval, the Town Council is designated as the final decision-making authority over all requested project entitlements.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Planning Commission open a public hearing, take testimony, close the public hearing and move to approve Resolution No. 2025-003 recommending that the Town Council certify the project EIR, approve Resolution No. 2025-004 recommending Town Council approve the General Plan Amendment and approve Resolution No. 2025-005 recommending Town Council approve the Tentative Parcel Map and Development Permit.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Vicinity Map

2. eCommerce Overlay map

3. Tentative Parcel Map

4. Project Drawings

5. Development Standards Chart

6. Parking Calculations

7. Proposed project area circulation

8. Fiscal Revenue Analysis

9. Joshua Tree Impact Map

10.Resolution No. 2025-003 (EIR) (with Exhibit A-Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Exhibit B- MMRP)

11.Resolution No. 2025-004 (GPA) (with Exhibit A- Findings, Exhibit B-Circulation Element amendments)

12.Resolution No. 2025-005 (TPM, DP) (with Exhibit A – TPM/DP Findings, Exhibit Bdraft Conditions of Approval) The project’s environmental documentation, as well as the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, may be viewed here:
https://www.applevalley.org/services/planning-division/environmental.

Green Jobs & Clean Communities
1 of 4
March 14, 2025
City of Apple Valley Planning Commission
14955 Dale Evans Pkwy
Apple Valley, CA 92307
SUBJECT: Inland Empire North Logistics Center Project
The Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance presented multiple argumentsin our comment letter dated November 11, 2024, addressing the flaws of the EIR. In addition, the FEIR concludes that the DEIR’s exposure assumptions were sufficiently addressed, however, review of both documents reveals that the HRA’s specific exposure assumptions, such as ASF and FAH values, and the dose and risk equation used to calculate construction-related cancer risk, remain undisclosed (p. 3-31). We therefore maintain that the DEIR should have provided these values. The exclusion of this information undermines the decision makers and public's ability to review and assess methodology used to determine the Project’s potential environmental impacts, a fundamental component of the California Environmental Quality Act. Without access to the exposure assumptions or dose and risk equation used in the DEIR’s HRA, the accuracy of the Project’s potential cancer risks is not able to be verified.

Additionally, according to CalEnviroScreen’s Map, the proposed project’s census tract (6071012101) indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental impacts in the area are disproportionately impacting this census tract. The California Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for identifying those communities based on “geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria.” The Project’s census tract exhibits a high risk of asthma, cardiovascular disease and low birth weight. With this information the proposed Project may contribute to the disproportionate health impacts warehouses impose on nearby residents.

The proposed Project may exacerbate disproportionate health risks for community members within the immediate area, a concern underscored by the mandates of SB 1000. SB 1000, enacted to address environmental justice considerations, require local governments to integrate environmental justice elements into their planning processes, particularly focusing on reducing health risks for communities.

Green Jobs & Clean Communities
2 of 4
The Planning Commission has a duty to adequately address the environmental, social, and economic burden placed on the City of Apple Valley residents. The Planning Commission should recommend a new EIR be prepared for this project, due to the deficiencies of the EIR and continued health, exposures, socioeconomic factors and environmental effects the citizenry of Apple Valley already suffers and will continue to suffer, based on our comment letter dated November 11, 2024, along with several other comments provided by others participating in the process.

If the Planning Commission votes to recommend certification of the EIR, GSEJA believesthe Planning Commission will have not fulfilled its duty to adequately investigate nor mitigate the project.

Further, under CEQA, the city must “Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise.”
The California Environmental Quality Act's purpose in properly applying the law and its intent is defined below by the California Legislature in passing CEQA.

The importance of a healthy environment for all of California’s residentsisreflected in CEQA’s purpose. In passing CEQA, the Legislature determined:

CEQA’s Purposes
• “The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000, subd. (a).) • We must “identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds from being reached.” (Id. atsubd. (d).)
• “[M]ajor consideration [must be] given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.” (Id. at subd. (g).)

Green Jobs & Clean Communities
3 of 4
• We must “[t]ake all action necessary to provide the people of thisstate with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21001, subd. (b).) Cities, counties, and other local governmental entities have an important role to play in ensuring environmental justice for all of California’sresidents. Understate law: “[E]nvironmental justice” means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Gov. Code, § 65040.12, subd. (e).) Fairness in this context means that the benefits of a healthy environment should be available to everyone, and the burdens of pollution should not be focused on sensitive populations or on communitiesthat already are experiencing its adverse effects.

The Cal Enviro Screening Information below depictsthe severity of the level of pollution and health hazards the City of Apple Valley and its citizens are already experiencing. The overall percentiles of pollution exposures and its subsequent health impacts should be enough data to not recommend approval of the project and request a new EIR with enhanced mitigation measures.

City of Apple Valley - Inland Empire North Logistics Center Project Census Tract: 6071012101
Population: 5,860
Overall Percentiles %
Population Characteristics Percentile 77%
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile 65%
Sensitive Populations
Low Birth Weight 92%
Cardiovascular Disease 89%
Asthma 88%
Exposures %
Ozone 80%
Traffic 60%
Environmental Effects %
Solid Waste 85%
Cleanup Sites 52%

Green Jobs & Clean Communities
4 of 4
We encourage the city to adopt a net-zero goal for GHG emissions for this project, as other cities have within California with mixed – use projects larger than this one.

CONCLUSION
Due to the above-mentioned reasons as well asthe reasonslisted in the original comment letter to the EIR, GSEJA believesthe EIR is flawed and a new EIR must be prepared forthe proposed project and circulated for public review. GSEJA requeststhe Planning Commission to not recommend the project and request a new EIR.

Sincerely,
Steven Piepkorn
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
765 N. Main St. Suite #151
Corona, CA 92880

1 Richard Hirsch
From: Steven Piepkorn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 7:57 AM
To: [email protected]; Richard Hirsch; [email protected] Subject: GSEJA Public Comment Inland Empire North Logistics Center Project EIR Apple Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing 3-19-25
Attachments: Comments on inland Empire North Logistics Project EIR.pdf; 1839_250317_075541.pdf To Whom It May Concern,

Attached and below are public comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.

These comments are submitted to the Planning Commission to be included in the record for inland Empire North Logistics Center Project EIR Public Hearing on 3-19-25

For clarification purposes, only the BOLD portion of the body of this email is the public comment to be added into the record along with TWO attachments.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Public Comment

Good evening, my name is Steven Piepkorn and I’m with the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. We submitted a comment letter to the Draft EIR. Our letter identified several deficiencies with the EIR.

During these turbulent times, we as citizens expect and deserve our local government’s elected and appointed officials to protect us from environmental and social injustice, to aid in the preservation and rehabilitation of the environment in which we all share, and to ensure accountability and responsibility regarding the environmental decisions they may make.

We stand by our comment letter and believe the EIR is flawed, and must be redrafted and recirculated for public review. In closing we call on this commission to be a leader on the

2 aforementioned issues and be the first line of defense for our citizenry and environment. Only by working together can we continue to be excellent stewards of our environment, outstanding stewards to our citizens and each other. Thank You.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Thank You,

Steven Piepkorn

154356953.1
March 18, 2025
Town of Apple Valley
Planning Commission
14955 Dale Evans Parkway
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Re: Response to Planning Commission Comment Letter Regarding General Plan Amendment 2023-002, Development Permit 2022-014 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 20625 by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Town Planning Commissioners:

The purpose of this letter is to provide responses to the issues raised by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (“GSEJA”) in its comment letter dated March 17, 2025, to the Town of Apple Valley Planning Commission regarding the Planning Commission’s March 19, 2025, consideration of the Inland Empire North Logistics Center – Apple Valley Warehouse Project (“Project”).

Based on our review we conclude GSEJA has not raised any new or significant issues beyond those previously submitted through its November 11, 2024, comment letter to the Project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Each of these issues were responded to in detail within the Project’s Final EIR which will be considered by the Town’s Planning Commission during its March 19, 2025, public hearing. The responses demonstrate that the Project EIR fully complied with the statutes and accompanying guidelines that comprise the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

GSEJA once again asserts the accuracy of the Project’s Draft EIR health risk analysis cannot be verified because (1) the Draft EIR does not disclose the exposure assumptions for the analysis, and (2) the Draft EIR does not include a dose and risk equation to calculate the Project’s construction cancer risks. the HRA’s specific exposure assumptions, such as ASF and FAH values, and the dose and risk equation used to calculate construction-related cancer risk, remain undisclosed. GSEJA maintains that the Project’s Draft EIR should have provided these values and that the exclusion of this information undermines the Town’s and public's ability to review and assess methodology used to determine the Project’s potential environmental impacts. GSEJA mistakenly assumes that simply because they cannot verify the exposure assumptions or dose and risk equation information, that must mean that the Project’s potential risks cannot be valid. That assumption is baseless.

As addressed in the Project’s Final EIR (see page 3-30 to 3-31) the term “substantial evidence” as applied to comments on environmental impact reports has been defined in case law as evidence that is “of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144. CEQA includes guidance of what is and is not considered “substantial evidence” in California Public Resources Code Section 21082.2(c), which provides:

Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not

TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT LETTER REGARDING GPA 2023-002, DP 2022-014 AND TPM NO. 20625 BY GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE 154356953.1 2
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.

GSEJA asserts the Project’s Draft EIR fails to provide exposure assumptions and dose and risk equations, which should have been based on the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance. However GSEJA fails to note that OEHHA guidance and equations actually were used as the basis of the Project’s health risk estimates (OEHHA 2015)(see Final EIR page 3-31.) As described in the Project’s Draft EIR (pages. 4.2-26 – 4.2-28), the construction and operational HRA health risk calculations were performed using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2) Air Dispersion and Risk Tool (ADMRT, Version 22118). Of import, the risk analysis algorithms and default values used in HARP2 are based on the OEHHA guidelines (OEHHA 2015), including age sensitivity factors and fraction of time at home parameters, and assumptions and results of the modeling were included in Appendix B-2 of the Project’s Draft EIR.

Furthermore, the Project’s Draft EIR (pages 4.2-27) provides the exposure parameters used in the analysis for the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR): for residential receptors during Project construction and operation, toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure was assumed to begin in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy (assumed to be the worst-case scenario for cancer risk) for a duration of 21 months (construction) and 30 years (operations). OEHHA describes cancer risk evaluations for 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure durations in the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines Manual and identifies that the 9- and 30-year durations correspond to the average and high-end of residency time recommended by the EPA, with the 30-year exposure duration recommended for use as the basis for estimating cancer risk at the MEIR in all HRAs (OEHHA 2015). Therefore, the Project’s Draft and Final EIR adequately evaluates and discloses the Project’s potential health risk, and no revision to or recirculation of the Project’s EIR is necessary.

Specifically with regard to GSEJA’s claims regarding pollution exposures within Census Tract 6071012101 which were reiterated in its March 17, 2025, comment letter, these claims were fully discussed and addressed in the Project’s Final EIR page 3-18 to 3-19, through Response to Comment 08-6.

Importantly, there is no affirmative requirement under CEQA to consider issues of environmental justice. Moreover, neither the Town, the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, nor the CEQA Guidelines include thresholds that consider environmental justice such as the CalEnviroScreen results, but rather account for the potential health effects of a project with project-level thresholds. As such, there is currently no air quality guidance or thresholds to analyze areas with higher pollution burden differently from areas with lower pollution burden. While CalEnviroScreen is a useful tool in assessing a community’s risk, it is not an appropriate tool for evaluating a project’s impact on the environment as required under CEQA. The appropriate tools for evaluating a Project’s impact on the environment in these areas are a project-specific air quality emissions impact analysis and a construction and operation health risk assessment. Both of these analyses were prepared for the Project and incorporated into the EIR (as described in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR). As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would result in exceedances of NOx and PM10 thresholds after implementation of feasible mitigation and therefore, the potential health effects associated with these criteria air pollutants are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable as described in the Draft EIR (pages 4.2-33 to 4.2-40.) The Project’s incremental increase in potential cancer and non-cancer health risk impacts with regard to sensitive receptors1 in the vicinity of the Project and haul routes was determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1 The closest sensitive receptor to the Project is approximately 3,910 feet away from the site. This is the equivalent of ¾ of a mile.

TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT LETTER REGARDING GPA 2023-002, DP 2022-014 AND TPM NO. 20625 BY GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE 154356953.1 3
With regard to the assertion that Senate Bill (“SB”) 1000 requires the Town of Apple Valley to integrate environmental justice elements into its long-term general plan for the physical development of the Town. Individual development projects are not subject to the requirements of SB 1000. The Town, in designating land near Interstate-15 for e-commerce and warehouse uses, has considered the requirements of SB 1000 by ensuring that new industrial uses are located away from residential land uses and other sensitive receivers. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project is approximately ¾ of a mile from the Project site. Further, the Town has designated Truck Routes that largely avoid residential and commercial areas and truck trips for the Project would primarily utilize the existing freeway interchange at Interstate-15 and Stoddard Wells Road.

Other considerations, such as socioeconomic issues, education or poverty are not environmental issues and are therefore not within the purview of CEQA. However, it must be noted that the Project would generate approximately 2,179 jobs providing both a socioeconomic benefit to the Town and improving the Town’s jobs and housing balance.

In conclusion, it is our position that GSEJA’s claims have no merit, have previously been acknowledged and addressed in the Project’s Final EIR and associated responses to comments. GSEJA has not raised any new or significant issues that would trigger either revision or recirculation of the Project’s EIR. For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission should recommend the Town Council certify the Project EIR and approve the General Plan Amendment, Development Permit ad Tentative Parcel Map as requested.

Sincerely,
Nicholas Lorenzen
Air Resources Specialist

7534-006acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
amarshall @adamsbroadwell.com
printed on recycled paper
March 19, 2025
Via Email
Town of Apple Valley Planning Commission
Attn: Chairman Kallen and Honorable Commissioners
Email: [email protected]
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Rick Hirsch, Consulting Planner
Town of Apple Valley,
14955 Dale Evans Parkway,
Apple Valley, California 92307.

Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 5.2 – Comments on General Plan Amendment GPA 2023-002, Development Permit DP 2022-014, Tentative Parcel Map TPM No. 20625
Dear Chairman Kallen, Honorable Commissioners, and Mr. Hirsch:

We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) regarding Agenda Item 5.2, the Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley Project (SCH No. 2023090366) (“Project”), proposed by FGFW IV, LLC (“Applicant”). The Project includes the proposed approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-002), Development Permit (DP 2022-014), Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 20625), and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared by the Town of Apple Valley (“Town”). The Planning Commission will consider whether to recommend the Town Council approve the Project’s entitlements and certify the FEIR.

CARE CA submitted comments on the Project’s Draft EIR (“DEIR”) identifying substantial flaws in the Project’s environmental review, including inadequate analysis of cumulative impacts, criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants (‘TACs”), greenhouse gases (“GHGs”), energy, truck trip generation, public utilities, and exposure to Valley Fever. The FEIR includes responses to CARE CA’s comments, but fails to address major concerns raised in the comments.

We reviewed the FEIR and its technical appendices with the assistance of air

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
quality and public health expert James Clark, Ph.D.,1 and transportation expert Norm Marshall.2 Based upon our review of the FEIR, we conclude that the FEIR still fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).3
In summary, the FEIR still fails to analyze the environmental impacts associated with the Project’s potential use as a parcel hub or fulfillment center with sorting. These uses are reasonably foreseeable for the Project and would have much greater impacts than disclosed in the FEIR. Next, the FEIR still fails to analyze the cumulative impacts of this Project and the many other warehouses being reviewed by the City, instead only focusing on the Project’s individual impacts, which are also underestimated. These comments further demonstrate that the FEIR fails to adopt all feasible air quality and GHG mitigation, which is required under CEQA to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the FEIR. Similarly, the FEIR still fails to analyze applicable energy conservation measures. And the FEIR still fails to adequately analyze and mitigate health risks from disturbance of Valley Fever cocci, which would result in potentially significant health risk impacts on construction workers and the community.

Because the FEIR fails to meet CEQA’s standards, the Town lacks substantial evidence to make the requisite findings to approve the Project’s General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-002), Development Permit (DP 2022-014), and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 20625). CARE CA urges the Planning Commission to continue this hearing and remand the Project to staff to prepare an EIR which fully discloses and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant environmental and public health impacts before bringing the Project back for further consideration.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes the District Council of Ironworkers and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in Apple Valley and in San Bernardino County.

CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction 1 Dr. Clark’s technical comments are attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Clark Comments”) 2 Mr. Marshall’s technical comments are attached hereto as Exhibit B (“Marshall Comments”). 3 PRC § 21100 et seq.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the Town of Apple Valley and surrounding communities.

Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

In addition, CARE CA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

II. THE FEIR FAILS TO FULLY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE THE
PROJECT’S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
A. The FEIR Still Fails to Analyze Impacts Associated with Reasonably Foreseeable Warehouse Uses
CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR explained that the DEIR violates CEQA by not describing or analyzing the Project’s reasonably foreseeable use as fulfillment center with sorting or a parcel hub.4 The FEIR responds that “[t]he California Court of Appeal in the case of Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley [“Maintain Our Desert”] (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430 specifically analyzed this issue and found ‘that the identification of an end user is not so significant under CEQA that it must be done in order to comply with the law.’”5 The FEIR states “[a]lthough the Project’s end user is speculative, the proposed Project description was developed using [a] range of end user’s requirements and therefore represents reasonably foreseeable future users of the Project.”6 44 Letter from CARE CA to Town re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley Project (SCH No. 2023090366) (November 13, 2024), pg. 6.
5 FEIR, pg. 3-43.
66 Id.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
This interpretation of the caselaw is unsupported. The language quoted from Maintain Our Desert addresses whether CEQA requires an environmental document to disclose the name of the end user. Specifically, plaintiffs argued that a project description was “inadequate because it did not specifically identify Wal-Mart as the end user of the Project.”7 The Court of Appeal held that the identity of a tenant is irrelevant unless “the identity implicates potential physical environmental impacts.”8
Here, the flaw in the FEIR is not that it fails to disclose a specific tenant, but that it fails to analyze impacts associated with all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project. Maintain Our Desert is clear that when a specific end user or category of end user would result in particular environmental impacts, those impacts must be analyzed in the environmental document.9 Because parcel hubs and fulfillment warehouses with sorting result in substantially greater trip generation rates and resultant environmental impacts than other warehouse uses, the FEIR must analyze impacts associated with these reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project.

The FEIR references Maintain Our Desert for the proposition that “land use entitlements such as conditional use permits and development approvals run with the land and do not belong to the permittee…. had [the developer] developed the Project and then held it out for sale to any interested buyer, no additional CEQA review would have been necessary for the new owner so long as the use was consistent with that that had already been approved.”10 This statement demonstrates that the Projects’ entitlements govern allowable uses at the site, not the Applicant’s statements. Therefore, all uses that would be authorized under the Project’s entitlements are required to be analyzed in the CEQA document. Here, the Project’s C-R zoning and “eCommerce” overlay explicitly allow eCommerce fulfillment and distribution centers.11 Whether the Project will be used as a fulfillment center or parcel hub, if those uses are allowed under the Project’s proposed entitlements, they must be analyzed in the FEIR.

Next, the FEIR fails to support its approach of analyzing an average of potential warehouse uses. First, averaging several potential warehouse uses necessarily results in a failure to disclose reasonably foreseeable environmental 7 Maintain Our Desert, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 441. 8 Id. at 445 9 Id. (“CEQA is concerned solely with the potential environmental impacts of a project. Therefore, in order to demonstrate that CEQA requires disclosure of the identification of the end user of a project, it is incumbent upon MODE and the Attorney General to demonstrate that the identity implicates potential physical environmental impacts.”).
10 Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 444. 11 Apple Valley Code of Ordinances, Ordinance No. 547.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
impacts of the Project.12 As demonstrated in table below, the Town’s averaged trip generation rate is nearly half that of a parcel hub, which the FEIR acknowledges is a potential use of the Project.13
Because the FEIR fails to disclose the environmental impacts associated with the Project’s reasonably foreseeable use as a parcel hub or fulfillment center with sorting, the FEIR fails as an informational document and its conclusions lack the support of substantial evidence.

The FEIR’s disclosure of the Project’s potential uses is also inadequate because the FEIR excludes the warehouse use with the highest trip generation rate (Fulfillment Center Warehouse – Sort) from its average. As previously stated in the DEIR, the FEIR states that “High-cube sort is the most intensive type of warehouse and is not anticipated as a future use of the Project.”14 The FEIR still fails to 12 See High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 102, 125 (An EIR is required to study reasonably foreseeable consequences of a project). 13 Letter from CARE CA to Town re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley Project (SCH No. 2023090366) (November 13, 2024), pg. 7. 14 DEIR, Appendix J, pg. 27; FEIR, pg. 3-18.

1.54 1.71 1.81

2.12 4.63

6.44 2.36
Transload and
Short-Term
Storage
Warehouse
Warehousing Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
Cold Storage
Warehouse
Parcel Hub
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
DEIS

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
provide any support for this claim. The FEIR claims that “[i]f approved, the Project would be prohibited from being used for a different or more intensive use without further environmental review in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.”15 This claim is unsupported, as further CEQA review would only be triggered if additional discretionary approvals were necessary to allow use as a fulfillment center with sorting.16 And there is no mitigation measure in the MMRP restricting future use of the Project as a fulfillment center with sorting.

In sum, the FEIR still fails to adequately describe the Project’s reasonably foreseeable uses, fails as an informational document, and fails to support its impact analyses with substantial evidence. The EIR must be revised to analyze impacts from all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project and recirculated for public review.

B. The FEIR Still Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
CARE CA’s prior comments demonstrated that the Town’s analysis of cumulative impacts violate CEQA because they only analyze the Project’s projectspecific impacts, as opposed to considering the combined effects of the proposed and recently approved warehouse projects in the area. Specifically, the DEIR asserts that any exceedance of a project-level threshold for criteria pollutants or toxic air contaminants also is considered to be a cumulatively-considerable effect, while emissions that fall below applicable project-level thresholds are not considered cumulatively-considerable.17 In Response 10-20, the FEIR references a response to a different commenter arguing that there is no requirement under CEQA to analyze environmental justice issues.18 The response states that “[t]here is currently no air quality guidance or thresholds to analyze areas with higher pollution levels differently from areas with lower pollution.”19 This response does not address the FEIR’s failure to analyze the combined emissions of the Project and other nearby 15 FEIR, pg. 3-18.
16 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15162 (c) (“Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required.

Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.”)
17 DEIR, pg. 4.2-39 to 4.2-41.
18 FEIR, pg. 3-48.
19 FEIR, pg. 3-19.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
proposed warehouses. CEQA requires “cumulatively considerable” impacts to be analyzed, which means that “the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”20 The FEIR’s “drop in a bucket” approach to assuming that individual impacts are the same as cumulative impacts does not comply with CEQA.21
In Response 10-28, the FEIR claims “air quality impacts, and the CEQA thresholds the Draft EIR uses to measure them, are inherently cumulative by design… The addition of nearby warehouses to the modeling of Project air pollutant and GHG emissions is therefore not necessary to assess the Project’s cumulative impacts on the region.”22 This response fails to respond to the legal authority identified in CARE CA’s initial comments, which explain in detail why the Town’s approach does not meet CEQA’s standards. Dr. Clark’s attached comments demonstrate that this project is one of many warehouse projects currently being reviewed by the Town.23 Dr. Clark demonstrates that, collectively, the projects would result in a major increase in warehouse square footage in the Town and would result in combined impacts.24 For example, Dr. Clark demonstrates that the cumulative amount of DPM that would be released into the community will increase DPM in the community by a factor of 3.66 (a 366 percent increase).25 The FEIR is inadequate because this impact is not disclosed and mitigated.

As a result, the FEIR fails to meet CEQA’s standards for responses to public comments26 and fails to correct the flawed cumulative impacts analysis in the DEIR. The FEIR must be revised and recirculated to disclose and mitigate all cumulative impacts from nearby warehouse projects.

C. The FEIR Still Underestimates Significant Air Quality Impacts CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR explained that the DEIR underestimated the Project’s operational emissions by failing to include emissions from fire pumps.27 The FEIR responds that the DEIR’s reference to fire pumps was 20 PRC § 21083(b)(2). 21 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 719. 22 FEIR, pg. 3-51. 23 Clark Comments, pg. 3. 24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15088. 27 Letter from CARE CA to Town re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley Project (SCH No. 2023090366) (November 13, 2024), pg. 13.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
erroneous, that no fire pumps are proposed for the Project, and that MM-AQ-2 has been updated to require fire pumps to be electrically powered.28 However, MM-AQ-2 has not been updated with any fire pump mitigation. This mitigation must be added to the MMRP because CEQA requires the Town to adopt all feasible mitigation to reduce its significant and unavoidable operational criteria air emissions impact to the greatest extent feasible.29
Similarly, the FEIR states that MM-AQ-1 has been expanded to include requirements for Tier 4 diesel powered construction equipment.30 However, the proposed measure has not been added to the MMRP. The EIR must be revised so that the FEIR is internally consistent and the Project’s emissions are minimized.

D. The FEIR Still Fails to Adopt All Feasible Air Quality and GHG Measures

1. The FEIR Still Fails to Require Feasible Measures from the Town of Apple Valley Climate Action Plan
CARE CA commented that that the DEIR fails to implement policies contained in the Town’s Climate Action Plan that would mitigate the Project’s significant air quality and GHG impacts. The FEIR fails to fully consider the measures proposed in these policies and fails to mitigate the Project’s significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible.31
The FEIR responds that the Project would not conflict with Measure ND-12 because the Project would achieve LEED Silver certification, which includes energy efficiency policies commensurate with those outlined in Policy ND-12.32 This response ignores that LEED Silver requires a building to achieve a number of points/credits, which can be gained by implementing a variety of measures.33 There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that all of the feasible measures in ND12 would be adopted through LEED Silver certification. Adopting all feasible 28 FEIR, pg. 3-44.
29 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15090, 15091; Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 30 FEIR, pg. 3-34.
31 Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at 883. 32 FEIR, pg. 3-45.
33 USGBC, LEED certification for new buildings and major renovations, https://www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems/new-buildings; Applying LEED to warehouse and distribution center projectshttps://support.usgbc.org/hc/en-us/articles/12089652865683-ApplyingLEED-to-warehouse-and-distribution-center-projects.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
measures is required by CEQA due to the Project’s significant and unavoidable GHG impacts.

The FEIR states that the Project would be consistent with ND-14, which encourages the use of passive solar design through landscaping and building orientation, because it would include solar facilities and would achieve LEED certification.34 But the FEIR fails to substantiate how it would “[u]se passive solar design by orienting buildings and incorporating landscaping to maximize passive solar heating during the winter, and minimize solar heating during the summer,” as proposed by ND-14.

The FEIR states that the Project would be consistent with ND-18, which calls for installation of common area electric vehicle charging stations, because the Project would provide least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plugin.35 This mitigation does not meet CEQA’s requirement that the Project’s significant GHG impact be mitigated to the greatest extent feasible because more EV charging infrastructure may be feasible. The FEIR fails to substantiate whether this is the maximum EV charging infrastructure feasible for this Project.

The FEIR states that the Project would be consistent with ND-19 and ND-20, which call for installation of on-site solar energy systems. The Project would be required to include the installation of an on-site solar system and battery storage array per Title 24, part 6 requirements,36 and the solar energy system would have sufficient capacity to power 100% of the Project’s office space.37 This mitigation does not satisfy CEQA’s requirement that the Project’s GHG impact be mitigated to the greatest extent feasible. The EIR must be revised to analyze the feasibility of a solar energy system with capacity greater or equal to the entire building’s energy needs.

2. The FEIR Still Fails to Require Feasible Tier 2 CALGreen Measures
CARE CA commented that the Project’s significant GHG impact would be reduced by implementing Tier 2 measures in Appendix A5, Nonresidential 34 FEIR, pg. 3-45.
35 FEIR, pg. 3-45.
36 FEIR, pg. 3-45 to 3-46.
37 FEIR, pg. 3-34.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Voluntary Measures, of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.38 These voluntary measures expand on existing CAlGreen measures including EV charging, solar facilities, solar reflectance, water consumption, and insulation.39 For example, CALGreen Section A5.106.5.1.2 calls for 50% spaces to be reserved for clean air vehicles.40 CALGreen Section A5.106.5.3 calls for an increased number of EV capable spaces, depending on the total number of spaces.41 Tier 2 standards require large projects with 201 or more parking spaces to provide 45% EV capable spaces.42 CALGreen Section A5.203.1.2 sets energy budgets that are less than permitted by the mandatory Title 24 energy standards.43 CALGreen Section A5.303.2.3 calls for reductions in water consumption by requiring plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings that would reduce the use of potable water by 20% in the case of Tier 2 standards.44 The FEIR fails to consider the feasibility of these measures.45

3. The FEIR Still Fails to Require Feasible Measures from the Attorney General’s Warehouse Guidance
CARE CA commented that the Project’s significant GHG impact would be reduced by implementing feasible measures in the Attorney General’s guidance document for warehouse projects.46 The FEIR claims that all proposed measures are addressed in Response 08-40, but the Response does not address the feasibility of all applicable measures.

The AG guidance calls for “[i]nstalling solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including all electrical chargers.”47 But as explained above, the FEIR fails to demonstrate that it is infeasible to provide solar facilities of this capacity.

The AG guidance calls for “electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at 38 Appendix A5 is available at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P3/appendix-a5- nonresidential-voluntary-measures. 39 Id.
40 See https://up.codes/s/designated-parking-for-clean-air-vehicles. 41 CALGreen, Table A5.106.5.3.1 Tier 1 42 Table A5.106.5.3.1, A5.106.5.3.2. 43 CALGreen Sections A5.203.1.2.1, A5.203.1.2.2. 44 CALGreen Sections A5.303.2.3.1, A5.303.2.3.2 45 FEIR, pg. 3-46.
46 State of California Department of Justice, Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (updated September 2022). 47 Id. at 9.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
least 10% of all employee parking spaces to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations of at least Level 2 charging performance).”48 But the FEIR only calls for five percent of all vehicle parking spaces to include electric vehicle charging stations, and does not substantiate that additional EV charging facilities would be infeasible.49
The AG guidance calls for meeting CALGreen Tier 2 green building standards and designing to LEED green building certification standards.50 But as explained above and in CARE CA’s prior comments,51 the FEIR fails to analyze the feasibility of Tier 2 standards or LEED Gold or Platinum. Even though CALGreen Tier 2 and LEED standards are themselves voluntary, CEQA’s requirement that the Town mitigate the Project’s impacts to the greatest extent feasible requires consideration of these measures in the FEIR.

4. The FEIR Still Fails to Require Feasible Measures from the “Good Neighbor” Policy for Logistics and
Warehouse/Distribution Uses
CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR identified applicable GHG-reduction measures in Riverside County Board of Supervisors Policy F-3.52 The FEIR responds that the measures in Policy F-3 need not be analyzed because the Policy was adopted by the County of Riverside.53 This argument mistakes the legal standard, which is that “public agencies should not approve a project if there are feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project.”54 Here, because the Project’s GHG impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable, the Town is required to consider GHGreducing measures regardless of whether they would otherwise be required for the Project.
48 Id.
49 FEIR, pg. 3-32.
50 State of California Department of Justice, Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (updated September 2022), PG.

10. 51 Letter from CARE CA to Town re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley Project (SCH No. 2023090366) (November 13, 2024), pg. 19.
52 County of Riverside, Board of Supervisors Policy F-3, “Good Neighbor” Policy for Logistics and Warehouse/Distribution Uses”. 53 DEIR, pg. 3-46 to 3-47. 54 Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 878.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper

5. The FEIR Still Fails to Impose Feasible Measures
Consistent with General Plan Policies
CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR explained that the Town’s General Plan includes policies designed to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and GHGs.

These must be considered in order to reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, but the FEIR fails to analyze the feasibility of some measures.

CARE CA commented that the Project fails to implement mitigation proposed by Policy 1.H by failing to require transportation demand management measures.

In response, the FEIR added a measure calling for a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) program to MM-GHG-1.55 The TDM measure added to the FEIR is improperly deferred mitigation. Courts have held that deferral of mitigation may be permitted only where the lead agency: (1) undertakes a complete analysis of the significance of the environmental impact; (2) proposes potential mitigation measures early in the planning process; and (3) articulates specific performance criteria that would ensure that adequate mitigation measures were eventually implemented.56 Here, the FEIR’s measure lacks any performance standards. And the measure fails to “identif[y] the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard.”57 The measure must be revised in a recirculated EIR.

The other General Plan policies identified in CARE CA’s comments call for the Project to exceed Title 24 standards, include solar energy systems, and use clean and/or renewable alternative energy sources for transportation. While the FEIR includes some measures addressing these policies, the FEIR fails to analyze the fullest extent of these GHG-reduction strategies. The FEIR must be revised to identify all feasible mitigation.

E. The FEIR Still Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
CARE CA commented that the DEIR did not include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project, in violation of CEQA. In response, the FEIR states that all applicable 55 FEIR, pg. 3-46, 2-16.
56 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.4; Comtys. for a Better Env’t v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 95; Cal. Native Plant Socy’ v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 621.
57 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15126.4.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
measures have been considered in its discussion of GHG mitigation measures.58 But courts have explicitly held that a GHG or air quality analysis is no substitute for a legally adequate energy analysis.59 This is because a measure may be inapplicable to a GHG or air quality but offer reductions in energy consumption.

For example, the FEIR does not analyze the feasibility of installing solar energy facilities with capacity to power the entire buildings, just the office components. The FEIR reasons that “[a]ny excess energy needs will be met through renewable sources through the Apple Valley Choice Energy 100% Renewable Energy Plan as required by MM GHG-1… Through this program, all energy received from Southern California Edison is derived from renewable sources.”60 This response is only concerned with the Project’s overall emissions and fails to consider that maximizing onsite solar energy facilities would reduce a project’s grid energy use, which concerns the Project’s energy impact.61 The FEIR must be revised to meaningfully analyze the energy reduction measures identified in CARE CA’s comments. This analysis must evaluate the measures with consideration as to whether they achieve the energy conservation goals identified in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.

In sum, the FEIR still fails to include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures. Courts have held that a fundamentally inadequate energy analysis must be included in a recirculated EIR.62
58 FEIR, pg. 3-48.
59 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah, 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 264. (“[t]he court rejected reliance on mitigation measures adopted under the rubric of reducing greenhouse gas emissions that “would likely have the collateral effect of substantial energy-saving effects.” The court explained, “Although there is likely to be a high correlation between reducing greenhouse emissions and energy savings, this court cannot assume the overlap is sufficient under CEQA's study and mitigation requirements.... ‘Air quality mitigation is not a substitute for an energy analysis.’ Thus, we will not consider [the] mitigation measure[ ] in our discussion of mitigation measures addressing energy impacts”), discussing California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173. 60 FEIR, pg. 3-34.
61 General Plan Policy ND-19. (“To reduce the project’s energy use from the grid… Install solar panels/photovoltaic systems sufficient to provide electric power and heat water within the project”) 62 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah, 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 266-67 (“Because the EIR certified in this case was inadequate in its analysis of energy impacts of the project, recirculation and consideration of public comments concerning the energy analysis will be necessary before the EIR may be certified and the project approved.”).

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
F. The FEIR Still Fails to Disclose and Mitigate Potentially Significant Valley Fever Impacts
CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR demonstrated that the DEIR failed to disclose, analyze, and mitigate exposure to Coccidiodes Immitis (Valley Fever cocci) on the Project site. The FEIR responds that exposure to Valley Fever is a speculative impact that would be less than significant, but revises MM-AQ-1 to include new mitigation measures addressing Valley Fever.63 The FEIR’s significance finding is not supported by substantial evidence and the mitigation added to the FEIR would not mitigate this impact.

CARE CA’s comments referenced a study in a 2022 California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) document demonstrating that Valley Fever cases are rapidly rising each year in San Bernardino County, and that in the first 8 months of 2024, San Bernardino County reported 210 cases, representing a nearly 552% increase over the baseline year of 2016 in only three quarters of the year.64 The FEIR challenges the relevance of this study by arguing that “[t]he figures cited by the comment only mention the County of San Bernardino without providing any specifics concerning the location of reported cases.”65 This response ignores that the DEIR cited 2016 data from the same study to support its claim that Valley Fever impacts would not be significant.66 Therefore, the Town cannot contend that its significance finding is supported by substantial evidence if it arguing that countywide data is irrelevant to establishing the significance of an impact.67 The FEIR also claims that there is insufficient evidence supporting the notion that construction workers are at high risk of direct exposure to Valley Fever.68 The FEIR does not identify any evidence in support of this claim, as required by CEQA.

Instead, the FEIR argues that CARE CA’s comments failed to introduce substantial evidence of a potentially significant impact. Specifically, the FEIR concludes that the risk to construction workers is speculative because Dr. Clark cites a journal article published in 1968, which is before MDAQMD Rule 403 (regulating fugitive dust) was adopted.69 This argument lacks merit for several reasons. First, numerous, recent sources confirm that construction workers are at high risk of 63 FEIR, pg. 3-49, 3-52.
64 Letter from CARE CA to Town re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley Project (SCH No. 2023090366) (November 13, 2024), pg. 30.
65 FEIR, pg. 3-49.
66 DEIR, pg. 4.2-39. 67 Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15384. 68 FEIR, pg. 3-49. 69 FEIR, pg. 3-49.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
exposure to Valley Fever.70 Second, the rise of Valley Fever in San Bernardino County is occurring despite the existence of Rule 403.71 Third, Rule 403 does not purport to address Valley Fever impacts.72 Fourth, Dr. Clark explains that the requirements of Rule 403 would not fully mitigate Valley Fever exposure.73 The FEIR next claims that because dust control measures in Rule 403 are aimed at PM10 particles (“PM10 is inclusive of all particles smaller than 10 micrometer”), and Valley Fever cocci are smaller than PM10 particles, Valley Fever is thus controlled by Rule 403.74 This reasoning is incorrect. The limits in Rule 403 primarily serve to reduce Visible Fugitive Dust, as opposed to reducing exposure to Valley Fever to less-than-significant levels.75 A level of dust acceptable under Rule 403 may nonetheless result in unacceptable levels of exposure to Valley Fever. And 70 See Mayo Clinic, Valley Fever, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/valleyfever/symptoms-causes/syc-20378761 (“people who have jobs that expose them to dust are most at risk — construction, road and agricultural workers, ranchers, archaeologists, and military personnel on field exercises.”); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Reducing Risk for Valley Fever, https://www.cdc.gov/valley-fever/prevention/index.html (“Avoid areas around construction to help reduce exposure to the fungus.”); California Department of Industrial Relations, Protection from Valley Fever, https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/valley-feverhome.html#:~:text=Workers%20who%20work%20outdoors%20are,steps%20to%20prevent%20valley %20fever. (“Workers who work outdoors are especially at risk if they dig or disturb soil, operate heavy machinery, or work in windy conditions without taking steps to prevent valley fever.”); University of Arizona, College of Medicine Tucson Valley Fever Center for Excellence, Check for Risk Factors, https://vfce.arizona.edu/valley-fever-people/check-riskfactors#:~:text=Anyone%20who%20lives%20in%2C%20visits,likely%20to%20acquire%20Valley%20F ever. (“People working in certain occupations such as construction, excavation, agricultural work, archaeological digging, or pursuing activities like biking or driving ATVs which disturb soil in endemic areas, may have an increased risk of exposure and disease”); McCurdy et al., Risk for Coccidioidomycosis among Hispanic Farm Workers, California, USA, 2018, available at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7323545/ (“Occupational risk has been associated with soildisruptive activity involving archeologists, film crews, solar power farm construction workers, roadway and construction workers, and agricultural workers”) AB 203 (2019) (requiring construction employers who work in counties with high rates of Valley fever to train their employees on minimizing the risk of Valley fever annually), available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB203. 71 Epidemiologic Summary Of Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) In California, 2022, pg. 5, available at
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciEpiSummary2 022.pdf
72 MDAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust Control, available at http://mdaqmd.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8482/637393282546170000. 73 Clark Comments, pg. 7-8. 74 FEIR, pg. 3-49.
75 MDAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust Control.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Dr. Clark explains that the requirements of Rule 403 would not fully mitigate Valley Fever exposure.76
The FEIR also critiques a study identified in Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrating that rates of Valley Fever would increase with mass disturbance of soils.77 The study demonstrated that construction of large-scale renewable energy construction projects in Antelope Valley resulted in increased rates of Valley Fever.78 The FEIR argues that because the Project is not a renewable energy project or agricultural operation, the difference in scale presents different challenges for the management of fugitive dust.79 The FEIR ignores that this project would disturb millions of square feet of soil during construction, and is one of many such warehouse projects proposed in the region.

Regarding the FEIR’s new Valley Fever mitigation, MM-AQ-1 was revised to require that Valley Fever be included in workers’ training.80 The training topics identified in the measure concern identification of Valley Fever risk factors. This measure is no substitute for measures actually reducing exposure to Valley Fever, such as increased frequency of watering of the soil, provision of respirators equipped with N-100 or P-100 filters, and other measures identified in Dr. Clark’s comments.

The measure does not include any language requiring analysis of the soil for Valley Fever or providing protections to workers should the cocci be detected.

In sum, the FEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusion that Valley Fever impacts would be less than significant. Further, the scientific evidence referenced herein and in Dr. Clark’s comments shows that workers on the Project may be exposed to Valley Fever disturbed during construction. The FEIR must be revised to acknowledge and mitigate this potentially significant impact. The EIR must also be recirculated because the FEIR identifies new mitigation for a new impact, which is significant new information.81
76 Clark Comments, pg. 7-8.
77 FEIR, pg. 3-49.
78 Letter from CARE CA to Town re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley Project (SCH No. 2023090366) (November 13, 2024), Exhibit A, pg. 13.
79 FEIR, pg. 3-49.
80 FEIR, pg. 4-3.
81 14 Cal Code Regs §15088.5.

March 19, 2025

7534-006acp
printed on recycled paper
III. CONCLUSION
As is explained herein, the FEIR’s analyses remain substantially inaccurate and incomplete, failing to comply with the requirements of CEQA. As a result, the FEIR still fails to adequately disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts.

The Town cannot make the findings necessary to approve the Project until the errors and omissions in the FEIR are remedied, and a revised EIR is recirculated for public review and comment which fully discloses and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant environmental and public health impacts. CARE CA urges the Planning Commission to require the Town revise and recirculate the FEIR before any further action is taken on the Project.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachments
APM:acp

EXHIBIT A

March 17, 2025
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Aidan Marshall
Subject: Response to Comments In Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) For Inland Empire North Logistics
Center, Apple Valley, California
At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed the materials related to the Town of Apple Valley’s (the Town) FEIR1 for the above referenced project.

Dudek prepared the FEIR in response to comments from multiple parties’ critiques of the DEIR. Revisions to the text of the DEIR text regarding air quality included correcting typographical errors on the distance of the nearest sensitive receptor (changed 4,700 feet to the southwest to 3,910 feet to the southwest on page 4.2-37) and the substitution of MM AQ-1 regarding Architectural Coating Requirements with MM AQ-1 Construction Requirements. MM AQ-1 focuses now on the need for education of workers on preventing work-related Coccidiomycosis (Valley Fever) exposure.

Clark’s review does not constitute validation or endorsement of the conclusions or content presented in the FEIR. Any lack of comment on specific items should not be interpreted as acceptance or approval of those items.
1 Dudek. 2025. Environmental Impact Report Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley State Clearinghouse No. 2023090366. Dated March 2025.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]

Specific Comments

1. Response To Comment 10-28: The Town’s Cumulative Impact Analysis Fails To Incorporate A Quantitative Analysis To The Substantial Impacts From Nearby Warehouse Projects.

In response to my comment on the failure to perform a quantitative cumulative impact analysis the Town states that “The cumulative analysis in this Draft EIR utilizes a combined “list” and “projections” method, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1). The list incorporates available information about existing and reasonably foreseeable development in the vicinity of the Project site, including implementation of the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan within the surrounding area under the jurisdiction of the Town as well as the Desert Gateway Specific Plan, located east of the Project site across I-15 within the jurisdiction of the City of Victorville” This response does not address the EIR’s failure to actually analyze the combined air quality and GHG impacts of existing and proposed projects. I identified 9 existing warehouse projects (1 of which is vacant) totaling 9.038 million square feet within the vicinity of the Project. Additionally, the Town is currently reviewing 5 new warehouse projects, including this Project, adding 15.777 million square feet of warehouse space. The Town approved two projects that total 7.667 million square feet of warehouse space.

Figure 1: Existing And Approved Warehouse Projects Near Project The 23.444 million square feet of warehousing represented by the approved and projects undergoing CEQA review represents a 259 percent (259%) increase in warehousing in the vicinity. Objectively this represents a significant increase in the number of warehouses and the associated by products of the projects (traffic, criteria air pollution emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, etc..). The Project itself represents a 29% increase over the existing warehouses. Additionally, the Project location is adjacent to the primary transport corridor in the area, Interstate 15. Given the location of the Project, traffic exiting the site could therefore impact the flow of traffic from other warehouses in the area.

Project Site

As I pointed out previously, the existing projects generate 6,000 daily truck trips, producing

8.3 pounds (lbs) of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and 935 lbs of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day.

The 2 approved projects will add 5,000 daily truck trips, contributing 6.9 lbs of DPM and 779 lbs of NOx per day. The projects under review, inclusive of the Project, will add 11,000 daily truck trips, contributing 15.2 lbs of DPM and 1,714 lbs of NOx per day. The Project itself will further contribute to air pollution during both construction and operation. Based on the calculated emissions above it is clear that the amount of DPM that will be released into the community will increase DPM in the community by a factor of 3.66 (a 366 percent increase). Clearly the method utilized by the Town (listing) is insufficient to demonstrate that the Project will not have a cumulative impact on the Town.

2. Response To Comment 10-30: The Town’s Air Quality Analysis Is Not Consistent In Its Analysis Of Stationary Source Emissions.

In response to my comment regarding the lack of generator and fire pumps in the air quality analysis the Town states that “The Project description did not include a discussion of a generator or fire pump because neither are planned for this project.” The Town also states in response to Comment 10-12 that “Regarding back-up generators and fire pumps, none were modeled as part of the Project because the Project’s site plan does not include a backup generator or fire pump. Please see response 10-11. A discussion of a diesel fire pump was erroneously included Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3 of the Draft EIR. This error has been corrected in the Errata. The Project’s Mitigation Measures have been revised to include an update to MM-AQ-2, operational mitigation measures, that state any potential future fire pumps must be electrically powered.”
In the DEIR, MM-AQ-2 is summarized in the executive summary as “MM-AQ-2 ZeroEmission 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 and appliances operating on the Project site shall be zero-emission or near-zeroemission 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.” It must be noted that in the FEIR, the only changes to air quality analysis are those designated for

MM-AQ-1. The omission of the changes in MM-AQ-2 clearly is a flaw in the FEIR that must be updated by the Town.

3. Response To Comment 10-31: The Air Quality Analysis Is Incomplete And Does Not Include The Emissions From The Off-Site Improvements In The Construction Phase Of The Project
The Town claims that the off-site street and utility improvements were captured in the construction scenario developed for the project and length of construction and intensity of worker, vendor and equipment assumptions in the construction schedule capture the adjacent off-site work required to construction the project; therefore, no further analysis is required.

As I pointed out in my initial comment letter, there is no evidence of that in CalEEMOD model provided in Appendix B1 to the FEIR that the off-site work was included. In the final section of the CalEEMod model there is an opportunity to list all of the changes made to the model from the default data. This would have been the location of where the Town could have included a note to detail how the offsite improvements were incorporated into the model It is evident that the improvements were not actually called out from the data presented in the FEIR.

4. Response To Comment 10-32: The FEIR Fails To Incorporate Adequate Mitigation Measures To Reduce NOx, DPM, and DPM Emissions Associated With The Project.

Mitigation measures that have previously been recommended by the California Air Resources Board and the Air Quality Management Districts in California to reduce operational NOx, DPM and GHG emissions not included in the FEIR include:

1. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires tenants to use the cleanest technologies available, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles and equipment that will be operating on site.

2. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans.

3. If Zero-emission trucks and vans are not utilized include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires future tenants to use vehicles produced after 2018. These vehicles produce 37 percent to 45 percent less emission of NOx, DPM, and reactive organic gases (ROGs) that contribute to GHG formation.

4. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires the tenant be in, and monitor compliance with, all current air quality regulations for on-road trucks including CARB's Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation,2 Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP),3 and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation.4

5. Include rooftop solar panels for each proposed warehouse to the extent feasible, with a capacity that matches the maximum allowed for distributed solar connections to the grid.

6. Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the CEQA document. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the Town as the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the Proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this land use or higher activity level.
2 In December 2008, CARB adopted a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty tractors that pull 53-foot or longer box-type trailers. The regulation applies primarily to owners of 53-foot or longer box-type trailers, including both dry-van and refrigerated-van trailers, and owners of the heavy-duty tractors that pull them on California highways. CARB's Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation is available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hdghg/hdghg.htm.
3 The PSIP program requires that diesel and bus fleet owners conduct annual smoke opacity inspections of their vehicles and repair those with excessive smoke emissions to ensure compliance. CARB's PSIP program is available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/hdvip/hdvip.htm.
4 The regulation requires that newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 201 0 model year engines or equivalent. CARB's Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm

7. Ensure that any check-in point for trucks is well inside the Proposed Project site to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility.

8. Establish overnight parking within the industrial building where trucks can rest overnight.

9. Establish area(s) within the Proposed Project site for repair needs.

5. Response To Comment 10-33: The FEIR Fails To Address Valley Fever Risks From Particulate Matter Released During Project Construction.

The FEIR fails to adequately address the known presence and significant risk of Coccidiodes Immitis (Valley Fever fungus) in Southern California. While the addition of worker education on the hazards of Valley Fever is a positive step forward it does not completely mitigate the risk of exposure from the dust born spores. When soil containing the cocci spores are disturbed by construction activities, the fungal spores become airborne, exposing construction workers and other nearby sensitive receptors. The FEIR assumes that meeting MDAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Control For The Mojave Desert Planning Area) would be sufficient to control the impacts from Valley Fever exposure from the Project Site.

Given the significant public health risks associated with airborne Valley Fever spores, the Town must revise the EIR to accurately disclose the Project’s impacts on local air quality and public health, especially for nearby and downwind receptors. The EIR should include effective mitigation measures specifically tailored to Valley Fever, as standard dust controls are inadequate for managing the risks posed by this pathogen. Ensuring robust protections for both on-site workers and off-site receptors is essential to prevent potentially severe health consequences for the surrounding community.

6. Response To Comment 10-34: The Proposed Dust Control Measures In The FEIR Fail To Effectively Mitigate Significant Valley Fever Exposure Risks.

The standard fugitive dust mitigation measures proposed in the FEIR are not adequate to protect construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to Valley Fever spores.

Rule 403 includes requirements for a Dust Control Plan, signage and fencing requirements, as well as surface watering and stabilization with chemicals, gravel and asphaltic pavement to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. All of the mitigation measures outlined

above allow for a percentage of the dust that could be generated to be migrate offsite. Based on the Mitigation Measures outlined in the CalEEMOD model (utilized in the FEIR) watering exposed areas twice a day would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions by 61 percent (61%). Increasing the watering frequency to 3 times per day would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions by 74%.

Conventional dust control measures primarily focus on visible dust or larger dust particles—the PM10 fraction—and fail to address the very fine particles that transport Valley Fever spores, which are approximately 5 times smaller than typical PM10 particles and remain airborne much longer. 5 These
fine particles, when disturbed by soil-disturbing activities, spread widely beyond site, posing a significant risk to both onsite workers and nearby communities.

To address the shortcomings in the standard mitigation method for dust generation, the Town should require active monitoring with dust monitors (particle measuring devices) immediately outside of the facility and around its perimeter. Continuous particle measures would offer several advantages.

It eliminates the subjectivity inherent in visual opacity readings, leading to more reliable and consistent data. It allows for real-time tracking of dust particle levels, enabling prompt corrective actions if thresholds are exceeded. And it offers robust data sets that can be used for repeatability test and to validate compliance with air quality standards. Incorporating active dust monitoring systems would ensure that air quality impacts are accurately assessed and mitigated, fulfilling the intent of the mitigation measures and conditions of compliance to protect public health and the environment.

Additionally, sampling for and removal of impacted soils is the best solution to Coccidiodes immitis spores. Since Coccidiodes immitis resides in soils and are not subject to degradation, entrainment of the potentially impacted soils may cause additional issues to further development of the site.

Conclusion
The facts presented in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts. A RDEIR is necessary to address these substantial concerns fully and transparently.

Sincerely,
5 See, e.g., Cummings and others, 2010, p. 509; Schneider et al., 1997, p. 908 (“Primary prevention strategies (e.g., dustcontrol measures) for coccidioidomycosis in endemic areas have limited effectiveness.”).

EXHIBIT B

1 794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05075
Norman Marshall, President
(802) 356-2969
[email protected]
March 14, 2025
Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Inland Empire North Logistics Center
Dear Mr. Marshall,
In November 2024, I reviewed trip generation, traffic, greenhouse gas (GHG) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts of the proposed Inland Empire North Logistics Center in the Town of Apple Valley as presented in a Draft Environmental Impact Report dated September 2024 (“DEIR”). I made the following findings:
1) Trip generation could be significantly higher than assumed in the DEIR, particularly given the speculative nature of its future use.
2) If trip generation is underestimated in the DEIR, traffic impacts also are underestimated. This could result in additional deficiencies at other locations and/or more extensive mitigation required at the intersections where the DEIR proposes mitigation. 3) If trip generation is underestimated in the DEIR, air pollution and GHG impacts also are underestimated.
4) The DEIR applies the San Bernadino Countywide Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM) to estimate project VMT and concludes that the project would not result in a significant VMT impact. The DEIR analysis follows Town and County guidelines. However, the SBTAM estimates are not very reliable in this transitional area between an urbanized area and a mostly unpopulated desert.

Now, I have reviewed the responses to my comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) dated March 2025. The FEIR responses to these comments are numbered 10-37 – 10-40. FEIR responses 10-37, 10-38 and 10-39 state that comments are addressed in response 08-5. Response 08-5 in its entirety is:

2 The comment expresses concern that transportation impacts are providing inaccurate modeling in regards to the Draft EIR stating the end user has not been identified and would not be a high cube fulfillment facility. As stated in the Draft EIR, in order to evaluate a realistic future use and to ensure a representative range of the potential warehouse types an average of all warehouse types excluding “high-cube – sort” was utilized. High-cube sort is the most intensive type of warehouse and is not anticipated as a future use of the Project. The average rate covers other warehouse types including general warehouse, high-cube non-sort, high-cube parcel hub and short-term storage which represent two-thirds of warehouse types with Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) classifications and a broad range of tenant types. If approved, the Project would be prohibited from being used for a different or more intensive use without further environmental review in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

Overall, the comment has not provided any substantial evidence to demonstrate that the analyzed mix of warehouse types is either inappropriate or inaccurate. Therefore, no revisions are required, and no further response is necessary. (FEIR, PDF p. 46 of 279) This response only restates the rationale given in the DEIR, and fails to address the uncertainty in project’s impacts. I stand by my earlier conclusions:
1) Trip generation could be significantly higher than assumed in the DEIR, particularly given the speculative nature of its future use.
2) If trip generation is underestimated in the DEIR, traffic impacts also are underestimated. This could result in additional deficiencies at other locations and/or more extensive mitigation required at the intersections where the DEIR proposes mitigation. 3) If trip generation is underestimated in the DEIR, air pollution and GHG impacts also are underestimated.

I further note that the number of parking spaces planned can give an indication of likely trip generation because most warehouse trips are made by employees. Neither the DEIR or the FEIR provides the number of planned parking spaces. The DEIR includes an exhibit labeled Figure 1-1, Site Plan (p. 1-39), that shows parking spaces but it is unclear whether this is a final site plan which typically would enumerate parking spaces.

My comment #4 pointed out that “. . . SBTAM estimates are not very reliable in this transitional area between an urbanized area and a mostly unpopulated desert.” The FEIR response 10-40 (FEIR PDF p. 81 of 279) restates the DEIR rationale that the use of SBTAM satisfies the legal requirements, but does not address the question of whether the information from the SBTAM is valid. I stand by my earlier comment that the model outputs are not reliable for this location Sincerely,
Norman L. Marshall

154356953.1
March 19, 2025
Town of Apple Valley
Planning Commission
14955 Dale Evans Parkway
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Re: Response to Planning Commission Comment Letter Regarding General Plan Amendment 2023-002, Development Permit 2022-014 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 20625 by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) Town Planning Commissioners:

The purpose of this letter is to provide responses to the issues raised by CARE CA in its comment letter dated March 19, 2025, to the Town of Apple Valley Planning Commission regarding the Planning Commission’s March 19, 2025, consideration of the Inland Empire North Logistics Center – Apple Valley Warehouse Project (“Project”). Issues raised in the March 19, 2025, comment letter are provided below with a response indicating where these issues are addressed in the Final EIR.

Based on our review we conclude CARE CA has not raised any new, unique or significant issues beyond those previously submitted through its November 13, 2024, comment letter to the Project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Each of these issues were responded to in detail within the Project’s Final EIR which will be considered by the Town’s Planning Commission during its March 19, 2025, public hearing. The responses demonstrate that the Project EIR fully complied with the statutes and accompanying guidelines that comprise the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

CARE CA’s claim that the FEIR Still Fails to Analyze Impacts Associated with Reasonably Foreseeable Warehouse Uses
Response: Please see Final EIR response to comments 10-7, response to comments 10-8 and response to comments 10-9.

CARE CA’s claim that the FEIR Still Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
Response: Please see Final EIR response to comment 10-19, response to comment 10-20, and response to comment 10-28.

CARE CA’s claim that the FEIR Still Underestimates Significant Air Quality Impacts Response: Please see Final EIR response to comment 10-12 and response to comment 10-30.

CARE CA’s claim that the FEIR Still Fails to Require Feasible Measures from the Town of Apple Calley Climate Action Plan
Response: Please see Final EIR response to comment 10-14 and response to comment 8-40.

CARE CA’s claim that the FEIR Still Fails to Require Feasible Tier 2 CALGreen Measures Response: Please see Final EIR response to comment 10-14 and response to comment 8-40.

TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT LETTER REGARDING GPA 2023-002, DP 2022-014 AND TPM NO. 20625 BY ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS ALLIED FOR A

RESPONSIBLE ECONOMY
154356953.1 2

CARE CA’s claim that the FEIR Still Fails to Require Feasible Mitigation Measures from the Attorney General’s Warehouse Guidance
Response: Please see Final EIR response to comment 10-15 and response to comment 8-40.

CARE CA’s claim that the FEIR Still Fails to Require Feasible Measures from the “Good Neighbor” Policy for Logistics and Warehouse/Distribution Uses
Response: Please see response to comment 10-16 and response to comment 8-40.

CARE CA’s claim that the FEIR Still Fails to Impose Feasible Measures Consistent with General Plan Policies Response: Please see response to comment 10-17.

CARE CA’s claim that the FEIR Still Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures Response: Please see response to comment 10-18 and response to comment 8-40.

CARE CA’s claim that the FEIR Still Fails to Disclose and Mitigate Potentially Significant Valley Fever Impacts Response: Please see response to comment 10-22.

In conclusion, it is our position that CARE CA’s claims have no merit and have previously been acknowledged and addressed in the Project’s Final EIR and associated responses to comments. CARE CA has not raised any new, unique or significant issues that would trigger either revision or recirculation of the Project’s EIR. For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission should recommend the Town Council certify the Project EIR and approve the General Plan Amendment, Development Permit ad Tentative Parcel Map as requested.

Sincerely,
Nicholas Lorenzen Cindi Hoover, AICP
Air Resources Specialist CEQA Project Manager

7534-010acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE

ISABEL TAHIR
Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
MARC D. JOSEPH

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
April 11, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Mr. Orlando Acevedo, Assistant Town Manager
Community and Economic Development Services
Email: [email protected]
Rick Hirsch, Consulting Planner
Town of Apple Valley
Email: [email protected]
RE: Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley Project (SCH No. 2023090366)
Dear Mr. Alcayaga and Mr. Hirsch:

This firm represents the Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) with regard to the above-referenced Inland Empire North Logistics Center Apple Valley Project (SCH No. 2023090366) (“Project”), proposed by FGFW IV, LLC (“Applicant”). On November 13, 2024 and March 19, 2025, we submitted comments on behalf of CARE CA stating objections and concerns regarding the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared for the Project.

We are pleased to report that as a result of direct discussions with the Applicant, the Applicant has agreed to implement additional measures beyond the measures currently proposed in the FEIR to address the potential health risk, air quality and greenhouse gas impacts identified in the CARE CA comments:

A. Air Quality

1.1. Require that the Project operator enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and the developer shall require any future occupants of the Project to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.

B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy

April 11, 2025

7534-010acp
printed on recycled paper

1.1. The Project shall comply with the CalGreen Tier 1 standards and shall further comply with, and seek certification under the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver requirements.

C. Valley Fever

1.1. Respirators:

1.1.1. When requested by any Project workers, the developer of the Project will provide half-face respirators equipped with a minimum assigned protection factor of 10 for use during worker collocation with surface disturbance activities.

1.1.2. Provide National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved respirators for workers who have disclosed a prior history of contracting Valley Fever while working on projects in the same geographic location as the Project.

1.1.3. Where commercially available, the Project developer shall provide high-efficiency particulate (“HEP”)-filtered, air-conditioned enclosed cabs on heavy construction equipment. All Project workers will receive training on the proper use of cabs, such as turning on air conditioning prior to using the equipment and keeping windows closed. The Project developer shall provide communication methods, such as 2-way radios, for use in enclosed cabs.

With the adoption of these measures, CARE CA’s objections to the Project and the FEIR are fully resolved, and we respectfully request that the Town adopt the FEIR and approve the Project.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
APM:acp

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: April 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: CLOSED SESSION
From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Thomas Rice, Town Attorney
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
A CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case No.: CIVDS1600180 – Town of Apple Valley vs. Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company Et Al.; and Town of Apple Valley vs. Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company, et al., Court of Appeal Case No. E078348.

B CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representatives: Mayor, Town Attorney, or designee Unrepresented employee: Town Manager