Agenda packet — Apple Valley City Council, April 22, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA

Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 6:30 p.m.

Council Chamber

PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES UPON ENTERING THE CHAMBER
THIS MEETING IS BROADCAST LIVE AND VIEWABLE ON FRONTIER CHANNEL 29 OR CHARTER SPECTRUM CHANNEL 186 AND LIVE STREAMED ONLINE AT HTTPS://APPLEVALLEY.TV.THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY SUPPORTS PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT AND WISHING TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

PLEASE EMAIL YOUR COMMENT TO [email protected]. COMMENTS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED BY 12:00 P.M. ON THE MEETING DATE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.

The meeting will occur in the Council Chamber located at 14955 Dale Evans Parkway in Apple Valley, California.

This is an agenda for the scheduled meeting of the Town of Apple Valley.

This agenda contains a brief description of each item of business to be considered at today’s meeting. In accordance with the Brown Act, this meeting agenda is posted at least 72 hours prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. The agenda, its supporting documents and all writings received by the Town Council related to these items are public records and available for review during regular business hours in the Town Clerk’s office in the Town Council Chamber. The agenda and its supporting documents, along with live and archived video of the meeting, can be viewed online at http://www.applevalley.org. However, the online agenda may not include all available supporting documents or the most current version of documents.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Town Clerk’s Office at 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, CA during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the Town of Apple Valley website at www.applevalley.org subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

Items listed on the Consent Calendar are expected to be routine and non-controversial and, unless the Town Council directs that an item be held for further discussion, the entire Consent Calendar will be acted upon as the first item of business. If the Town Council directs that an item listed on the Consent Calendar be held for further discussion, the item will be addressed immediately after approval of the Consent Calendar.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, members of the public may address the Town Council on any item on the agenda and on any matter that is within the Town Council’s jurisdiction. To address the Town Council regarding an item, complete and submit the yellow card entitled Request to Speak.

Please indicate on the card whether you are speaking under Public Comments or on an item that is listed on the agenda and please list the item number.

No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of the Town Council/Redevelopment Agency or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3.

When called, approach the podium and if desired, please state your name before giving your presentation. Speakers may address the Town Council for up to three (3) minutes. Speakers are to address the Town Council as a whole through the Presiding Officer. Comments to individual Council Members and/or staff are not permitted.

Individuals, who demonstrate disruptive conduct during Town Council meetings that prevent the Town Council from conducting its meeting in an orderly manner, are guilty of a misdemeanor as stated in PC403, disrupting a public meeting and are subject to removal from the chamber or arrest.

The Town of Apple Valley recognizes its obligation to provide equal access to those individuals with disabilities. Please contact the Town Clerk’s Office at (760) 240-7000 two working days prior to the scheduled meeting for any requests for reasonable accommodations.

Pages

1. Call to Order

2. Opening Ceremonies

2.1 Invocation
Pastor Johnny Lewis from Grace Christian Community Church

2.2 Pledge of Allegiance

2.3 Presentations
Fire Chief Peratt, Apple Valley Fire Protection District (AVFPD) - Cal Fire's updated Apple Valley Fire Hazard Severity Zones

3. Public Comments

Page 2 of 283 ends

4. Councilmember Committee/Commission/Community Participation 5 Councilmembers to make brief reports on their participation on committees, boards, and commissions on the Town’s behalf since the last meeting.

Councilmembers may also make brief reports on their community participation.

No formal action will be taken.

5. Town Council Announcements

5.1 Suggested items for next Agenda

5.2 Time, Date & Place for Next Town Council Regular or Special Meeting A. Regular Meeting - May 13, 2025 - Council Chambers Regular Session at 6:30pm

6. Town Council Consent Agenda
Recommended Motion:

To approve the Consent Calendar items numbered 6.1 to 6.3 as recommended.

6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7
That the Town Council approve the subject minutes as part of the consent agenda.

6.2 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK FOR THE MANHOLE RING AND COVER

REPLACEMENTS PROJECT
13 That the Town Council:

Accept the work completed by Kelley’s Underground
Construction, Inc. as part of the Manhole Ring and Cover Replacements Project for a total contract cost of $56,800.00.

Direct the Town Clerk to file the Notice of Completion for the contracted work.

Direct the Finance Department to release the retained funds 30 days after the Notice of Completion has been filed, provided no claims are filed against the contractor.

6.3 RELEASE OF SECURITIES FOR PARCL MAP 20017 18
That the Town Council finds that the construction of various improvements required for Parcel Map 20017 are complete and approves the 50% reduction of the performance securities and release of the labor and materials security.

7. Public Hearings

Page 3 of 283 ends

7.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-002, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20625, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2022-014, EIR SCH#2023090366 21 That the Town Council:

A. Open a public hearing and take testimony;
B. Close the public hearing;
Adopt Town Council Resolution No. 2025-07 Certifying the project EIR, Resolution No. 2025-08 Approving GPA No. 2023- 002 and Resolution No. 2025-09 Approving TPM No. 20625 and; C.

Direct Staff to timely file a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and Clerk of the Board of San Bernardino
County.

8. Business of the Council

9. Reports, Requests and Communications

10. Town Manager’s Comments & Legislative Update

11. Closed Session
Recommended Motion:

To Adjourn the regular meeting to move into Closed Session at TIME to discuss the following:

11.1 CLOSED SESSION 283
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

12. Adjournment
Recommended Motion:

To adjourn the meeting of the Apple Valley Town Council at TIME.

Page 4 of 283 ends

TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY

TOWN COUNCIL SERVING ON BOARDS, COMMITTEES & COMMISSIONS

CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES

HISTORICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (HAC)
Council Member Cusack
Meets every 2nd Tuesday of each month at 9:00 a.m.,
(location may vary)

SPECIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS*
Mayor - Chairman
Meets quarterly at 1:30 p.m., Town of Apple Valley
Conference Center - Development Services Building
14975 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley.

TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Mayor Nassif
Meets as needed.

Town Council Chambers

TOWN PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
Mayor Nassif
Council Member Bishop
Meets as needed

PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mayor Nassif
Mayor Pro-Tem Emick

AD HOC COMMITTEES

APPLE VALLEY ROAD AD HOC COMMITTEE
Mayor Nassif

VILLAGE MERCHANTS AD HOC COMMITTEE
Mayor Pro-Tem Emick

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CRITERIA

AD-HOC COMMITTEE
Council Member Bishop
Council Member Leon

AGENCY - BOARDS/COMMITTEES &

COMMISSIONS

CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE

AUTHORITY (CJPIA)
Mayor Nassif – Director
Exec. Committee meets every 4th Wednesday of each
month at 7:00 p.m., La Palma, CA.

CAL CITIES/DESERT MOUNTAIN DIVISION (DMD)
Mayor Nassif- Voting Delegate
Council Member Bishop – Alternate
Meets as needed, rotating cities.

MOJAVE DESERT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT (MDAQMD)
Council Member Leon-– Delegate
Mayor Pro-Tem Emick – Alternate
Meets every 4th Monday of each month at 10:00 a.m.,
14306 Park Avenue, Victorville

MOJAVE DESERT AND MOUNTAIN RECYCLING

AUTHORITY
Council Member Cusack – Delegate
Council Member Bishop – Alternate
Meets quarterly on the 2nd Thursday February, May,
August and November at 10:00 a.m.
at the Materials Recovery Facility, 17000 Abbey Lane,
Victorville

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY (SBCTA)
Council Member Bishop - Board Member
Council Member Cusack – Alternate
Meets 2
nd Wednesday of each month at 9:00 a.m.,
I10/I15 Corridor meets 2nd Thursday at 10:00 a.m.
1170 West 3rd St.

San Bernardino

SOLID WASTE ADVISORY TASK FORCE (SWAT)
Council Member Cusack – Committee Member
Julie Ryan - Alternate
Meets as needed on Wednesdays at 1:30 p.m.

Sam J. Racadio Library & Environmental Learning
Center Community Room 7863 Central Ave. Highland

VICTOR VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY (VVEDA)
(George Air Force Base Reuse Task Force)
Mayor Pro-Tem Emick – Commissioner
Council Member Bishop – Alternate
Meets as needed, SCLA

VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (VVTA)
Mayor Pro-Tem Emick – Representative
Council Member Leon - Alternate
Meets every 3rd Monday of each month at 9:30 a.m.,
Victorville City Hall

Page 5 of 283 ends

VICTOR VALLEY WASTEWATER RECLAMATION

AUTHORITY (VVWRA)
Mayor Nassif – Commissioner
Council Member Bishop – Alternate
Meets every 3rd Thursday at 7:30 a.m.

VVWRA Offices

GREATER HIGH DESERT CHAMBERS

GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
Council Member Bishop – Representative
Council Member Cusack – Alternate
*These Boards, Committees and
Commissions require the Mayor to serve
as the representative.

Page 6 of 283 ends

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: April 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: APPROVAL OF MINUTES

From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: La Vonda M-Pearson, Director of Government Services/Town Clerk Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council approve the subject minutes as part of the consent agenda.

SUMMARY:

A. Regular Meeting April 8, 2025.

Page 7 of 283 ends

Apple Valley Town Council

MINUTES
April 8, 2025, 6:30 p.m.

Council Chamber
Members Present: Council Member Art Bishop
Council Member Larry Cusack
Council Member Kari Leon
Mayor Pro Tem Curt Emick
Mayor Scott Nassif
_____________________________________________________________________

1. Call to Order
Mayor Nassif called to order the regular session of the Apple Valley Town Council at 6:30 p.m.

2. Opening Ceremonies

2.1 Invocation
Minister Hector Garcia from Calvary Chapel, Apple Valley.

2.2 Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Town Attorney Thomas Rice.

2.3 Presentations
Citizens’ Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax Revenue Measure Oversight Committee Certificate of Appointment presentations:

Member Bruce Ebmeyer
Member Paul Kleinsmith
Member Matthew Schulenberg
Member Larry Parks
Member Christopher J. Porter

Page 8 of 283 ends

TC Minutes April 8, 2025
2 3. Public Comments
Sheri Kidwell, Apple Valley, thanked the Town for the improvements to Thunderbird Park. She expressed concern over the animal shelter and the Measure P oversight committee.

Marcy Taylor, Apple Valley, commented on upcoming events presented by Apple Valley Historical organizations.

4. Councilmember Committee/Commission/Community Participation Councilmembers to make brief reports on their participation on committees, boards, and commissions on the Town’s behalf since the last meeting.

Councilmembers may also make brief reports on their community participation.

No formal action will be taken.

Council Member Bishop commented on committee meetings and events that he attended.

Council Member Leon commented on committee meetings and events that he attended.

Council Member Cusack commented on committee meetings and events that she attended.

Mayor Pro Tem Emick commented on committee meetings and events that he attended.

Mayor Nassif commented on committee meetings and events that he attended.

5. Town Council Announcements

5.1 Suggested items for next Agenda

5.2 Time, Date & Place for Next Town Council Regular or Special Meeting A. Regular Meeting - April 22, 2025 - Council Chambers Regular Session at 6:30pm

6. Town Council Consent Agenda
Council Member Cusack has a remote interest in specific warrants on tonight’s Commercial Warrants dealing with Apple Valley Communications or AVCOM Services for the Town of Apple Valley as the owner of these businesses.

Therefore, he will be recusing from voting on the warrants for Apple Valley Communications and AVCOM Services listed under Agenda Item Number 6.2. In addition, due to his interest in these businesses, Council Member Cusack will be recusing from voting on specific warrants listed under Agenda Item Number 6.2

Page 9 of 283 ends

TC Minutes April 8, 2025
3 because these entities are considered sources of income to his businesses. A list of business entities for Council Member Cusack is maintained on file in the Town Clerk’s Office and available for review at the dais.

Council Member Cusack confirmed that he would be recusing from voting on these warrants.

Paula Pereira, Town Surveyor/Project Manager, provided a brief update on Item

6.5 as requested by the Town Council for the benefit of the public.

Motion by: Council Member Leon
Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Emick
To approve the Consent Calendar items numbered 6.1 to 6.8 as recommended.

Yes (5): Council Member Bishop, Council Member Cusack, Council Member Leon, Mayor Pro Tem Emick, and Mayor Nassif
Carried (5 to 0)

6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
That the Town Council approve the subject minutes as part of the consent agenda.

6.2 MARCH 2025 COMMERCIAL WARRANTS AND WIRE TRANSFER

SCHEDULES
That the Town Council receive, ratify, and file the Commercial Warrants and Wire Transfer Schedules as presented.

6.3 MARCH 2025 PAYROLL/BENEFITS WARRANTS SCHEDULE
That the Town Council receive, ratify and file the payroll/benefits warrants as presented.

6.4 APPROVE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY (SBCTA) FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. 25-1003283
That the Town Council approve Project Funding Agreement No. 25- 1003283 with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) for the Central Road Widening Project, subject to approval as to form by the Town Attorney and as to content by the Town Manager.

Page 10 of 283 ends

TC Minutes April 8, 2025
4 6.5 BEAR VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE OVER MOJAVE RIVER
REHABILITATION AND WIDENING PROJECT – PURCHASE AND

SALE AGREEMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
WITH VICTOR VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (VVCCD).

That the Town Council:

A. Approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement with VVCCD;
B. Approve the Temporary Construction Easement with VVCCD.

6.6 ACCEPT THE FINAL MAP FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 20473,
WOODSTONE INVESTMENT COMPANIES, INC.

Approve the final map, securities and agreement for Parcel Map No. 20473 subject to approval as to form by the Town Attorney and as to content by the Town Manager.

6.7 ACCEPT THE FINAL MAP FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 20457, RYLAR

INVESTMENTS
Approve the final map Parcel Map No. 20457.

6.8 CONSIDER APPROVING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH BOB MURRAY AND ASSOCIATES
That the Town Council approve the Professional Services Agreement with Bob Murray and Associates.

7. Public Hearings
None.

8. Business of the Council
None.

9. Reports, Requests and Communications

10. Town Manager’s Comments & Legislative Update
Doug Robertson, Town Manager, commented on activities and upcoming events in the Town of Apple Valley.

11. Closed Session
Motion by: Council Member Leon
Seconded by: Council Member Bishop

Page 11 of 283 ends

TC Minutes April 8, 2025
5 To adjourn the regular meeting to move into Closed Session at 7:25 p.m. to discuss the following:

11.1 CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT Title: Town Manager (discussion of process)
Carried Unanimously
Upon returning from Closed Session at 8:01 p.m. Mayor Nassif announced that there was no reportable action taken.

12. Adjournment
Motion by: Council Member Leon
Seconded by: Council Member Bishop
To adjourn the meeting of the Apple Valley Town Council at 8:01 p.m.

Carried Unanimously
________________________
Mayor, Scott Nassif
___________________________
Town Clerk, La Vonda M-Pearson

Page 12 of 283 ends

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: April 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: ACCEPTANCE OF WORK FOR THE MANHOLE RING AND COVER

REPLACEMENTS PROJECT
From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Jabez Vargas, Public Works Manager
Public Works Division
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council:

A. Accept the work completed by Kelley’s Underground Construction, Inc. as part of the Manhole Ring and Cover Replacements Project for a total contract cost of $56,800.00.

B. Direct the Town Clerk to file the Notice of Completion for the contracted work.

C. Direct the Finance Department to release the retained funds 30 days after the Notice of Completion has been filed, provided no claims are filed against the contractor.

BACKGROUND
The purpose of this project was to remove existing sewer manhole concrete collars, cast iron manhole rings and covers, and replace them with new concrete collars and locking manhole rings and covers on Bear Valley Road, between Navajo and Central Roads.

This is a high traffic area and locking manhole covers will ensure our manholes remain securely in place.

ANALYSIS
The work was completed on March 27, 2025. Engineering staff inspected the project area and deemed it complete and acceptable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the project has been appropriated in the adopted FY 2024-25 budget under Wastewater account code 50105032.710220.

Page 13 of 283 ends

ATTACHMENTS
A. Project Location
B. Notice of Completion

Page 14 of 283 ends

Bear Valley Road Manhole Ring and Cover Replacements 1/6/2025 SCALE: NTS Area of Work Town of Apple Valley Central Road
Bear Valley Road
Navajo Road
Toltec Drive
Project Location

Page 15 of 283 ends

Page 16 of 283 ends

Page 17 of 283 ends

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: April 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: RELEASE OF SECURITIES FOR PARCL MAP 20017
From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Richard Pedersen, Town Engineer
Engineering Division
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council finds that the construction of various improvements required for Parcel Map 20017 are complete and approves the 50% reduction of the performance securities and release of the labor and materials security.

BACKGROUND
Staff has inspected and approved the construction of Parcel Map 20017 improvements and recommends that the Town accept the improvements as complete and reduce the performance security to 50% and release of the labor and materials security. The remaining 50% of the performance security will be retained by the Town for one year as a warranty/maintenance bond.

Bond amounts for improvements are as follows:
(50% Reduction)
Improvement Performance Bond Warranty/Maintenance Bond
Street/Storm Drain Improvements $221,959 $110,980
Landscaping Improvements $5,766 $2,883
Water Improvements $229,556 $114,778
Monumentation $3,500 N/A

ANALYSIS
When the Town Council accepted the final map for Parcel Map 20017, construction agreements and securities in the amounts listed above were required. The developer, Abdallah Hourany, has now requested the release of securities since he has fulfilled the terms of the agreements to construct various improvements.

Page 18 of 283 ends

FISCAL IMPACT
No foreseable fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS
Location Map

Page 19 of 283 ends

LOCATION MAP

Page 20 of 283 ends

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: April 22, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-002, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20625, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2022-014, EIR
SCH#2023090366
From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Orlando Acevedo, Assistant Town Manager
Planning Divison
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council:

A. Open a public hearing and take testimony;
B. Close the public hearing;
C. Adopt Town Council Resolution No. 2025-07 Certifying the project EIR, Resolution No. 2025-08 Approving GPA No. 2023-002 and Resolution No. 2025-09 Approving TPM No. 20625 and;
D. Direct Staff to timely file a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and Clerk of the Board of San Bernardino County.

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In August, 2022, the Town received applications to subdivide a 178-acre site into two parcels and construct the Inland Empire North Logistics Center (IENLC) eCommerce warehouse complex with associated on and off-site improvements for a property located east of Interstate 15, north of Falchion Road and south of Norco Street (see Attachments A, D). The subdivision would create two lots of 96 and 76 acres to support the construction of two buildings with cross-dock configurations to facilitate eCommerce logistics, warehousing and distribution. The two resulting building sites are proposed to be designed as followed. Building 1 would consist of 1.51 million square feet (SF) and include 266 loading dock doors. Building 2 would consist of 1.1 million SF with 202 loading docks doors. Each building would have open warehouse floor plans with 20,000 SF of supporting offices, stacked in two stories of 10,000 SF each, providing administrative functions for the primary eCommerce warehousing activities. Interior clerestory heights would be 42 feet (see Attachment B). In addition to the subdivision, the project proposes

Page 21 of 283 ends

to re-align Apple Valley Road to the site’s east perimeter, to vacate a segment of right-ofway through the site and to re-classify Norco Street from a “Major Road” to a “Collector” street (see Attachment C), In May 2023, the applicant submitted a General Plan Amendment application supporting these requests.

REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
General Plan Amendment (GPA): The requested General Plan Amendment would change the Circulation Element Street System exhibit by re-aligning Apple Valley Road from its current planned route through the site to the east property line, vacating the dedicated right-of-way area on site and re-classification Norco Street from a “Major Road” to a “Collector” street. The Town of Apple Valley’s (TOAV) Municipal Code Sections

9.02.050 (F) and (H) require the Planning Commission to review all GPAs with written recommendation to the Town Council. The project and all requested entitlements require final consideration and decision by the Town Council.

It is noteworthy that the Town is currently in the process of updating its Circulation Element. The draft Map reflects and aligns with the project’s proposed street design and improvements. The Town Engineer and Fehr & Peers, the Town’s traffic engineering consultant, have evaluated the proposed changes to area circulation and determined that they will serve to improve vehicular circulation and pedestrian safety in the project area and would meet the Town’s future vehicle capacity and circulation needs. The environmental analysis for the update is currently in process. The update has not yet been considered by the Planning Commission or Town Council thus a project-level GPA is needed.

Tentative Parcel Map (TPM): A two-lot subdivision is typically eligible for a “Lot Split” under TOAV Municipal Code Section 9.71.080.B.1. However, because the project requests a GPA, it is not eligible for a Lot Split and instead requires a Tentative Parcel Map and Final Map. Tentative Parcel Map’s are typically reviewed by the Planning Commission. However, in this case, due to the request for GPA, the Commission has provided a recommendation to the Town Council, which has final review authority.

Development Permit (DP): TOAV Municipal Code Section 9.17.020.B.2 requires industrial developments of greater than 100,000 square feet to obtain approval of a development permit from the Planning Commission. Again, because of the requested GPA, the project in its entirety, including the development permit, will be considered for final decision by Town Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Town has determined that the project requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, a “Notice of Preparation” (NOP) was sent to the Land Use and Climate Innovation State Clearinghouse and published for public review and comment between September 18th and October 17th, 2023, during which four (4) comments were received.

Based on technical studies, comments received, an initial study, and a duly noticed Scoping Meeting held on October 5, 2023, a Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared providing detailed information regarding the project’s potential adverse environmental effects. The DEIR demonstrated that the following environmental impacts can be reduced to lessPage 22 of 283 than-significant levels with adoption of mitigation measures: biological resources, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources. The DEIR further concluded that, despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality and greenhouse gas.

A “Notice of Availability” (NOA) and the DEIR were circulated and posted pursuant to Town and State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a) for 45 days from September 30th through November 13th, 2024. The DEIR and NOA were filed with the State Clearinghouse and County Clerk’s Office and published on the Town website on September 30th. The NOA and a link to the Town website were sent by email to all interested parties and public agencies on September 27th. Printed copies of the DEIR and its technical appendices were placed at Town Hall, the Development Services Building and at the San Bernardino County Library. During the public review period, the Town received twelve (12) timely letters and two (2) additional letters following the close of the DEIR public review period.

Based on the comments received, the Town prepared a Final EIR (FEIR) following the close of the DEIR review period. The FEIR contains the Comment Letters and detailed Responses, changes to the DEIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). CEQA Findings of Fact were prepared, listing all specific project-related impacts and mitigation measures and providing the legal record documenting the Town's reasoning for its decision on 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” anticipated from the project, including economic, fiscal and community benefits, that outweigh the adverse environmental impacts that would remain after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. A Fiscal Revenue Analysis was prepared in support of the Findings and SOC, and described the project’s anticipated fiscal, employment and economic benefits to the Town and community (see Attachment H).

On March 7, 2025, the Town released the FEIR and provided an electronic version of the FEIR on the Town website and sent direct notifications to commenting public agencies and other interested parties that had requested to be notified.

On March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the project and the FEIR. The Planning Commission recommended that the Town Council certify the FEIR and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations by a vote of four votes in favor, one absence and no votes against. A minor change was made to MM-AQ-2 following the Planning Commission hearing, to specifically note that all fire pumps operating on the site will be zero-emission or nearzero-emission equipment. This was added to address a comment made during the Planning Commission meeting. This edit is reflected with underlining in the MMRP attached as “Exhibit B” to Resolution No. 2025-07 Certifying the EIR for the IENLC Project.

Page 23 of 283 ends

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.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission considered the project and held a public hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting on March 19, 2025. Public Notice was posted, published and mailed pursuant to Town and State Law on March 8, 2025. The Town received three (3) written comments during the public notice period. Dudek Environmental provided response memos (see Attachment J). A number of interested citizens spoke in favor of the project during the public hearing. Following the hearing, and based on information contained in the EIR, the Agenda Report and other supporting exhibits, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 (4 in favor, none opposed, one absence) to recommend that the Town Council certify the EIR and approve the project’s requested entitlements.

FISCAL IMPACT
Development Impact Fees (DIFs), calculated per the Town’s adopted Fee Schedule, including substantial Transportation Impact Fees (TIFs), would be collected for this project prior to Building Permit issuance, as follows:

Fee category Rate Project square
footage
Total fees to be
collected
Transportation Impact Fees $0.169
2,604,446
$445,933
Law Enforcement Facilities $0.001 $2604
Storm Drainage Facilities $0.114 $296,907
General Government Facilities $0.034 $88,551
General Park/Quimby Fee $0.006 $16,148
Sanitary Sewer Facilities $0.684 $1,781,441
Fire District Fees $0.089 $231,796
TOTAL FEES: $2,863,380
In addition to the scheduled DIFs noted above, the project’s “Focused Traffic Impact Analysis” calculated “Fair Share” pro rata contributions that are required to be made by the project to finance future area transportation network improvements, as follows:

Anticipated improvement
Total
Estimated
Cost
Project
“Fair
Share”
%
Estimated Fair
Share Fees to
be collected
Near-term
Stoddard Wells Rd. / Outer Highway 15 $50,000 92.3 $46,167 Stoddard Wells Rd / W. Frontage Rd. $50,000 89.8 $44,877 Stoddard Wells Rd. / Outer Highway 15 / I15 NM Ramps $1,400,000 31.2 $436,348 Stoddard Wells Rd / Quarry Rd $800,000 30.7 $245,560
Quarry Rd / I -15 SB Ramps $200,000 32.2 $64,372
Long-term

Page 24 of 283 ends

Stoddard Wells Rd. / Outer Highway 15 $500,000 36.4 $181,756 Outer Highway 15 / I-15 NB ramps $500,000 66.8 $334,025 Stoddard Wells Rd / W. Frontage Rd. $500,000 32.8 $163,922 Stoddard Wells Rd. / Outer Highway 15 / I15 NM Ramps $1,400,000 21.3 $297,605 Stoddard Wells Rd / Quarry Rd $800,000 23.3 $186,237
Quarry Rd / I -15 SB Ramps $200,000 24.8 $49,533
Falchion Rd / Outer Hwy 15 $500,000 36.4 $181,756
TOTAL FEES: $2,232,158
“Fair Share” contributions are collected and retained by the Town on behalf of the County and Caltrans until such time as sufficient funds are available to complete the listed improvements. The “Fiscal Revenue Analysis” provides further detail (Attachment J).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the project is consistent and in full conformance with the General Plan and the TOAV Municipal Code, pursuant to approval of the requested General Plan Amendment. Staff believes that the EIR thoroughly analyzes the project’s potential adverse impacts and provides feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts, where and to the extent possible. Staff recommends that the Town Council open a public hearing, take testimony, close the public hearing and move to approve Resolution No. 2025-07 Certifying the project EIR, Resolution No. 2025-08 Approving GPA 2023-002 and Resolution No. 2025-09 Approving TPM No. 20625.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity map
B. Key drawings
C. Proposed area circulation
D. Tentative Parcel Map
E. Resolution No. 2025-07 Certifying the project EIR
(with Exhibits A.1, A.2, B)
F. Resolution No. 2025-08 Approving GPA 2023-002 (with Exhibits A, B.1, B.2) G. Resolution No. 2025-09 Approving TPM No. 20625 (with Exhibits A, B) H. Fiscal Revenue Analysis (3/18/25)
I. Planning Commission Agenda report (3/19/25)
J. Comments received during Commission public notice period, response memos K. ABJC CARE CA letter (4/11/25)

Page 25 of 283 ends

Page 26 of 283 ends

Page 27 of 283 ends

COLOREDELEVATIONDESIGNBUILDING1

PARTIALNORTHELEVATION

WESTELEVATION

PARTIALSOUTHELEVATION

EASTELEVATION
PARTIAL EAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATION PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 1-DRC-A3 COLORED

Page 28 of 283 ends

Page 29 of 283 ends

Page 30 of 283 ends

Plot Date:

Save Date:
8/1/2022 6:05 PM
8/1/2022 4:48 PM By: Cxba C:\Users\cxba\Desktop\Apple Valley Conceptual CAD.dwg Chris Barker By:

File:

SEE SHEET 4
SEE SHEET 3
Feet
0 80 160
August 2022
18484 Outer HWY 18 N, Suite 225
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Phone: 760.524.9100 TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, CA

INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER - CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ®
Plot Date: Save Date:
8/1/2022 6:05 PM
8/1/2022 4:48 PM By: Cxba C:\Users\cxba\Desktop\Apple Valley Conceptual CAD.dwg Chris Barker By:

File:

SEE SHEET 4
Feet
0 80 160
Sheet 1 of 4
TREES

ORNAMENTAL GRASSES & DESERT ACCENTS FLOWERING SHRUBS & GROUND COVERS

INERT MATERIALS
Bauhinia blakeana
Hong Kong Orchid Tree
Cercis occidentalis
Western Redbud
Chilopsis linearis
Desert Willow
Olea europaea ‘Swan Hill’
Fruitless Olive
Lagerstroemia indica
Crape Myrtle
Cercidium spp.

Hybrid Palo Verde
Pinus brutia ‘Edlarica’
Afghan Pine
Vitex agnus-castus
Chaste Tree
Pistacia chinensis
Chinese Flame Tree
Populus fremontii ‘Nevada’
Western Cottonwood
Fraxinus oxycarpa
Raywood Ash
Acacia willardiana
Palo Blanco
Acacia stenophylla
Shoestring Acacia
Agave americana ‘Mediopicta’
Variegated Dwarf Century Plant
Agave ‘Blue Glow’
Blue Glow Agave
Hesperaloe parviflora
Red Yucca
Non-Irrigatied Hydroseed Mix
Species Mix at Right
Achnatherum hymenoides
Baileya multriadiata
Elymus multisetus
Eschscholzia californica
Ericameria nauseousa
Monolopia lanceolata
Phacelia campanularia
Plantago erecta
Poa secunda
Vulpia microstachys
Muhlenbergia capillaris
Pink Muhly Grass
Muhlenbergia lindeimeri
Autumn Glow Muhly
Fouquieria splendens
Ocotillo
Bougainvilla spp.

Bougainvillea
Decomposed Granite
Multiple Colors
Caesalpinia pulcherrima
Red Bird of Paradise
Decorative Boulders
Multiple Sizes
Calliandra eriophylla
Pink Fairy Duster
Crushed Rock
Mutiple Colors and/or Gradations
Cistus x purpureus
Orchid Rock Rose
Convolvulus mauritanicus
Ground Morning Glory
Lantana x New Gold
New Gold Lantana
Leucophyllum frutescens
Texas Ranger
Ruellia peninsularis
Ruellia
Tecoma stans
Yellow Bells Tecoma
Dalea frutescens
Black Dalea
Rosmarinus officinalis
Prostrate Rosemary
Nepeta x faassenii
Catmint
Bulbine frutescens
Yellow Bulbine
SEE SHEET 4
SEE SHEET 2

SCREEN WALL

Page 31 of 283 ends

Plot Date:

Save Date:
8/2/2022 8:00 AM
8/1/2022 4:48 PM By: Cxba C:\Users\cxba\Desktop\Apple Valley Conceptual CAD.dwg Chris Barker By:

File:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY: ®
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Phone: 760.524.9100 FGFW IV, LLC
SSCP63 SSCP64 INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER
APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307 CALIFORNIA
FGFW0000-0001 2 OF 8CONCEPTUAL GRADING
SEE SHEET 4
SEE SHEET 3
Feet
0 80 160
August 2022
18484 Outer HWY 18 N, Suite 225
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Phone: 760.524.9100 TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, CA

File:

SEE SHEET 4
Feet
0 80 160
Sheet 2 of 4
TREES

ORNAMENTAL GRASSES & DESERT ACCENTS

FLOWERING SHRUBS & GROUND COVERS

Bougainvillea
Decomposed Granite
Multiple Colors
Caesalpinia pulcherrima
Red Bird of Paradise
Decorative Boulders
Multiple Sizes
Calliandra eriophylla
Pink Fairy Duster
Crushed Rock
Mutiple Colors and/or Gradations
Cistus x purpureus
Orchid Rock Rose
Convolvulus mauritanicus
Ground Morning Glory
Lantana x New Gold
New Gold Lantana
Leucophyllum frutescens
Texas Ranger
Ruellia peninsularis
Ruellia
Tecoma stans
Yellow Bells Tecoma
Dalea frutescens
Black Dalea
Rosmarinus officinalis
Prostrate Rosemary
Bulbine frutescens
Yellow Bulbine
Nepeta x faassenii
Catmint
SEE SHEET 3
SEE SHEET 1

SCREEN WALL

LANDSCAPE
BERM

Page 32 of 283 ends

Plot Date:

Save Date:
8/2/2022 9:32 AM
8/1/2022 4:48 PM By: Cxba C:\Users\cxba\Desktop\Apple Valley Conceptual CAD.dwg Chris Barker By:

File:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

File:

SEE SHEET 4
Feet
0 80 160
Sheet 4 of 4
TREES

ORNAMENTAL GRASSES & DESERT ACCENTS

FLOWERING SHRUBS & GROUND COVERS

Bougainvillea
Decomposed Granite
Multiple Colors
Caesalpinia pulcherrima
Red Bird of Paradise
Decorative Boulders
Multiple Sizes
Calliandra eriophylla
Pink Fairy Duster
Crushed Rock
Mutiple Colors and/or Gradations
Cistus x purpureus
Orchid Rock Rose
Convolvulus mauritanicus
Ground Morning Glory
Lantana x New Gold
New Gold Lantana
Leucophyllum frutescens
Texas Ranger
Ruellia peninsularis
Ruellia
Tecoma stans
Yellow Bells Tecoma
Dalea frutescens
Black Dalea
Rosmarinus officinalis
Prostrate Rosemary
Bulbine frutescens
Yellow Bulbine
Nepeta x faassenii
Catmint
SEE SHEET 1
SEE SHEET 3

LANDSCAPE
BERM

Page 33 of 283 ends

Plot Date:

Save Date:
8/2/2022 8:30 AM
8/1/2022 4:48 PM By: Cxba C:\Users\cxba\Desktop\Apple Valley Conceptual CAD.dwg Chris Barker By:

File:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

File:

SEE SHEET 4
Feet
0 80 160
Sheet 3 of 4
TREES

ORNAMENTAL GRASSES & DESERT ACCENTS FLOWERING SHRUBS & GROUND COVERS Agave americana ‘Mediopicta’
Variegated Dwarf Century Plant
Agave ‘Blue Glow’
Blue Glow Agave
Hesperaloe parviflora
Red Yucca
Non-Irrigatied Hydroseed Mix
Species Mix at Right
Achnatherum hymenoides
Baileya multriadiata
Elymus multisetus
Eschscholzia californica
Ericameria nauseousa
Monolopia lanceolata
Phacelia campanularia
Plantago erecta
Poa secunda
Vulpia microstachys
Muhlenbergia capillaris
Pink Muhly Grass
Muhlenbergia lindeimeri
Autumn Glow Muhly
Fouquieria splendens
Ocotillo
Bougainvilla spp.

Bougainvillea
Caesalpinia pulcherrima
Red Bird of Paradise
Calliandra eriophylla
Pink Fairy Duster
Cistus x purpureus
Orchid Rock Rose
Convolvulus mauritanicus
Ground Morning Glory
Lantana x New Gold
New Gold Lantana
Leucophyllum frutescens
Texas Ranger
Ruellia peninsularis
Ruellia
Dalea frutescens
Black Dalea
Rosmarinus officinalis
Prostrate Rosemary
Nepeta x faassenii
Catmint
Bulbine frutescens
Yellow Bulbine
SEE SHEET 2
SEE SHEET 4

SCREEN WALL

Page 34 of 283 ends

Page 35 of 283 ends

2890
2900
2910
2920
2930
2940
2950 2960
2970
2980
2990
3000
3010
3020
3030
3040
3040
3040
3050
3050
3060
3070
2890
2900
2910
2920
2930
2940
2950
3030
3040
3050
3060 2960
2970
2980
2990
3000
2910
2920
2930 2940
2950
2960
2970
2980
29903000
3010
2880
2860
2870
2830
2840
2850
2860
2860
2870
2870
2880
2880
2810
2810
2820
2830
2840
2850
2860
2870
2870
2880

OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP
OP
OP
2890
2900
2910
2920
2930
2940
2950 2960
2970
2980
2990
0 3050
3050
2890
2900
2910
2920
2940
2950
3030
3040
3050
3060 2960
2970
2980
2990
3000
2910
2920
2930 2940
2950
2960
2970
2980
29903000
3010
FRONTAGE ROAD ZONE D 16.2'6.7' 7.2' 11.4'

48.2'
7 LOT 2
GROSS AREA = 82.62 AC
NET AREA = 75.82 AC
LOT 1
GROSS AREA = 94.92 AC
NET AREA = 95.15 AC

PROPOSED

WAREHOUSE

BUILDING
128'

PROPOSED

WAREHOUSE

BUILDING APPLE VALLEY RD APPLE VALLEY RD

FALCHION RD FALCHION RD

NORCO RD

FRONTAGE RD

FRONTAGE RD
I-15 FWY
I-15 FWY
I-15 FWY
50' WIDE

QUARRY RD
50' WIDE

QUARRY RD

4.09 AC OF RIGHT OF WAY

TO BE VACATED BY THE

TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
EX. DEDICATION

TO BE VACATED
LOT 3 REMAINDER PARCEL
GROSS AREA = 2.07 AC
NET AREA = 1.22 AC

OFFSITE PROPERTY UNDER

SEPARATE OWNERSHIP

FUTURE APPLE

VALLEY ROAD AREA
50' WIDE

QUARRY RD FUTURE R/W

FUT R/W

FUTURE R/W
EX. R/W
PROP. R/W
EX. R/W
EX. R/W
EX. P/L
PROP. R/W PROP. R/W EX. P/L
PROP. P/L
PROP. P/L
PROP. P/L
PROP. R/W
PROP. R/W

FUTURE R/W
EX. R/W EX. P/L
EX. P/L
EX. P/L EX. P/L C/L
C/L
104'
66'
N0°18'22"W
110.53'
N36°22'54"E
2553.27' N0°24'47"E 373.91'
N89°35'11"W
1155.48'
S31°35'27"W
334.27'
S36°24'15"W

9.02'
S53°38'09"E

8.35'
S36°21'51"W
800.00'
S47°07'29"W

46.12'
S36°22'53"W
468.58'
Δ=36°41'17"
R=500.00'
L=320.16'
S0°18'22"E

93.06'
N89°41'38"E
1493.22'
N89°41'38"E
388.66'
S89°12'38"E
1238.85'
N0°46'21"W

94.65'
N44°13'39"E
530.20' N0°51'50"W 1274.04'
N89°35'11"W
724.35'
S38°00'53"W
1009.08'
Δ=88°54'20"
R=55.00'
L=85.34'
Δ=30°04'59"
R=283.00'
L=148.59'
Δ=88°43'22"
R=55.00'
L=85.17'
Δ=45°05'29"
R=436.00'
L=343.13'
Δ
=
45°0 '0 " R
=
564.0 ' L
=
4 2.96' Δ=91°33'43"
R=35.00'
L=55.93'
Δ=90°00'32"
R=40.00'
L=62.83' S0°51'50"E 1359.40'
S89°12'38"E
1339.76'
N89°41'38"E
1848.22'
Δ=36°41'17"
R=300.00'
L=192.10'
S53°37'05"E
119.05'
N89°35'11"W
1996.90'
Δ=35°40'33"
R=250.00'
L=155.67'
N53°37'05"W

50.98'
N0°46'21"W
184.38'
128'
424'
248'
248'
496'
148'
25'
146'
40'
EX.R/W
S44°13'39"W
306.08'
Δ=17°31'52"
R=564.00'
L=172.57'
N0°51'50"W
363.22'
S89°18'36"E
318.72'
52'
146'
104'

FUT R/W FUT R/W

NORCO RD

FALCHION RD

CHIPETA RD APPLE VALLEY RD
I-15 APPLE VALLEY RD

QUARRY RD

FRONTAGE RD STODDARD WELLS RD
I-15 FWY
W E
S
N
Feet 0 200 400

VICINITY MAP
SCALE 1"=800'
SCALE:

SHEET NO.

REVIEWED BY: DATE:

NO. DATE REVISION BY CK
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:
® DATE:

DATE: Dean Paradise
7/20/22
PER PLAN Plot Date: 2/28/2024 5:02 PM By: Vxm P:\F\FGFW00000001\0400CAD\SHEETS\EC\TPM\AV TPM.dwg File:

INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
18484 Outer Highway 18 N Suite 225
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Phone: 760.524.9100
No. C39830
D
E
A N
A. P A RA D I S
E

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINE
E
R

C IV I L STATE OF CAL I FORN IA
PROJECT BECHMARK:

CITY OF VICTORVILLE BENCHMARK #V-112
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF VENUS ST. & DANTE ST. @ ECR; SET IN TOP OF CURB DATUM: NAVD29
ELEVATION: 2793.07 FEET (PUBLISHED & HELD)

HORIZONTAL DATUM / BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BEARINGS ARE BASED UPON CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 5, (EPOCH 2019.55) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 8801-8819; SAID BEARINGS ARE BASED LOCALLY UPON FIELD-OBSERVED TIES TO THE FOLLOWING CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE NETWORK, OR EQUIVALENT STATIONS.

OWNER/DEVELOPER:

FGFW IV LLC
150 N. MARKET STREET
WICHITA, KN 67206
(702) 330-1715
CIVIL ENGINEER:

DAVID EVANS AND ASSOC. INC
18484 OUTER HWY 18 NORTH SUITE 225
APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307
(760) 524-9123

EXISTING VEGETATION NOTE

THERE ARE NO EXISTING TREES ON THE SITE
APN: 0472-231-08
ZONING

ZONE ORDINANCE SPECIFIC PLAN INDUSTRIAL (I-SP)

INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER

TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP # 20625

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the Town of Apple Valley, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows:

PARCEL ONE: (APN: 0472-031-08-0-000)
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN

BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHEAST BOUNDARY OF THE STATE HIGHWAY AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 4, 1957, IN BOOK 4246, PAGE 339, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION

26. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 26.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALL OIL, GAS, OIL SHALE, PHOSPHATE,

SODIUM, GOLD, SILVER AND ALL OTHER MINERAL DEPOSITS CONTAINED IN SAID LANDS, (EXCEPTING

ALL URANIUM, THORIUM OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL WHICH IS OR MAY BE DETERMINED TO BE

PECULIARLY ESSENTIAL TO THE PRODUCTION OF FISSIONABLE MATERIAL, WHETHER OR NOT OF

COMMERCIAL VALUE), AND FURTHER RESERVING TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND PERSONS

AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE, THE RIGHT TO DRILL FOR AND EXTRACT SUCH DEPOSITS OF OIL AND

GAS OR GAS AND TO PROSPECT FOR, MINE AND REMOVE SUCH DEPOSITS OF OTHER MINERALS FROM

SAID LANDS (EXCEPTING ALL URANIUM, THORIUM OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL WHICH IS OR MAY BE

DETERMINED TO BE PECULIARLY ESSENTIAL TO THE PRODUCTION OF FISSIONABLE MATERIALS,

WHETHER OR NOT OF COMMERCIAL VALUE), AND TO OCCUPY AND USE SO MUCH OF THE SURFACE

OF SAID LANDS AS MAY BE REQUIRED THEREFOR, UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF CHAPTER 5, PART I, DIVISION 6 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, AS RESERVED IN THE PATENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 7, 1952, IN BOOK 3051, PAGE 11, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEEDS RECORDED NOVEMBER 21, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2001-531644 THROUGH 2001-531646 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

REV 2/28/24
THERE ARE 144 JOSHUA TREES ON THE SITE. REVISED TREE NOTE 2-12-25

Page 36 of 283 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025 - 07

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN

OF APPLE VALLEY CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2023090366) AND ADOPTING

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, A MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND A STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE

INLAND EMPIRE NORTH LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT
LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, SOUTH OF NORCO

STREET AND NORTH OF FALCHION ROAD IN THE TOWN
OF APPLE VALLEY.

WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Synergy Consulting on behalf of FGFW IV, LLC, on August 10, 2022 to construct the Inland Empire North Logistics Center eCommerce warehouse development (the “Project”) on approximately 178 acres of land bounded by Interstate 15 on the west, Falchion Road on the south and Norco Street on the north in the northwest part of the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Project requests a General Plan Amendment to re-align Apple Valley Road eastward, to vacate a section of Apple Valley Road right-of-way on the Project site, and to re-classify Norco Street from a “Major Road” to a “Collector” street; and
WHEREAS, the Project includes a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the parcel into two parcels, pursuant to Chapter 9.71 of the Town Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Development Code requires approval of a Development Permit for new development pursuant to Development Code Chapter 9.17.020.B; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the Town of Apple Valley is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, on September 18, 2023, the Town sent to the Land Use and Climate Innovation State Clearinghouse and publicly circulated and posted a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2023090366) would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, a 30-day NOP comment period was held, ending on October 17, 2023, during which the NOP and Initial Study were circulated to the public; local, state, and federal agencies; Native American tribes; and other interested parties resulting in receipt of four comment letters; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(c) and 15083, the Town held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on October 5, 2023, to provide the public with opportunity to learn about the

Page 37 of 283 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-07
Project and CEQA process, ask questions, and submit comments, during which there were no attendees and no comments received; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21067 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, a Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared (State Clearinghouse #2023090366), incorporating and addressing comments received in response to the NOP and sufficiently detailed such that all potentially significant adverse environmental effects have been evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures are required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Paleontological Resources; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that, despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas; and WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the Town provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR on September 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, physical copies of the DEIR and technical appendices were made available for review and inspection at Apple Valley Town Hall, at the Development Services Building, at the San Bernardino County Public Library and on the Planning Department website; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from September 30, 2024 through November 13, 2024; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the Town consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the Town received twelve timely written comment letters and two letters following the close of the DEIR public review period; and WHEREAS, the Town has prepared a Final EIR (“FEIR”), which consists of the comments received on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, revisions and corrections to the Draft EIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, including all of the technical studies and appendices to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR’s errata section, together with the other sections of the Final EIR, including all of the technical studies and appendices to the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2025, the Town released the FEIR and provided an electronic version of the FEIR to commenting agencies; and WHEREAS, the FEIR analyzes a range of potentially feasible alternatives capable of reducing environmental effects to a lesser level of significance; and

Page 38 of 283 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-07
WHEREAS, the Town prepared certain Findings of Fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based on oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Town finds that environmental impacts identified in the FEIR as less than significant and not requiring mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Town finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the FEIR as less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Town finds that, even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, environmental impacts identified in the FEIR that are significant and unavoidable are described in Section VII of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations discussing the reasons why the Project benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts is included as Section IX of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Town and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the Town has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied in connection with the preparation of the FEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR prepared in connection with the proposed Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible Mitigation Measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and

Page 39 of 283 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-07
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and the FEIR, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the merits of the Project were fully considered; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission and no additional information submitted to the Planning Commission produced new information of substantial importance requiring recirculation of the FEIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the Town Council certify the FEIR and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations by a vote of four votes in favor, one absence and no votes against; and WHEREAS, a notice of Town Council public hearing was duly published and posted in the manner and for the time prescribed by law, and was also direct certified mailed to all property owners within a 700-foot radius of the Project site boundaries; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, commencing at 6:30 P.M. in the Town Council Chambers at Apple Valley Town Hall, the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley conducted a public hearing at which time all persons wishing to testify regarding the Project and the FEIR were heard and the Project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Town Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the FEIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, no comments made during the Town Council public hearing review period or in the public hearing, and no additional information submitted to the Town have produced substantial new information that would warrant preparation of a new EIR, recirculation of the previously prepared EIR, or any other additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

WHEREAS, all materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located with the Town of Apple Valley, located at 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, California.

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

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

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

Page 40 of 283 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-07
The Town finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town. The Town declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the Town after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation.

Section 3. Based on the whole record before it and all other written and oral evidence presented, the Town Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Section 4. After considering all evidence presented at the public hearing held on April 22, 2025, both oral and documentary, and after being fully informed, the Town Council hereby adopts CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which were prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

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

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

Section 7. Based upon the entire record before it, including the FEIR, Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all written and oral evidence presented, the Town Council hereby approves the Project.

Section 8. The documents and materials associated with the Project and the FEIR that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings are based are located at Apple Valley Town Hall, 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, CA 92307.

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

Section 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Resolution shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect.

Section 10. Effective Date. This Resolution is effective immediately. All resolutions, parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby amended to be consistent herewith.

Page 41 of 283 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-07
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley this 22nd day of April, 2025.
______________________________
Scott Nassif, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
La Vonda M-Pearson, Town Clerk

Page 42 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 1 of 121

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

I. INTRODUCTION
These findings, as well as the accompanying statement of overriding considerations, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (California Public Resources Code (PRC) §21000 et seq.), the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14 (14 CCR §15000 et seq.) (CEQA Guidelines), and the local procedures adopted by the Town of Apple Valley (“Town”). The Town is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Inland Empire North Logistics Apple Valley (“Project”) and has the principal responsibility for its approval.

Pursuant to PRC Section 21081, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (“EIR”).

PRC Section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy PRC section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.

App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].) II. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the complete Project record which, on the whole includes substantial evidence, both verbal and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the Environmental Impact Report. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations by the Town decisionmakers in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Although the findings below identify specific pages within the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) in support of various conclusions reached below, the Town hereby incorporates by reference and adopts as its own, the reasoning set forth in both environmental documents, and thus relies on that reasoning, even where not specifically mentioned or cited herein, in reaching the conclusions set forth below, except where

Page 43 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 2 of 121
additional evidence is specifically mentioned. This is especially true with respect to the Planning Commission’s approval of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, and the reasoning set forth in responses to comments in the Final EIR (FEIR). The Planning Commission further intends that if these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, any finding required or permitted to be made by this Planning Commission with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project must be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings or findings elsewhere in the record.

The Town prepared an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the Project and circulated it for public review and comment from September 18, 2023, to October 17, 2023. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact”. The Initial Study prepared for the Project (see DEIR Appendix A) identified no impact in the following environmental topics and therefore were not further evaluated in the EIR: agriculture and forestry resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing; public services; recreation; and wildfire. Those topic areas included in the EIR, where the Initial Study concluded less than significant impacts, are provided below under Section V. Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts not Requiring Mitigation.

III. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
PRC Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” PRC Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles set forth in PRC Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See PRC, §21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a)(1).)
The second permissible finding is that “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.” (CEQA Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a)(2).)
The third potential conclusion is that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines,

Page 44 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 3 of 121
§15091, subd. (a)(3).) PRC Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between “avoiding” a significant environmental effect and merely “substantially lessening” such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. PRC Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 is based, uses the term “mitigate” rather than “substantially lessen.” The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate “mitigating” with “substantially lessening.” Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” (PRC, §21002.) For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less-than-significant level.

Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is “avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed],” these findings, for purposes of clarity, will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less-than-significant level, or has been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely “potentially significant,” these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the FEIR.

CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project mitigation measures or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a).) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also PRC, §21081, subd. (b).) These findings constitute the Town’s best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the Town hereby binds itself to require implementation of these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the Town adopts a resolution approving the Project.

Page 45 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 4 of 121
IV. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared for the Project and is being approved by the Town Planning Commission by the same resolution that adopts these findings.

The Town will use the MMRP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The MMRP is a separate document from the EIR.

V. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT

REQUIRING MITIGATION
The Town hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant or no impact and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.

A. AESTHETICS

1. Scenic Vista
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.1-9)
Explanation: The Project site and surrounding area contain predominantly undisturbed natural desert landscape, a large aggregate mining facility located adjacent to the east of the Project site, and stockpiles of aggregate material and a metal storage structure. Although scattered industrial, mining, and commercial uses (i.e., Walmart Distribution Center, Big Lots Distribution Center, Solar Energy Company, and interstate highways) exist in the area, the Project site and vicinity provide some scenic views of the surrounding landscape. Physical improvements proposed as part of the Project would be limited to the Project site and the immediate vicinity and would be consistent with the provisions and requirements of the General Plan and Zoning designation of the Project site. The region contains open space with a variety of topographical features and vegetation communities, including the Mojave River to the west, San Bernardino Mountains, and San Gabriel to the south, rolling foothills, and the surrounding desert landscape within the Victor Valley. Surrounding mountains and ridgelines are the most prominent features of the landscape. Other features that shape the visual environment and provide both physical and visual relief include the natural desert terrain that spreads across the flat valley floor, natural vegetation, natural drainage patterns and watercourses (i.e., Bell Mountain Wash and Desert Knolls Wash) and surrounding open space, habitat areas, and recreation areas. Given that existing scenic resources, such as are outside of the Project’s disturbance footprint and are located between 5 and 20 miles away from the Project site, the Project would not result in any physical modifications to scenic resources that comprise a scenic vista.

A project could also have a potential indirect impact on a scenic vista if it results in a significant loss of viewing opportunities from publicly available viewpoints. Due to the relatively flat topography of the Project area, views of the Turtle Mountains, Black Mountains, Fairview Mountains, Sidewinder Mountains and San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are available to viewer groups in the vicinity of the Project site, including motorists traveling on nearby highways and roads, as well as

Page 46 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 5 of 121
employees and visitors of the nearby commercial and light industrial areas. These viewers are provided intermittent background views of mountain ridgelines under optimal atmospheric conditions and when not obstructed by existing development in the area. Development of the Project’s proposed buildings would result in some obstruction of these views where they are currently available from publicly accessible areas when viewed across the Project site. However, the presence of existing development, major roadways, and other man-made elements lowers viewer expectations of unobstructed views and precludes the significance of views of the mountains from the Project vicinity. While views of these features would be restored as viewers move throughout the Project area, higher quality, lessobstructed views are available in the greater Project area as viewers move throughout and outside of the Town (particularly for motorists traveling on I-15). Therefore, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-9)

2. Substantially Damage Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: No Impact (DEIR, p. 4.1-9)
Explanation: There are no officially designated scenic roads or highways within Town boundaries. The nearest eligible scenic highway, Route 247, is located approximately 20 miles east of the Project site. Due to distance and intervening terrain, vegetation and development, the eligible scenic highways are not visible from the Project site, nor is the Project site visible from this highway. Therefore, no impacts associated with scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.1-9)

3. Visual Character/Public Views
Threshold: In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.1-10 – 4.1-13) Explanation: PRC Section 21071 defines an “urbanized area” as “an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or (2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.” The Town’s population in July 2021 was approximately 76,224 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2021).

However, the Town is bordered by the City of Barstow to the north, City of Victorville to the west, Hesperia to the south, and the unincorporated San Bernardino County land to the east. The combined population of the Town of Apple Valley and any one of the contiguous cities is well over 100,000 persons. Thus, the Project site is considered to be within an urbanized area and the following analysis considers whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

Page 47 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 6 of 121
In an attempt to ensure that current and future development within the Town is designed and constructed to conform to existing the visual character and quality, the Town of Apple Valley Development Code (Title 9 of the Town’s Municipal Code) (“Development Code”) includes design standards related to building size, height, floor area ratio, and setbacks, as well as landscaping, signage, and other visual considerations. These design standards help adjacent land uses to be visually consistent with one another and their surroundings and reduces the potential for conflicting visual elements. More specific to the Project site, Chapter 9.47 (Industrial Design Standards) of the Town’s Municipal Code sets forth development standards for industrial development. The design specifications for the Project will be reviewed by the Town for compliance with all applicable provisions set forth by the Development Code. As part of the Town’s development review process, the Project’s architectural plans are reviewed by Town staff and the Planning Commission to determine whether Project design conforms to the Development Code and promotes the visual character and quality of the surrounding area.

Additionally, due to the size and scale of industrial buildings, it is especially important to consider design to ensure compatibility with other parts of the community. Development Code provides in-depth information regarding design standards and guidelines for industrial development. In accordance with the Development Code design guidelines, all setback areas would be landscaped, and building orientation, siting and entrances would be designed to minimize conflicts with the surrounding visual environment. For instance, landscaping and vegetation is incorporated into the site plan to provide visual screening and building facades would feature a complementary neutral color palette and a variety of building materials.

Buildings would include materials such as concrete, metal, aluminum entry framing, and glass, and building elevations would include vertical and horizontal elements that would break up the overall massing of the buildings and provide both architectural and visual variety.

The visual setting surrounding the Project site currently consists of a natural desert landscape with scattered development. Development in the area consists primarily of the CalPortland Mine, light industrial/commercial uses, such as the Walmart Distribution Center, Big Lots Distribution Center, a solar energy company, public roadways and landscaping, major interstate highways, and scattered residential uses. Undeveloped areas consist of flat desert terrain with sparse vegetation. As a result, the Project site and surrounding area can be characterized as low-density industrial development within a desert landscape setting. The Project would result in the development of vacant, undeveloped land with industrial buildings that would feature of contemporary architecture, landscaping, and streetscape improvements that would achieve development goals set forth in the Town’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Additionally, stockpiling activities on site would be discontinued and areas currently utilized for stockpiling would be incorporated into the Project.

In summary, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and the Project would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding area.

Therefore, compliance with the Development Code and general plan guidelines and implementation of site-specific landscaping would ensure that the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts related to visual character and quality would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-10 – 4.1-13)

Page 48 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 7 of 121

4. Light or Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.1-13 – 4.1-14) Explanation: The Project site is predominantly vacant and development of the Project would introduce new sources of light and glare to the Project site. However, developed portions of the Town contain numerous sources of light and glare typical of urban and semi-rural environments. Existing sources of light or glare include Interstate 15, streetlights, freestanding lights, building-mounted lights, illuminated signage, reflective building materials, and vehicular headlights. The undeveloped portions of the Town, such as the Project site, contain few, if any, existing sources of light and glare. New sources of nighttime lighting resulting from the implementation of the Project include parking lot and loading area lighting, as well as building mounted lights. The Project would include a variety of exterior building light fixtures and parking lot lighting fixtures, including building mounted and pole mounted light fixtures. As depicted in Figures 3-9A through 3-9C and 3-10 of the DEIR, building materials would primarily include concrete, metal, aluminum, and glass windows. These features could result in light trespass, light pollution, and glare.

The majority of construction activities associated with the Project would occur during daytime hours consistent with standard industry practices. In the event that work is required outside the standard construction hours (to reduce traffic or other impacts), lighting would be focused directly on work activity areas and would be temporary. As such, nighttime construction lighting impacts would be less than significant.

Upon Project implementation, the Project could potentially result in significant adverse light and glare impacts on nighttime views due to the addition of building and parking lot lighting. However, the Project would be required to minimize light and glare impacts to sensitive land uses through the incorporation of setbacks, site planning, and other design techniques. The Project would comply with Section

9.47.090, Lighting, of the Town’s Municipal Code, which contains general performance standards related to light and glare for lighting uses associated with industrial development in Town. While the Project would not be located adjacent to any residential districts or lots, the Project’s lighting would be designed such that lighting is directed on site and away from neighboring parcels. Lighting associated with streetlights would be designed consistent with Town standards for safety and proper roadway illumination, and consistent with other streetlights throughout the Town. In addition, as part of the final engineering and site plan check phase, a photometric plan will be prepared by Town planning staff prior to finalization of site plans. During this process, Town staff would ensure that Project lighting would not result in glare on adjacent properties.

Further, all light fixtures would be required to be consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code for illumination. The California Green Building Standards Code sets forth minimum requirements based on Lighting Zones, as defined in Chapter 10 of the California Administrative Code.

The requirements are designed to minimize light pollution in an effort to maintain dark skies and ensure new development reduces backlight, uplight, and glare (BUG) from exterior light sources (CALGreen 2019). The Project would be required to comply with the CALGreen BUG rating for Lighting

Page 49 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 8 of 121
Zone 3. Further, all lights would be shielded and directed downward, and no blinking, flashing, or oscillating light sources is proposed.

The warehouse buildings would incorporate a variety of building materials. As depicted on Figures 3- 8A and 3-8C and 3-9 of the Draft EIR, building materials would primarily include concrete, metal, aluminum, and glass windows. Metal canopy overhangs for shading are planned above building entrances, and aluminum entrance fronts would include glass and metal attachments. Blue reflective glazing and high gloss paint is proposed for the entrances and canopies. Glass windows would consist of tempered vision insulated glass with a solarban 60 rating, which has a low exterior reflectance percentage in order to maximize daylighting opportunities to interior building spaces. Although metallic materials and glass have been incorporated into Project design, Project setbacks and proposed landscaping would provide screening to such Project elements from view, and all paint finishes would be flat (with the exception of the high gloss proposed for the entrances and canopies). As such, building materials would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-13 - 4.1-14)

5. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to aesthetics?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.1-14 - 4.1-15) Explanation: The Project is located within the Town of Apple Valley, and thus, would be designed and constructed according to the design guidelines and standards outlined in the Development Code and General Plan for industrial development. These guidelines and standards aim to protect the Town’s high desert setting and panoramic mountain views while also encouraging and facilitating economic growth. All related projects located within the Town would be subject to these design guidelines and standards, which include recommendations for the architectural character of new buildings to maximize views of the landscape while taking inspiration from surrounding natural elements.

The development and design standards provide the framework for the desired aesthetic and visual environment. It is anticipated that other development projects in the area will incorporate development standards, design guidelines, and other strategies outlined in the Development Code. In addition, the Project’s proposed building colors shall be reviewed to incorporate the colors and tones that match or complement the natural desert environment in orer to minimize color contrasts with the surrounding cumulative environment. Thus, cumulative impacts related to the visual quality and character of the Project area are not considered cumulatively considerable, assuming that related Projects would implement the same mandatory design standards set forth in the Development Code and general plan to which the Project must adhere.

Related development in the Town and surrounding areas would introduce new sources of light in a setting that includes large areas of undeveloped land. However, Project lighting would comply with existing requirements (i.e., lighting would be directed downward, shielded, and focused on the Project site) to ensure lighting has a minimal effect on the overall night sky and reduce the potential for glare.

Other projects located throughout the Town would similarly be required to comply with these

Page 50 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 9 of 121
regulations. Therefore, compliance with these regulations would ensure that lighting and glare impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-14 – 4.1-15) B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Primate Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-1)
Explanation: According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site contains grazing land (DOC 2016). Grazing land is described as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. Grazing land does not include land designated or previously designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively “Important Farmland”). Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-1)

2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-1)
Explanation: According to the Town’s General Plan EIR, the Project site is not located on or adjacent to any lands under a Williamson Act contract (Town of Apple Valley 2009a). In addition, the Project site and surrounding area are not zoned for agricultural uses, but instead for Regional Commercial uses (Town of Apple Valley 2021). As such, implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or land under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-1)

3. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-1)
Explanation: According to the Town’s Zoning Map, the Project site is not located on or adjacent to forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production (Town of Apple Valley 2021). Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-1_

Page 51 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 10 of 121

4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-1)
Explanation: According to the Town’s Zoning Map, the Project site is not located on or adjacent to forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production (Town of Apple Valley 2021). Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-1)

5. Conversion of Farmland or Forestland
Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-1)
Explanation: The Project site is not located on or adjacent to any parcels identified as Important Farmland or forestland (DOC 2016). In addition, the Project would not involve changes to the existing environment that would result in the indirect conversion of Important Farmland or forestland located away from the Project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-1) C. AIR QUALITY

1. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.2-37 – 4.2-38) Explanation:

Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Regionally, Project-related travel would add to regional trip generation and increase Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT) within the local airshed and the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). Locally, Projectgenerated traffic would be added to the roadway system near the Project site. If such traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation, includes a number of vehicles “cold-started” and operating at pollution-inefficient speeds, and operates on roadways already crowded with non-Project traffic, there is a potential for the formation of microscale carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. For purposes of CEQA, thresholds, programs, and guidelines adopted by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District are used when available. In the absence of MDAQMD adopted thresholds, programs, and guidelines, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds, programs, and guidelines are used. To verify that the Project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard, a screening evaluation was conducted comparing the highest hourly traffic volumes at any studied intersection in proximity to the

Page 52 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 11 of 121
Project site to the 100,000 vehicles per day criterion from the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (SCAQMD 2003). The highest average daily trips on a segment of road would be approximately 30,000 daily trips on Stoddard Wells Road, east of I-15 NB Ramps - Outer I-15 intersection (Appendix J of the DEIR), which would be substantially less than the 100,000 vehicles per day screening criterion applied.

Therefore, impacts associated with CO hotspots would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-37 –

4.2-38.)
Toxic Air Contaminant Exposure
Construction Health Risk
A construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was performed to estimate the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and the Chronic Hazard Index for residential receptors as a result of Project construction.

Project construction activities would result in a Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of 0.14 in 1 million at the nearest residence, which is below the significance threshold of 10 in 1 million. Project construction would result in a Chronic Hazard Index of 0.0001, which is below the 1.0 significance threshold. The Project construction TAC health risk impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. (DEIR, p. 4.2-38.)
Valley Fever
Valley Fever is not highly endemic to San Bernardino County with an incident rate of 1.8 cases per 100,000 people. In contrast, in 2016 the statewide annual incident rate was 13.7 per 100,000 people. The California counties considered highly endemic for Valley Fever include Kern (251.7 per 100,000), Kings (157.3 per 100,000), San Luis Obispo (82.8 per 100,000), Fresno (60.8 per 100,000), Tulare (45.3 per 100,000), Madera (31.5 per 100,000), and San Joaquin (25.3 per 100,000), and accounted for 70% of the reported cases in 2016.

Even if present at the site, construction activities may not result in increased incidence of Valley Fever.

Propagation of Valley Fever is dependent on climatic conditions, with the potential for growth and surface exposure highest following early seasonal rains and long dry spells. Valley Fever spores can be released when filaments are disturbed by earth-moving activities, although receptors must be exposed to and inhale the spores to be at increased risk of developing Valley Fever. Moreover, exposure to Valley Fever does not guarantee that an individual will become ill—approximately 60% of people exposed to the fungal spores are asymptomatic and show no signs of an infection.

To reduce fugitive dust from the Project and minimize adverse air quality impacts, the Project would employ dust control measures in accordance with the MDAQMD Rules 401 and 403.2, which limit the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. These requirements are consistent with California Department of Public Health recommendations for the implementation of dust control measures, including regular application of water during soil-disturbance activities, to reduce exposure to Valley Fever by minimizing the potential that the fungal spores become airborne. Further, regulations designed to minimize exposure to Valley Fever hazards are included in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and compliance4 with those regulations will be enforced during the Project’s construction phase.

In summary, the Project would not result in a significant impact attributable to Valley Fever exposure based on its geographic location and compliance with applicable regulatory standards and dust control

Page 53 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 12 of 121
measures, which will serve to minimize the release of and exposure to fungal spores. Therefore, impacts associated with Valley Fever exposure for sensitive receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-39 – 4.2-40.)

2. Odors
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.2-40)
Explanation: Land uses most commonly associated with odor complaints generally include agricultural uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not include uses that would be substantive sources of objectionable odors. Potential temporary and intermittent odors may result from construction equipment exhaust, the application of asphalt, and architectural coatings. Temporary and intermittent construction-source emissions are controlled through existing requirements and industry Best Management Practices for the proper use, application and storage of construction materials.

The potential for the Project to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-40.) D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.3-42 - 4.3-43) Explanation: The Project is located within the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1980). The Project is also located within the West Mojave Plan (BLM 2005) and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (BLM 2016) areas. The West Mojave Plan and Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan are amendments to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The BLM issued a Record of Decision for the West Mojave Plan in 2006, although the West Mojave Plan has not been formally adopted. Although the West Mojave Plan has not been adopted, consistency with the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, inclusive of the West Mojave Plan, was analyzed in the EIR. The Project will not conflict with the conservation criteria associated with the California Desert Conservation Area Plan or Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan as the Project is not located on BLM lands and is not a renewable energy project. Therefore, impacts associated with an adopted habitat conservation plan would be less than significant under CEQA.

In addition, the Biological Study Area (BSA) occurs within the Town of Apple Valley Multiple-Species Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), which is in the early stages of development. There is no draft Town of Apple Valley Multiple-Species NCCP/HCP available for review at this time. However, there is a draft Public Review Planning Agreement document available

Page 54 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 13 of 121
for review that contains interim guidelines for the Town. Based on discussions Dudek has had with the Town on other projects in the Town, it is understood that the Town is at least 2 to 3 years away from completing this effort. The interim guidelines, which should be reviewed in their totality, include requirements that are generally required under CEQA for biological resources, and there are some specific items to note: (1) all reports documenting the presence of listed species will be forwarded to responsible agencies; (2) for projects that propose to restore, enhance, or create habitats, the Project will be required to prepare a mitigation plan consistent with United States Army Corps of Engineers Mitigation Rule; (3) for impacts to drainages other than the Mojave River, mitigation must be provided at least a 1:1 ratio, and all avoided drainages must have a buffer of 50 feet in width; (4) endemic plants must be translocated/restored at a 2:1 ratio; (5) areas of steep slopes should be avoided, and a buffer of 100 feet should be provided at the base of steeps slops; and (6) preferred landscaping should include native plants with planting of any invasive species prohibited. In the event that the NCCP/HCP is approved at the time of Project implementation, the biological technical report should be consistent with the Town of Apple Valley Multiple-Species NCCP/HCP. (DEIR, p. 4.3-42 – 4.3-43.) E. CULTURAL, TRIBAL CULTURAL, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.4-19 – 4.4-20) Explanation: No known prehistoric or historic period burials, within or outside of formal cemeteries, were identified within the Project site either as a result of the California Historical Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records search or pedestrian survey. Although the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC’s) Sacred Land Files (SLF) search result was positive, it is important to note that the results of the SLF provided by the NAHC relate to the general regional area within and surrounding the Project site and don’t necessarily equate to the existence of resources or human remains within the specific Project site. In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during ground disturbing activities, they would be treated consistent with state and local regulations including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the Project site or off-site improvement areas or any nearby (no less than 100 feet) area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains can occur until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are potentially human in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she is required to notify the NAHC which, in turn, shall notify those persons believed to be the most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts to human remains resulting from the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p.

4.4-19 – 4.4-20.)

Page 55 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 14 of 121
F. ENERGY

1. Wasteful Use of Energy Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.5-8 – 4.5-12) Explanation: The Project consumption of energy resources during construction and operation would be less than significant.

Electricity
Construction Electricity Usage
Temporary electric power for necessary lighting and electronic equipment would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). The electricity used for such activities would be temporary, would be substantially less than that required for Project operation, and would therefore have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption.

Operational Electricity Usage
The operational phase would require electricity for multiple purposes, including building heating and cooling, lighting, electronics, and electric pumps. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to estimate Project emissions from electricity uses (see Appendix B-1 of the DEIR). Default electricity generation rates in CalEEMod were used based on the proposed land use and climate zone. the Project is anticipated to consume approximately 12,963,794 kWh of electricity per year. The Project proposes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. Uses proposed by the Project are not inherently energy intensive. Finally, the Project must comply with the applicable Title 24 standards applicable at that time, which would further ensure that the Project energy demands and uses would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Therefore impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Construction Natural Gas Usage
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the Project. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed under the subsection “Petroleum,” below. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of Project construction would be temporary and negligible, and would not have an adverse effect; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Page 56 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 15 of 121
Operational Natural Gas Usage
Natural gas consumption during operation would be required for various purposes, including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling. Default natural gas generation rates in CalEEMod for the proposed land use and climate zone were used.

The Project is estimated to have a total natural gas demand of 45,512,972 kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) per year. The Project proposes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. Uses proposed by the Project are not inherently energy intensive. Additionally, the Project is subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. Prior to Project approval, the applicant would ensure that the Project meets Title 24 requirements applicable at that time and as required by state regulations through their plan review process. Thus, the natural gas consumption of the Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.

Petroleum
Construction Petroleum Usage
Petroleum would be consumed throughout construction of the Project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction, and VMT associated with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes would also result in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities and on-road trucks are assumed to use diesel fuel. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration of construction. It is assumed that construction workers would travel to and from the Project site in gasoline-powered vehicles.

Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during Project construction.

CalEEMod was used to estimate construction equipment usage; results are included in Appendix B of the DEIR.

In summary, construction of the Project is conservatively anticipated to consume approximately 389,826 gallons of fuel or petroleum products in total. Notably, the Project would be subject to California Air Resources Board (CARB’s) In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation that applies to certain off-road diesel engines, vehicles, or equipment greater than 25 horsepower. The regulation (1) imposes limits on idling, requires a written idling policy, and requires a disclosure when selling vehicles; (2) requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; (3) restricts the adding of older vehicles into fleets starting on January 1, 2014; and (4) requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits). The fleet must either show that its fleet average index was less than or equal to the calculated fleet average target rate, or that the fleet has met the Best Achievable Control Technology requirements. Project construction would represent a “single-event” petroleum demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of petroleum resources for this purpose. Overall, the Project would not involve characteristics that require equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Page 57 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 16 of 121
Operational Petroleum Usage
During operations, fuel consumption resulting from the Project would involve the use of motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project site and diesel-fueled off-road equipment.

The unmitigated Project would result in an estimated annual fuel demand of approximately 8,368,975 gallons per year. Estimated petroleum demand after mitigation would be 6,084,646 gallons per year.

Fuel would be provided by current and future commercial vendors. The Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful activities, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Finally, enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future fuel demands per VMT. The location of the Project close to existing regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. As supported by the preceding discussions, the Project’s transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and impacts would be less than significant.

Renewable Energy Potential
As part of the Project’s design process, the Project applicant considered how the Project could potentially increase its reliance on renewable energy sources to meet the Project’s energy demand.

Renewable energy sources that were considered for their potential use to power the Project, consistent with the California Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) definition of eligible renewables, include biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and small hydroelectric facilities.

Given the Project’s location and the nature of the Project, there are considerable site constraints that would eliminate the potential for biomass, geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric renewable energy to be installed on site. Some of the constraints include incompatibility with surrounding land uses for large scale power generation facilities, unknown interconnection feasibility, compatibility with utility provider systems, and no known water or geothermal resources to harness.

The Project would comply with all applicable Title 24 code provisions, such as the solar ready building mandatory requirements. Battery storage for emergency power of the total office space shall also be included in the Project design. In summary, the Project includes the on-site renewable energy source (i.e., solar) that was determined to be feasible for the site and does not include the on-site renewable energy sources that were determined to be infeasible.

Summary
Based on the preceding considerations, the Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation. Therefore Project impacts in this area are considered less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-8 – 4.5-12.)

2. Conflict with Adopted Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Page 58 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 17 of 121
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.5-12.)
Explanation: The Project is subject to and would comply with, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR Part 6). Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for non-residential buildings constructed in California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Project would comply with the California code requirements for energy efficiency. Part 11 of Title 24 sets forth voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project under CALGreen such as rooftop photovoltaic (PV) solar and battery storage, and installation of electric vehicle (EV) chargers and electrical infrastructure for future EV chargers. CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, lowrise residential, high-rise residential, state-owned buildings, schools, and hospitals, as well as certain residential and non-residential additions and alterations. On this basis, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.

3. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to energy? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.5-13)
Explanation: Cumulative projects that could exacerbate the Project’s energy impacts include any projects that could result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. However, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy during construction or operation. Construction will result in short-term and temporary energy demands. Operation of the Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary use of energy or conflict with an applicable plan. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to cumulative energy impacts. (DEIR, p. 4.5-13.) G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Fault Rupture
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides? Finding: Less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-2)
Explanation: Fault Rupture. According to the California Department of Conservation, the Project site is not located in an Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2023). The nearest fault is the Helendale Fault located approximately 7 miles northeast of the Project site. Thus, the potential for surface rupture is low on the Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-2)

Page 59 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 18 of 121
Seismic Ground Shaking. Similar to other areas located in seismically active Southern California, the Town is susceptible to strong ground shaking during an earthquake. However, the Project site is not located within an Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and the site would not be affected by ground shaking more than any other area in this seismic region.

Pursuant to Title 8, Buildings and Construction, of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, the Project’s geotechnical report will be subject to review and approval by Town staff prior to issuance of a grading permit. Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report is mandated by Section 8.12.010 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, and compliance is subject to inspection by the Town Building Official. With implementation of the recommendations of the Project’s geotechnical report, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-2_ Ground Failure. Soil liquefaction is a seismically induced form of ground failure that has been a major cause of earthquake damage in Southern California. Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated granular soils transform from a solid to a liquid state because of a sudden shock or strain such as an earthquake. According to the Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map, the Project site is not within an area of the Town that has the potential for liquefaction (DOC 2023). Therefore, impacts associated with potential seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-2) Landslide. According to Exhibit III-H of the Town’s General Plan EIR (Town of Apple Valley 2009a), the Project site is not located in an area identified as susceptible to slope instability.

The Project site is relatively flat and is not located adjacent to any potentially unstable topographical feature such as a hillside or riverbank. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-2)

2. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-3)
Explanation: The Project would involve earthwork and other construction activities that would disturb surface soils and temporarily leave exposed soil on the ground’s surface. Common causes of soil erosion from construction sites include stormwater, wind, and soil being tracked off site by vehicles. To help curb erosion, Project construction activities must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations for erosion control. The Project would be required to comply with standard regulations, including South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403, which would reduce construction erosion impacts. Rule 402 requires that dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent dust and soil erosion from creating a nuisance off site (SCAQMD 1976). Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source (SCAQMD 2005). Since Project construction activities would disturb 1 or more acres, the Project must adhere to the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit.

Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as stockpiling and excavating. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, which would include construction

Page 60 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 19 of 121
features for the Project (i.e., best management practices) designed to prevent erosion and protect the quality of stormwater runoff. Sediment-control best management practices may include stabilized construction entrances, straw wattles on earthen embankments, sediment filters on existing inlets, or the equivalent. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no further analysis will be conducted in the Draft EIR. Once developed, the Project site would include buildings, paved surfaces, and other on-site improvements that would stabilize and help retain on-site soils. The remaining portions of the Project site containing pervious surfaces would primarily consist of landscape areas. These landscape areas would include a mix of trees, shrubs, plants, and groundcover that would help retain on-site soils while preventing wind and water erosion from occurring. Therefore, operational impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-3)

3. Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Finding: Less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-3)
Explanation: The potential for the Project to result in or be affected by landslides and liquefaction is low, and these issues are not anticipated at the Project site. Project activities may occur on geologically unstable soils such as those susceptible to lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Pursuant to Title 8, Buildings and Construction, of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, the Project’s geotechnical report will be subject to review and approval by Town staff prior to issuance of a grading permit. Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report is mandated by Section 8.12.010 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, and compliance is subject to inspection by the Town Building Official. With implementation of the recommendations of the Project’s geotechnical report, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-3)

4. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR, p. 5-3) Explanation: Alluvial fan sediments, composed primarily of granular soils, underlie the low-lying areas of the Town and the expansion potential ranges from very low to moderately low.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Web Soil Survey does not identify the Project site or surrounding area as containing clay soils, which are typically expansive (USDA 2022).

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-3)

5. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Page 61 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 20 of 121
Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
Explanation: The Project would connect to the Town’s municipal sewer lines. The Project would not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-4.)
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazard due to Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.7-8 – 4.7-9) Explanation: During construction, a variety of hazardous substances and wastes would be stored, used, and generated on the Project site, including fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, cleaning solvents, paints, and storage containers. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, explosions, or pressure releases involving hazardous materials represent a potential threat to human health and the environment if not property treated. Provisions to properly manage hazardous substances and wastes during construction are typically included in construction specifications and are the responsibility of the construction contractors. For example, construction contractors would be required to comply with Cal/OSHA regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safety equipment, and preparation of emergency action/prevention plans. Adherence to the construction specifications and applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials and hazardous waste, including disposal, would ensure that Project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during the construction phase of the Project.

Furthermore, adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) would be required throughout the duration of Project construction.

Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulation, short-term construction impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Upon completion of construction, the Project would involve the operation and maintenance of industrial/warehouse facilities. Operation of the Project would likely involve the use of industrial-grade chemicals and commercially available cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and various other commercially available products during the day-to-day operation of the facilities. While these materials could be stored on the Project site, any such storage would be required to comply with the guidelines established by the manufacturer’s recommendations. Consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, the transport, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials from the Project site would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider. Any handling, transport, use, or disposal must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control, CAL/OSHA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Apple Valley Fire Protection District.

Page 62 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 21 of 121
Although the future tenants are not known yet, in the event that a future tenant’s operations require them to transport, use, or dispose of quantities of any hazardous materials as identified by the state, pursuant to the Health and Safety Code and in accordance with the SBCFD’s Certified Unified Program Agencies requirements, the owner/operator must complete and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the California Environmental Reporting System. An HMBP is a document containing detailed information on the inventory of hazardous materials at a facility; emergency response plans and procedures in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous material; training for all new employees and annual training, including refresher courses, for all employees in safety procedures in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material; and a site map that contains north orientation, loading areas, internal roads, adjacent streets, storm and sewer drains, access and exit points, emergency shutoffs, evacuation staging areas, hazardous material handling and storage areas, and emergency response equipment. The HMBP provides basic information necessary for use by first responders to prevent or mitigate damage to the public health and safety and the environment from a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, and to satisfy federal and state Community Right-To-Know laws. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

In summary, the Project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (DEIR, p., 4.7-7 – 4.7-8.)

2. Create Hazards due to Upset and/or Accident Conditions Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.7-8 - 4.7-10) Explanation: During construction, hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, new or used motor oils, cleaning solvents and paints would be transported to and used on site in construction vehicles and equipment. Construction waste is a potential pollutant source of concern for the Bell Mountain Wash and Mojave River, which are located hydrologically down gradient of the Project site. Demolition of the existing metal storage building associated with stockpiling activities could contribute additional construction waste. Concrete, paint, and other materials that are also used on construction sites could be major contributors to habitat pollution if those materials exit a construction site.

The Project contractor and construction crews would be required to comply with all applicable regulations governing the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. The Project would also be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, including the regulation of surface water quality. Under the NPDES MS4 Permit, the development of 1.0 acres or more of land must file a notice of intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to comply with the state NPDES General Construction Permit. Implementation of this Permit would require the development of a site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP is required to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that protect stormwater runoff and ensure avoidance of

Page 63 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 22 of 121
substantial degradation of water quality. Typical BMPs that could be incorporated into the SWPPP to minimize the off-site runoff of pollutants would include the following:
▪ Diverting off-site runoff away from the construction site ▪ Vegetating landscaped/vegetated swale areas as soon as feasible following grading activities ▪ Using drop inlet protection (filters and sandbags or straw wattles), with sandbag check dams within paved areas
▪ Implementing specifications for construction waste handling and disposal ▪ Using contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas ▪ Training all construction personnel, including for subcontractors, on general site housekeeping Incorporation of required BMPs would help control the risks associated with the use of hazardous substances during construction and would minimize the potential for such substances to leave the site. As a result, there would be reduced potential for the public and environment to be exposed to hazardous chemicals and materials as a result of construction activities will be reduced. The implementation of construction BMPs identified in the Project’s SWPPP and adherence to applicable hazardous materials and waste regulations would minimize the risk and exposure of the release of hazardous materials to the public and environmental to less than significant levels.

Based on the Phase I ESA, no on-site historical recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, recognized environmental conditions, or vapor encroachment conditions were identified. Therefore, based on compliance with applicable regulations, short-term construction impacts associated with creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be less than significant.

Upon completion of Project construction, routine operation of the Project facilities would likely involve use of industrial grade chemicals and commercially available cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and various other commercially available products. These materials would be used for the day-to-day operation of the facilities and may involve the use of hazardous materials.

The future tenants are not known yet. In the event that a future tenant’s operations require them to transport, use, or dispose of quantities of hazardous materials identified by the state, pursuant to the Health and Safety Code and in accordance with the SBCFD’s CUPA requirements, the owner/operator must complete and submit an HMBP to the California Environmental Reporting System. Completion of an HMBP would ensure that an emergency spill response and containment plan is in place in the event of hazardous spills.

Furthermore, the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials and wastes would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations (e.g., RCRA and the Hazardous Waste Control Act “cradle to grave” requirements). All hazardous materials generated and/or used on the Project site would be managed in accordance with all relevant federal, state, and local laws, including the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter

6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (22 CCR 4.5). Moreover, compliance with CAL/OSHA workplace and work practices requirements would avoid the exposure of persons and the environment to hazardous materials.

Page 64 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 23 of 121
In addition to the regulations and practices described above, the following requirements would apply to storage and handling of hazardous wastes at the Project site: (1) hazardous materials are required to be stored in designated areas, which are designated in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, to prevent accidental release; (2) adherence to and implementation of the California Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CAL/OSHA) requirements which address safe work environments for employees working with materials that present a moderate explosion hazard, high fire, or physical hazard or health hazard; (3) adherence to and implementation of federal and state laws related to the storage of hazardous materials in order to maximize containment and provide for prompt and effective clean-up in case of an accidental release; and (4) hazardous materials inventory and response planning reports would be filed with the City in accordance with Unified Program Permit requirements.

Compliance with applicable regulations involving hazardous materials during operation would ensure that such materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a manner that minimizes the potential for upset and accidental conditions resulting in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Due to the existing regulations that are required, and in anticipation of compliance with those regulations, it is not expected that the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be less than significant.

In summary, the Project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (DEIR, p. 4.7-8 - 4.7-10)

3. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
Explanation: There are no schools within a 3-mile radius of the Project site. As such, the closest school is located well outside of a 0.25-mile radius around the Project site. Project-related trucks would travel on the County and Town of Apple Valley designated truck routes, including Outer I-15 to I-15 at Stoddard Wells Road and on Apple Valley Road to I-15 at Quarry Road.

Although schools may be located within 0.25 miles of I-15, utilizing local designated truck routes would ensure Project trucks would avoid passing near schools. Additionally, the Project does not include the routine transport of hazardous materials or waste. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-4)

4. Waste Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-4)

Page 65 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 24 of 121
Explanation: A review of Cortese List online data resources does not identify hazardous materials or waste sites on the Project site or immediately surrounding area (DTSC 2022; SWRCB 2022). Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-4)

5. Public Airports
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
Explanation: The nearest operational public-use airport to the Project site is the Southern California Logistics Airport, which is located approximately 9.5 miles to the west and Apple Valley Airport is located approximately 7.8 miles to the east. According to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Project site is not located within a runway protection zone or safety zone area, which would have potential safety and noise impacts (San Bernardino County 2008).

Therefore, impacts would not occur. (DEIR, p. 5-4)

6. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 5-4 – 5-5)
Explanation: Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Typical Town requirements include prior notification of any land or road closures with sufficient signage before and during any closures, flag crews with radio communication when necessary to coordinate traffic flow, etc. The Project developer would be required to comply with these requirements, which would maintain emergency access and allow for evacuation if needed during construction activities.

The Town’s General Plan designates Central Road, State Highway 18, and Bear Valley Road as evacuation routes. The Project does not propose any changes to the geometry of these roadways, and moreover, the Project’s truck trips would not be directed towards these roads (as they would be directed towards I-15). Thus, it follows that these roadways’ ability to serve as emergency evacuation routes would not be compromised. As a result, the Project would not significantly affect emergency response or evacuation activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-5)

7. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.7-10)

Page 66 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 25 of 121
Explanation: The geographic scope of the cumulative hazards and hazardous material analysis includes the immediate Project site along with surrounding land uses and other nearby properties. Adverse effects of hazards and hazardous materials tend to be localized; therefore, impacts from nearby projects would be limited, if any, and the Project site would be primarily affected by Project activities.

During construction, hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants would be transported to and used on site in construction vehicles and equipment. These contaminants, if improperly handled, could expose the public environment to pollutants. However, planned water quality enhancement components of the Project, including the implementation of a SWPPP and stormwater BMPs would minimize the potential release of construction-related pollutants on and off site.

Post-development, routine operation of the Project would include the use of various hazardous materials, including chemical reagents, solvents, fuels, paints, and cleaners. These materials would be used for day-to-day operations as well as building and landscaping maintenance. However, compliance with applicable regulations involving hazardous materials during operation would ensure that such materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a manner that minimizes the potential for upset and accident conditions which may result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. In addition, if required the owner/operator will complete and submit an HMBP to the California Environmental Reporting System. This would ensure that in the event that an emergency spill response and containment plan is in place in the event of hazardous spills. As such, it is not expected that the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine operations or reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions or result in the release or exposure of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-10.) I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Violate Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.8-12 – 4.8-15) Explanation:

Short-term Operational Impacts
Construction activities associated with the Project site would involve ground disturbing activities and the use of various hazardous construction materials (e.g., fuels, oils, paint, and solvents), that are commonly used in building construction or for the purpose of heavy equipment maintenance.

Earthwork activities can expose soils to the effects of wind and water erosion resulting off-site transport of sediments that could potentially adversely affect water quality of receiving waters.

Inadvertent release of hazardous materials or wastes could also adversely affect water quality if not handled appropriately.

Construction of the Project would disturb more than 1 acre and therefore would be subject to NPDES permit requirements. The Town of Apple Valley is a co-permittee under the San Bernardino County

Page 67 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 26 of 121
Municipal NPDES MS4 Phase II Stormwater permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit requires the Town to implement a Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Program in accordance with the regional Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) for the Mojave River Watershed. The SWMP requires permittees to implement and enforce measures to reduce pollutants from construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to 1 acre. To comply with the regulatory requirements of the SWMP, the Town requires the implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) for projects that include soil disturbance during construction. Implementation of an ESCP would ensure that construction-related BMPs are implemented during all phases of construction to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, construction site pollutants from leaving the site during all phases of construction. In addition to an ESCP, implementation of a Water Quality Master Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the Mojave River Watershed Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans, would ensure that stormwater treatment and conveyance would be sufficient prior to Project build-out (Appendix H-2 of the DEIR). Submittal, review, and approval of both the WQMP and ESCP by the Town are necessary prior to the issuance of grading permits for Project development.

Consistent with the State NDPES General Construction Permit and the Mojave River Watershed Storm Water Management Program requirements, the SWPPP would incorporate applicable BMPs below, as well as BMPs for materials and waste storage and handling, and equipment and vehicle maintenance and fueling would reduce the potential discharge of polluted runoff from construction sites. ▪ Diverting off-site runoff away from the construction site ▪ Vegetating landscaped/vegetated swale areas as soon as feasible following grading activities ▪ Placing perimeter straw wattles to prevent off-site transport of sediment ▪ Using drop inlet protection (filters and sandbags or straw wattles), with sandbag check dams within paved areas
▪ Regular watering of exposed soils to control dust during construction ▪ Implementing specifications for construction waste handling and disposal ▪ Using contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas ▪ Maintaining erosion and sedimentation control measures throughout the construction period ▪ Stabilizing construction entrances to avoid trucks from imprinting soil and debris onto adjoining roadways
▪ Training, including for subcontractors, on general site housekeeping Compliance with existing NDPES General Construction Permit requirements and other hazardous material regulations would minimize the potential for violation of water quality standards and minimize the potential for contributing sources of polluted runoff. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality from construction activities. Therefore, shortterm construction impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

Long-term Operational Impacts
Post-construction, the Project is designed to capture a total of 823,869 cubic feet of stormwater using proprietary Stormtech underground infiltration/retention systems. There will be on-site catch basins to collect the storm water and convey the storm flows to underground infiltration and retention

Page 68 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 27 of 121
systems. Overflows will be conveyed to the proposed sump/flow distribution prior to discharging into the pipes under the freeway.

The site has been split into four drainage areas. Drainage Area A covers the southwestern portion of the site and provides a detention/infiltration system capable of capturing 227,392 cubic feet of runoff.

Drainage Area B covers the northwestern portion of the site and provides a detention/infiltration system capable of capturing 230,634 cubic feet of runoff. Drainage Area C covers the southeastern portion of the site and provides a detention/infiltration system capable of capturing 185,343 cubic feet of runoff. Drainage Area D covers the northeastern portion of the site and provides a detention/infiltration system capable of capturing 180,500 cubic feet of runoff.

In accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, the infiltration and detention basin system would be designed to treat water quality for a 2-year, 24-hour storm event, and sized to accommodate the volumes and flow rates of a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The stormwater drainage system basins would be sized and designed to prevent flooding from a 100-year storm while also accommodating the required retention volume for water quality purposes. The basins would be designed to capture the entire volume generated from a 10-year storm, meaning no runoff would be discharged off site, and more than 95% of the 100-year volume consistent with the Town’s requirements (Appendix H-1 of the DEIR). The combination of the underground infiltration basin and the extended detention basins would capture the design capture volume, the hydromodification volume, and both peak discharge and runoff volumes from the 10-year 24-hour and the 100-year 24-hour storm events. Postdevelopment hydrologic conditions would effectively be reduced to levels below those that have been calculated for existing or pre-development hydrologic conditions (Appendix H-2).Implementation of these Low Impact Development (LID) features and BMPs would reduce the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters, including inadvertent release of pollutants (e.g., hydraulic fluids and petroleum); any potential improper management of hazardous materials on-site; trash and debris; and any potential for improper management of portable restroom facilities (e.g., regular service), in accordance with all relevant local and state development standards.

With respect to groundwater quality, stormwater would be collected and treated in the infiltration and detention basins to meet retention time requirements for water quality purposes in accordance with San Bernardino County requirements. Therefore, with adherence to NPDES MS4 permit and San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual standards, long-term operational impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-12 –

4.8-15)

2. Decrease Groundwater or Impede Groundwater Management Threshold: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.8-15 – 4.8-16) Explanation: The Project site is underlain by the Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin.

Currently, the Project site is undeveloped and pervious, which allows for groundwater recharge.

The development of the Project site would result in a substantial increase in impermeable surfaces, which could impede groundwater recharge. However, the Project would incorporate

Page 69 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 28 of 121
LID features, including infiltration/retention systems designed to retain the required design capture volume. Detained stormwater would infiltrate through the bottom of the infiltration basins and into the underlying soils. Because the Project would meet and exceed infiltration requirements, stormwater would continue to be able to infiltrate soils and recharge the underlying Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater recharge attributed to development of the site would be less than significant.

A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the Project and includes a comprehensive assessment of historical water demands and a projection of future water demands based on forecasted development of the remaining developable property within the Town’s water service area (Appendix H-3 of the DEIR). Liberty Utilities has a history of meeting its demands even during recent periods of drought and has a water shortage contingency plan in place in the event of severe drought.

The WSA concluded that the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has already accounted for increased development and that the proposed demand from the Project would not likely adversely affect the water supply for Liberty Utilities (Appendix H-3 of the DEIR). The 2020 UWMP has demonstrated that Liberty Utilities has projected supply and demand estimates under normal-year, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions over a 30-year projection that can be met without adversely affecting sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies and would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater supplies would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-15 – 4.8-16.)

3. Alter Existing Drainage Patterns
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.8-16)
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? Explanation: Project construction activities would be required to implement BMPs as part of a SWPPP that would include erosion control measures for all exposed soils. Once developed, the buildings, paved surfaces, other on-site improvements, and drainage control features would stabilize and help retain on-site soils. The remaining portions of the Project site containing pervious surfaces would primarily consist of landscaped areas including a mix of trees, shrubs, plants, and groundcover that would help retain on-site soils while preventing wind and water erosion from occurring.

Moreover, the Project’s drainage system would include catch basins and underground infiltration basins to retain and infiltrate water on site and address the Hydromodification Performance Criteria required for the Project in accordance with MS4 Phase II Storm Water permit requirements. The stormwater drainage systems would be based on preliminary engineering considerations, including the minimum setback from structures as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The adherence to water quality control requirements consistent with MS4 Phase II Storm Water permit requirements would ensure that the Project’s changes to drainage patterns would result in less than significant impacts related to erosion or siltation in runoff on or off site. (DEIR, p. 4.8-16.)

Page 70 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 29 of 121
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
Explanation: Project construction would alter the existing drainage patterns through the introduction of new impervious surfaces. The Project would maintain adequate stormwater conveyance through compliance with existing drainage control standards for volume control, consistent with the Mojave Watershed Technical Guidance Document, and in accordance with the 2013 Phase II Small MS4 Permit. The Project improvements would be designed to convey runoff as sheet flows away from buildings and allow on-site infiltration through the remaining landscaped pervious areas as well as the underground retention basins. The proposed retention basins satisfy the Town of Apple Valley’s drainage management guidelines and ensure the Project will not exceed 90% of the pre-development runoff for the 100-year storm event and 5% of the 10-year storm event. Basin routing, infiltration, and storage also mitigate the proposed time of concentration to below the existing time of concentration. The potential for flooding either on- or off-site would be reduced to less than significant levels. (DEIR, p. 4.8- 16 – 4.8-17.)
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Explanation: The Project’s proposed drainage system would be designed to convey runoff in compliance with the Town of Apple Valley and the County of San Bernardino WQMP and SWMP requirements. In addition, the Project would incorporate LID features, including on-site infiltration/retention basins and ongoing maintenance requirements to ensure continued successful operation. Collectively, these LID features would lower the potential for incidental releases of contaminants to the environment such as oil, grease, nutrients, heavy metals, and certain pesticides, including legacy pesticides. As a result, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts associated with stormwater drainage systems capacity and polluted runoff sources would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-17.)
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Explanation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Map Service Center places the Project site in Zone D, which is classified as an area of undetermined flood hazard but still an area where flooding is possible (FEMA 2008). However, as previously discussed, although onsite drainage patterns would be altered because of Project development, the Project would maintain sufficient stormwater conveyance capacity so as to not result in an increase of surface runoff that could result in flooding on or off site associated with the 10-year or 100- year storm events. Stormwater volumes will either be fully captured or result in discharges reduced to very low flows. Therefore, impacts associated with impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-17.)

4. Conflict with a Water Quality Control Plan or Groundwater Management Plan Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Page 71 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 30 of 121
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.8-18 – 4.8-19) Explanation: the Project would comply with applicable water quality regulatory requirements, including implementation of a SWPPP, stormwater BMPs, and LID design, which would minimize potential off-site surface water quality impacts and contribute to a reduction in water quality impacts within the overall Mojave River Watershed. Compliance with these regulatory drainage control requirements is consistent with Lahontan Basin Plan policies and water quality objectives, which would reduce potential water quality impairment of surface waters such that existing and potential beneficial uses of key surface water drainages throughout the jurisdiction of the Mojave River Basin Plan Amendment would not be adversely impacted. As a result, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Lahontan Basin Plan.

With respect to groundwater management, Liberty Utilities would be supplying water for the Project and sources its water from groundwater in the Alto Subarea of the Upper Mojave River Valley Basin.

Historical practices led to declining water levels in the Basin, which resulted in the adjudication of the Basin in 1996 in order to manage groundwater supplies and regulate extraction. Since adjudication, the Mojave Basin Area has been well managed as evidenced by stabilized water levels and reliable supply. The WSA prepared for the Project, which relied in part on the 2020 UWMP for Apple Valley, determined that demand of the Project can be met in normal, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year scenarios (Appendix H-3 of the DEIR). Further, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and would not conflict with or obstruct a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts associated with water quality control plans and sustainable groundwater management plans would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-17 – 4.8-18.)

5. Flood Hazard, Tsunami or Seiche Zones
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-5)
Explanation: The Project would not be susceptible to flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche. Seiche is generally associated with oscillation of enclosed bodies of water (e.g., reservoirs, lakes) typically caused by ground shaking associated with a seismic event; however, the Project site is not located near an enclosed body of water. Flooding from tsunami conditions is not expected since the Project site is located approximately 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean. In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Map Service Center identifies the Project site as Zone D, which is classified as an area of undetermined flood hazard (FEMA 2021). As such, the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation. Therefore, impacts associated with seiche, tsunami, or flooding would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-5)

6. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hydrology and water quality?

Page 72 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 31 of 121
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.8-18 – 4.8-19) Explanation:

Water Quality
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with water quality is encompasses the Mojave River Watershed for surface water and the Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin for groundwater. Cumulative development in the watershed and groundwater basin could add new sources of stormwater runoff that could adversely affect surface water or groundwater quality. Construction activities associated with the Project could temporarily increase the number of exposed surfaces that could contribute to sediments in stormwater runoff. Additionally, materials associated with construction activities could be deposited on surfaces and carried to receiving waters in stormwater runoff. However, all cumulative development in the region would be subject to the existing regulatory requirements to protect water quality and minimize increases in stormwater runoff as has been described for the Project. For example, Part 1, Section I of the MS4 Phase II NPDES Permit requires the Town of Apple Valley as well as other co-permittees to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges from within its boundaries, into that portion of the MS4 that it owns or operates. Part 2, Section 1.E of the MS4 Phase II NPDES Permit requires the Town to control discharges to and from municipal sewer systems, so as to comply with the NPDES permit and to specifically prohibit certain discharges identified in the NPDES Permit.

Every 2 years, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) must re-evaluate water quality within its geographic region and identify those water bodies not meeting water quality standards. For those impaired water bodies, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be prepared and implemented to reduce pollutant loads to levels that would not contribute to a violation of water quality standards. All developments within the Mojave River Watershed are subject to the water quality standards included in the Mojave River Basin Plan and must comply with any established TMDLs. The ongoing review process would ensure that cumulative development within the watershed would not substantially degrade water quality.

The County and local jurisdictions located within San Bernardino County are co-permittees under the San Bernardino County MS4 Phase II NPDES stormwater permit. The NPDES permit sets limits on pollutants being discharged into waterways and requires that the project designer and/or contractor of all new development projects that fall under specific project categories develop a WQMP that includes LID design requirements related to water quality. The LID design requirements are intended to address long-term effects on water quality within the San Bernardino County watersheds and ensure that BMPs and LID designs minimize potential water quality concerns to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, impacts associated with water quality standards and polluted runoff in the watersheds would be minimized, and the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Water Supply
The development of the Project would increase water demand compared to existing conditions. The Project would be served by Liberty Utilities. The Liberty Utilities 2020 UWMP contains detailed information about the urban water supplier’s water supply and demand projections out to 2045. The water demand for the cumulative projects are accounted for in the UWMP because they are consistent

Page 73 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 32 of 121
with the existing general plan designation and zoning that was established in the plan. According to the Town’s General Plan, the land use and zoning designations for the Project site are Regional Commercial (C-R). Additionally, the Project site is located within the Warehouse Distribution Regional Commercial (I-N) Overlay. Given much of Liberty Utilities’ service area is already built out, the Project’s additional water demand reasonably fits within this projected demand. The UWMP indicates that Liberty Utilities can meet water demands during normal years, single-dry years, and a 5-consecutiveyear drought period over the next 20 years. This is because although the underlying basin is adjudicated, there is no hard limit on the amount of groundwater that can be produced annually; however, the Judgement requires Liberty Utilities to pay the Watermaster for any overages above their allocation to be used for purchasing SWP replacement water. Liberty Utilities can also meet its obligation by transferring unused allocations from other parties in the Alto Subarea. Therefore, because it has historically been able to meet demands during historical 5-year droughts, has a water shortage contingency plan, and planned demand/supply management measures in place, Liberty Utilities has supplies sufficient to meet demands out to 2045. As such, there is no cumulative impact and the Project would not be expected to result in increased water usage causing the need for new entitlements, resources, and/or treatment facilities that are not already being planned to accommodate regional growth forecasts.

In addition, the Project-specific WSA (Appendix H-3 of the DEIR), which considered existing demands and available as well as projected supplies, concluded that the total projected water supplies available to Liberty Utilities during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years over the next 20 years should be sufficient to meet the projected water demands for projected growth within the service area. These projections consider land use, water development programs and projects, and water conservation.

Therefore, due to water planning efforts and water conservation standards, impacts would be less than significant, and the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Stormwater Drainage
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to stormwater drainage is the Mojave River Watershed, which is moderately urbanized with impervious surfaces. Cumulative development within the County could potentially increase the number of impervious surfaces that could cause or contribute to storm drain system capacity exceedance, alter the existing storm drain system, and/or require the construction of new or expanded facilities. All new development and redevelopment within the watershed is subject to the environmental review process that would analyze potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff to the storm drain system. Cumulative projects would also be subject to existing stormwater regulatory requirements including the completion of drainage analyses to ensure that excessive on- or off-site flooding and runoff would not occur. Similar to the Project, cumulative projects are required to be designed such that any increases in stormwater runoff are retained and infiltrated for the full 10-year storm event and at least 95% of the 100-year storm event. As such, the Project would substantially reduce the volume of stormwater that is discharged off site and thus would not contribute to adverse effects related to stormwater volumes.

Potential impacts to drainages associated with the Project would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts and the impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-18 -4.8-19.)

Page 74 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 33 of 121
J. LAND USE

1. Conflict with a Plan or Policy Adopted to Avoid or Mitigate an Impact Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.9-7 – 4.9-25) Explanation:

Zoning Ordinance
The Apple Valley Zoning Ordinance classifies the Project site as being within Regional Commercial (CR). Additionally, the Project site is located within the Warehouse Distribution Regional Commercial (IN) Overlay, as designated on the Town’s Zoning Map. Since the warehouse facility is an allowed use under the current zoning designation, development of the Project would not introduce an incompatible land use in the Town. As such, the Project would be consistent with applicable land use policies and regulations, and impacts related to consistency with the zoning ordinance would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-21.)
Town of Apple Valley General Plan
According to the Town’s General Plan, the land use designation for the Project site is Regional Commercial (C-R) Warehouse Distribution Regional Commercial Overlay (I-N). The proposed warehouse facility is an allowable use under the existing general plan land use designation. As such, the Project would be consistent with applicable land use policies and regulations, and impacts related to consistency with the Town’s General Plan would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-4 – 4.9-21.) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) was adopted on September 3, 2020, and presents the land use and transportation vision for the region through the year 2045, providing a long-term investment framework for addressing the region’s challenges. The RTP/SCS established goals for the region and identifies transportation investments to address the region’s growing population, as well as strategies to reduce traffic congestion and GHG emissions. In addition, the RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support the region’s vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently.

Consistency with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS goals, below, demonstrates that the Project would not conflict with the applicable goals in the RTP/SCS adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies set forth by the General Plan, the Town’s Municipal Code, and SCAG in regard to the RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-21 – 4.9-24.)

Page 75 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 34 of 121

2. Division of an Existing Community
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-5)
Explanation: Under the existing condition, the Project site is predominately vacant land, with an approximately 20-acre portion used for stockpiling from off-site mining activities and is not used as a connection between established communities. Instead, connectivity within the area surrounding the Project site is facilitated via local roadways. As such, the Project would not impede movement within the Project area, within an established community, or from one established community to another. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and this issue will not be evaluated further in the Draft EIR. (DEIR, p. 5-5)

3. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to land use and planning?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.9-25)
Explanation: Implementation of the Project, combined with the development of ongoing projects and future industrial projects in the greater project area, could potentially result in cumulative impacts associated with land use and planning if these projects collectively conflict with either existing land uses or other future projects in the area. The anticipated impacts of the Project in conjunction with cumulative development in the area of the Project would result in the development of vacant land. However, potential land use impacts require evaluation on a case-by-case basis because of the interactive effects of a specific development and its immediate environment. As described above, the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Apple Valley General Plan. In addition, the Project would be an allowable use and would not conflict with either the Town’s land use or zoning classifications. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Apple Valley General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact regarding land use.

Furthermore, all related projects would be required to undergo environmental review on a case-bycase basis in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Each related project would also be required to demonstrate consistency with all applicable planning documents governing the Project site, including the Apple Valley General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, and any applicable Specific Plans.

Should potential impacts be identified, appropriate mitigation would be prescribed that would likely reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to land use. (DEIR, p. 4.9-25.) K. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

Page 76 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 35 of 121
Finding: No Impact (DEIR, p. 4.10-6)
Explanation: The Mineral Land Classification system categorizes areas as MRZ-1, MRZ-2, MRZ3, and MRZ-4 based on available geologic data and economic factors. Areas classified as MRZ1 have little likelihood of containing significant mineral resources according to available geologic information. MRZ-2 is divided into two subcategories: MRZ-2a and MRZ-2b. MRZ-2a represents areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated reserves are present, while MRZ-2b contains discovered mineral deposits that are significant inferred resources as determined by their lateral extension from proven deposits or their similarity to proven deposits. MRZ-3 also has two subcategories: MRZ3a and MRZ-3b. MRZ-3a includes areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance that could be reclassified into MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories through further exploration work. MRZ-3b represents areas containing inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance, which are geologic settings that appear to be favorable for the occurrence of specific mineral deposits. Finally, MRZ-4 areas have no known mineral occurrences, and geologic information does not rule out the presence or absence of significant mineral resources. Overall, the analysis of the potential impact on mineral resources focuses on the MRZ-2 areas, as they contain known mineral deposits that are of statewide economic importance. the Project site contains areas designated as MRZ-3a.

MRZ-2 zones are located near the Project site, which have been associated with the Scheer Limestone Quarry and the Piercy Limestone Quarry. Construction and operation of the Project would involve development of approximately 178 acres of land in the MRZ-3 zone and off-site improvements within existing road rights-of-way, all of which are also located within MRZ-3 zone. Therefore, the Project would not impede future mining activities within the MRZ-2 zone area that would result in the loss of availability of a known resource.

Therefore, due to the lack of any known significant mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state within the Project site, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of significance to the region or residents of the state, and there would be no impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-6)

2. Conflict with a Plan or Policy Adopted to Avoid or Mitigate an Impact Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Finding: No Impact (DEIR, p. 4.10-6)
Explanation: The Project is not located in an MRZ-2a zone as indicated in the Town of Apple Valley General Plan’s Mineral Resource Zones North/Mines and Prospects Figure III-8 (see Figure 4.10-1 of the DEIR). The Project site is adjacent to an existing and operating Calportland aggregate mine. The Project would include a dedicated haul road for Calportland haul trucks to safely export minerals from the adjacent quarry to the Calportland processing facility west of I-15.

Page 77 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 36 of 121
In addition, there are no producing oil resources on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not result in a loss of availability of locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans, and there would be no impact.

3. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts with regard to mineral resources?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.10-7)
Explanation: The General Plan Initial Study found that the predominance of the Town is designated as “MRZ-3a” and that future development within the planning area would not substantially limit the future availability of known mineral resources. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be consistent with the General Plan land use designations and would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts with regard to mineral resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

L. NOISE
Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.11-9 – 4.10-14.) Explanation:

Construction Noise
Construction noise and vibration are temporary phenomena, with emission levels varying from hour to hour and day to day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations performed, and the distance between the source and receptor. Equipment that would be in use during construction would include, in part, graders, backhoes, rubber-tired dozers, loaders, cranes, forklifts, pavers, rollers, and air compressors. The typical maximum noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from various pieces of construction equipment and activities anticipated for use on the Project site. Usually, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels over time that are less than the maximum noise level. The average sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of construction activities during that time. At the site boundary, this analysis assumes that all equipment of each listed type per phase will be involved in the construction activity for the full 8-hour period. For the acoustical centroid case, which intends to be a geographic average position for all equipment during the indicated phase, this analysis assumes that the equipment may be operating up to 8 hours per day. The highest estimated construction noise levels are predicted to be below the existing ambient level of 42 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period at the nearest existing residences on Venus Avenue when grading activities take place near the southern Project boundaries. Measured ambient noise levels were recorded in the mid50s on the dBA scale, which translates to no increase in ambient levels based on the predicted construction noise levels. Short-term construction noise remains well below the thresholds listed in

Page 78 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 37 of 121
Section 9.73.050 subsection (F) of the Town’s Municipal Code of 50 dBA and therefore is less than significant.

Operation Noise
Off-Site Traffic Noise Exposure
The Project would result in the creation of additional vehicle trips on local arterial roadways (i.e., Outer Highway 15), which could result in increased traffic noise levels at adjacent noise-sensitive land uses.

Appendix I-3, Traffic Noise Modeling Input and Output, contains a spreadsheet with traffic volume data (average daily traffic) for Outer Highway 15. In particular, the Project would create additional traffic along Outer Highway 15, which according to the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared for the Project (David Evans & Associates 2023) would add 6,145 total average daily trips adjacent to the Project site.

Potential noise effects from vehicular traffic were assessed using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model version 2.5. Information used in the model included the roadway geometry, existing (year 2022), existing plus Project, near-term (opening day) and near-term (opening day) plus Project traffic volumes and posted traffic speeds. Noise levels were modeled at representative noise-sensitive receivers ST1 through ST2, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations. The receivers were modeled to be 5 feet above the local ground elevation. Based on results of the model, implementation of the Project would not result in readily perceptible increases in traffic noise. The Project would increase the traffic noise levels along the nearby arterial roadways by 0 to 1 dBA (when rounded to whole numbers). A change (either an increase or a decrease) of 1 dB or less is not an audible change in the context of community noise (i.e., outside of a controlled test environment). The Project would not cause noise levels to exceed applicable City noise standards. The Project would increase by 0.5 dB CNEL at ST1 and 0.4 dB CNEL at ST2, which is below the CNEL threshold of 5 dB or more in locations with an ambient noise level of less than 60 dBA CNEL, nor would the Project result in an increase of 3 dB or more in locations with an ambient noise level of 60 to 65 dBA CNEL or an increase of 2 dB or more in locations with an ambient noise level greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Based upon these results, off-site traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.

On-site Outdoor Mechanical Equipment
The proposed warehouse spaces within the warehouse/office buildings would not be served by heating or air-conditioning equipment. However, the proposed office areas would be equipped with singlepackaged rooftop HVAC units with air-handling capacity of 3 to 6 nominal tons. For the analysis of noise from this HVAC equipment operation, a York ZF-048 HVAC unit was used as a reference. The York Model ZF-048 package HVAC unit has a sound power rating of 80 dBA (Johnson Controls 2015).

Based upon the provided site plan, there would be one such HVAC unit for each of the four offices located within the Project (i.e., one office in each corner).

Noise level data provided by the manufacturer was used to determine the noise levels that would be generated by the HVAC equipment. The worst-case calculated noise levels at the nearest residential properties (to the south) and the property lines to the south. The calculations were performed at the worst-case locations of each of the subject property lines—that is, the closest distances between the proposed office locations and the adjacent property lines, to ensure that the shortest distance from equipment to property line was examined.

Page 79 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 38 of 121
Aggregate on-site operation noise attributed to the Project was predicted with the Datakustik CadnaA (CadnaA) software platform, in which a 3D outdoor sound propagation model of major structures, mechanical equipment, loading bay, container storage area, and parking lot activity associated with the Project’s proposed warehouse was developed.

The maximum hourly noise level for the HVAC equipment operating at each examined point would be approximately 27 dBA Leq at the nearest residential properties and approximately 57.5 dBA Leq at the Project’s property boundaries. The results of the mechanical equipment operations noise analysis indicate that the Project would comply with the Town’s Municipal Code threshold. Therefore, impacts associated with on-site HVAC noise would be less than significant.

Parking Lot Activity
A comprehensive study of noise levels associated with surface parking lots was published in the Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management. The study found that average noise levels during the peak period of use of the parking lot (generally in the morning with arrival of commuters, and in the evening with the departure of commuters), was 47 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) from the outside boundary of the parking lot. The parking area would function as an area source for noise, which means that noise would attenuate at a rate of 3 dBA with each doubling of distance. The nearest employee parking lot to the noise-sensitive receivers (residences to the south) is planned for the south side of Building 1, approximately 4,000 feet from the closest residential property boundary.

At a distance of 4,000 feet, parking lot noise levels would be approximately 16 dBA; this is well below the City’s Municipal Code standard for maximum noise levels during the nighttime hours for residential zones of 40 dBA, and well below the measured ambient noise levels.

Truck Loading Dock/Truck Yard Activity
The aforementioned parking lot study also examined noise levels associated with cargo truck delivery activity. The study concluded that maximum noise levels from truck loading/unloading areas was 96 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) from the boundary of the truck loading doc and truck parking areas located at the east and west sides of the Project site. Time-averaged noise levels would be lower and would agree with a 64 dBA Leq at 50 feet used to define these individual sources. Truck loading docks would be located approximately 4,000 feet from the nearest residential property line (located to the southwest). The truck loading dock area would function as a point source for noise, which means that noise would attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA with each doubling of distance. Using the outdoor attenuation rate of 6 dBA with each doubling of distance, truck loading activity would produce noise levels of approximately 34 dBA Leq at residences to the southwest, which would be below the City’s Municipal Code standard for maximum noise levels during the nighttime hours for residential zones and well below the measured ambient noise levels. Therefore, impacts associated with truck loading docks and truck yard noise would be less than significant.

Combined On-Site Operations Noise Emission
The combination of the parking lot noise (approximately 16dBA Leq),the HVAC equipment level (27 dBA Leq), and the truck yard activity (34 dBA Leq) would be approximately 35 dBA Leq,1 which is below the 1 Because noise levels are summed in the energy (that is, the logarithmic) domain, a noise level that is 10 decibels or more lower than another noise level becomes negligible, because the sound energy from the higher noise source is completely dominant.

Page 80 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 39 of 121
applicable limits (i.e., the residential-zoned properties) of 50 dBA Leq daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 40 dBA Leq nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Therefore, impacts associated with combined onsite noise would be less than significant.

In summary, the Project would have operational noise levels less than the applicable noise standards and would not result in a significant increase in noise levels in the Project vicinity. Consequently, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-9 - 4.10-15.) Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.10-18 – 4.10-19) Explanation: During operation, no major sources of groundborne vibration are anticipated.

Construction activities that might expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise could cause a potentially significant impact. Groundborne vibration information related to construction activities (including demolition) has been collected by Caltrans (Caltrans 2020). Information from Caltrans indicates that continuous vibrations with a PPV of approximately 0.1 inches per second (ips) begin to annoy people. The heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as bulldozers, would have PPVs of approximately 0.089 ips or less at a distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). Groundborne vibration is typically attenuated over short distances. At the distance from the nearest vibration-sensitive receivers (residences located to the southwest) to where construction activity would be occurring on the Project site (approximately 4,000 feet), and with the anticipated construction equipment, the PPV vibration level would be approximately 0.00004 ips. At the closest sensitive receptors, vibration levels would be well below the Town’s Municipal Code vibration threshold of perception of 0.01 ips, as well as Caltrans’ threshold of annoyance of approximately 0.1 ips; therefore, impacts associated with vibration-generated perception and annoyance would be less than significant.

The major concern with regards to construction vibration is related to building damage, which typically occurs at vibration levels of 0.5 ips or greater for buildings of reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber construction. As discussed above, the highest anticipated vibration levels at vibration-sensitive uses from with on-site Project construction would be approximately 0.00004 ips, which would be well below the threshold of 0.5 ips for building damage. Therefore, impacts associated with vibration-produced damage would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-15.) Threshold: Would the Project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: No Impact (DEIR, p. 4.10-15)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest public airport to the Project site is the Apple Valley Airport, which is located approximately 4.2 miles east of the Project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with airport and aircraft noise would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.10-15)

Page 81 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 40 of 121
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure? Finding: Less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-5 – 5-6)
Explanation: The Project would require a temporary construction workforce and a permanent operational workforce, both of which could potentially induce population growth in the Project area. The temporary workforce would be needed to construct the warehouse buildings and associated improvements. The number of construction workers needed during any given period would largely depend on the specific stage of construction but would likely range from a dozen to several dozen workers on a daily basis. These short-term positions are anticipated to be filled primarily by construction workers who reside in the Project site’s vicinity; therefore, construction of the Project would not generate a permanent increase in population within the Project area. Because the future tenants are not known yet, the number of jobs that the Project would generate cannot be precisely determined. Thus, for purposes of analyses, employment estimates were calculated using average employment density factors reported by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG reports that for every 1,195 square feet of warehouse space in San Bernardino County, the average numbers of jobs supported is one employee (SCAG 2001). The Project would include 2,604,446 square feet of industrial/warehouses space, excluding associated improvements. As such, the estimated number of employees required for operation would be approximately 2,179. According to the 2021 U.S. Census, the population of the Town was approximately 76,224 residents. According to the Town’s General Plan, upon build-out, the Town could support a population of 185,858 residents (Town of Apple Valley 2009b). As such, the Project-related increase of approximately 2,179 employees would represent a nominal percentage of the Town’s projected future population upon General Plan build-out.1 In addition, data provided by the California Employment Development Department in February 2022 found that the unemployment rate for San Bernardino County is at 5%, which is similar to the state average (5.4%) (EDD 2022).

As such, the Project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements could likely be met by the Town’s existing labor force without people needing to relocate into the Project region, and the Project would not stimulate population growth or a population concentration above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-5 – 5-6)

2. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact. (DEIR, p. 5-6)

Page 82 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 41 of 121
Explanation: The Project site is currently predominately vacant with an approximately 20-acre portion used for stockpiling for off-site mining activities and contains no housing or other residential uses. Given that no residential uses are located on site, it follows that the site does not support a residential population. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-6) N. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.12-4)
Explanation:

School Facilities
The Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the Town. Although the Project would require employees to construct and operate the Project, these short-term and longterm employees would likely already reside within the broader Project area. As such, it is not anticipated that many people would relocate to the Town as a result of the Project, and an increase in school-age children requiring public education is not expected to occur as a result.

Similar to other development projects in the Town, the Project would be subject to Senate Bill 50, which requires payment of mandatory impact fees to offset any impact to school services or facilities.

The provisions of Senate Bill 50 are deemed to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in CEQA or other state or local laws (Government Code Section 65996). In accordance with Senate Bil50, the Project Applicant would pay its fair share of impact fees based on the Project’s square footage per Government Code Section 65995(h). These impact fees are required of most residential, commercial, and industrial development projects in the Town. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-6 – 5-7) Parks
The Project would construct two industrial/warehouse buildings in the Town. The Project does not propose any residential uses and would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the Town. As such, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or regional parks in the Town and surrounding area. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-7) Other Public Facilities
Given industrial nature of the Project and the lack of population growth that would result from the Project, it is unlikely that the Project would increase the use of libraries and other public facilities.

Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-7)

Page 83 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 42 of 121
Fire protection
Fire protection requirements are based on the number of residents and workers in the Fire Protection District service areas. Service demand is primarily tied to population, not building size, because emergency medical calls typically make up the majority of responses provided by the fire department.

As the number of residents and workers increases, so does the number of emergency medical calls.

There are no residential uses proposed as a part of the Project. Therefore, no residents would occupy the Project site and an increase in service demands as a result of an increase in residential uses would not occur.

Service demands as a result of personnel on site could occur during construction of the Project.

Typically, service demands per employee are less than service demands per resident. Nevertheless, the addition of construction personnel on the Project site would result in an increase in demand for fire protection services. While this would be an increase above existing levels, the presence of construction workers on the site would be temporary, and cease after construction of the proposed warehouse facility is complete. It would therefore not substantially increase the service demand for fire protection services in San Bernardino County.

In addition, the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable provisions of the applicable California Fire Code, which includes requirements for adequate fire flows, width of emergency access routes, turning radii, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarms, and floor to sky height limits along emergency access routes. As part of the standard development practices, Project plans would be reviewed by the Town and the Fire Protection District, prior to construction. Compliance with fire code standards would reduce the potential demand for fire services by decreasing the likelihood and/or severity of a fire emergency at the site.

Once constructed, the warehouse facility will require full-time personnel for site operations and maintenance. The nearest Fire Station to the Project that would be the first responder to small firerelated incidents is Fire Station 332, located at approximately 2.6 miles to the southeast of Project site. As per Policy 1.H of the Police and Fire Protection Element of the Town’s General Plan, the Fire Protection District maintains a 6-minute or less response time. Within the Town’s corporate limits, the average response time is 6 minutes and 25 seconds. In the event that Fire Station No. 332 could not meet the immediate needs of a call for services independently or does not have capability to address the full extent of a larger incident, the other fire stations within the Town or the closest available fire stations in neighboring jurisdictions, as well as CAL FIRE, could respond or provide support.

The Project would be subject to the payment of Development Impact Fees (DIF) as per Chapter 3.32 (Fire Suppression Development Fee Program) of the Town’s Municipal Code. This fee would be used for future facility improvements necessary to ensure that the development contributes its fair share of the cost of facilities and equipment determined to be necessary to adequately accommodate new development in the Town. The DIF amount is determined through evaluation of the need for new public service facilities as it relates to the level of service demanded by new development, which varies in proportion to specific land uses. As defined in the Town’s Municipal Code, a portion of the DIF ($0.089 per square foot) would be used exclusively toward fire protection services.

The Project site is located within the Fire Protection District’s response area, and the department would provide service to the Project site. With the nearby services of Fire Station No. 332, as well as fire stations in neighboring jurisdictions, the Project would be served by sufficient fire protection services,

Page 84 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 43 of 121
and it is not anticipated that the Project would hinder the Fire Protection District from meeting its response time targets. Additionally, payment of the DIF would ensure the Project contributes a fair share towards future facility improvements and equipment. Therefore, the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-4 – 4.12-5)
Police protection
Police services are provided via contractual agreement with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Apple Valley Patrol Station (14931 Dale Evans Parkway) located approximately 4.75 miles southeast of the Project site would provide primary law enforcement services to the Project site.

The Project site is located in a relatively remote location surrounded by undeveloped land and scattered uses. It is therefore unlikely to attract attention that would make Project facilities susceptible to crime. Therefore, a large increase for police protection services is not expected.

Construction activities may temporarily increase traffic volumes along I-15 and nearby roadways during the construction period. The added traffic associated with workers commuting to the Project site, haul routes, deliveries, and other Project-related activities may increase the need for law enforcement services during construction of the Project. However, this would be temporary and would not have a significant adverse effect on the AVPD protective service provision or California Highway Patrol’s ability to patrol the highways.

A need for new or expanded public services, such as police facilities, is typically associated with a population increase. The Project does not include residential uses . While the Project would lead to increased employment on site, the Project would not induce substantial population growth.

Furthermore, the Project would incorporate operational practices and design elements to increase onsite safety and to reduce the potential for crime to occur. During operation, practices to increase safety could include security lighting, alarms, and security cameras. Project design would also incorporate defensible design (i.e. limited pass-through areas), lighting, and landscaping, as well as open fencing.

These techniques would minimize spaces that are hidden from public view, which would help prevent loitering and crime. Building entries, parking areas, and walkways would be illuminated, which would facilitate safe pedestrian movement. These design practices and operational practices would lessen the demand for police protection services at the Project site by reducing the potential for crime to occur.

Police units are continuously mobile, and service calls are responded to by the nearest available mobile unit. AVPD’s average response time for highest priority emergency calls is 5 minutes. Further, the police service ratio is one police officer per 1,500 population, which would not be impacted from the Project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would hinder the AVPD from continuing to meet or exceed target response times and provide adequate service levels.

The Project would be subject to the payment of DIF as per the Town’s Municipal Code. This fee would be used for future law enforcement facility improvements necessary to ensure that the development contributes its fair share of the cost of facilities and equipment determined to be necessary to adequately accommodate new development in the Town. The DIF amount is determined through evaluation of the need for new public service facilities as it relates to the level of service demanded by new development, which varies in proportion to specific land uses. As defined in the Town’s

Page 85 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 44 of 121
Municipal Code, a portion of the DIF ($0.001 per square foot) would be used exclusively toward law enforcement facilities.

Additionally, the Project would be consistent with or would not hinder implementation of the Town’s General Plan goals and policies pertaining to police protection services listed in Section 4.12.2, Relevant Regulations, Plans, Policies, and Ordinances. As substantiated in this analysis, the Project is not anticipated to adversely affect service ratios or response times for police services such that new or expanded police facilities would be required. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police facilities; impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR p. 4.12-5 – 4.12-6.)

2. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable public service impacts? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.12-6 – 4.12-7) Explanation: The cumulative study area is based on the service area for each of the fire, sheriff and other governmental offices/facilities serving the Project site. As discussed above, fire and sheriff service impacts related to the Project would be less than significant. Compliance with the appropriate general plan policies regarding service ratios and response times, along with the payment of DIF, would ensure any slight contribution to the Project related needs for additional fire or law enforcement protection services would be appropriately funded. Similar to the Project, all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects located in the Town’s fire and sheriff service areas were or would be required to pay this mitigation fee.

In addition, the Project would not increase demand for local schools, parks, or public facilities. Since impacts were not found to be significant in the initial study, further analysis was not done on these issues. Thus, the Project would not cumulatively combine with related projects to have an impact on these facilities. Furthermore, future projects would undergo environmental review, in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Should potential impacts to public services be identified as a result of future projects, appropriate mitigation would be prescribed that would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Because the Project would not create a significant impact on public services, and because similar other related projects would also be expected to avoid or mitigate impacts on public services, the Project would comply with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Town’s General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not create a cumulatively considerable impact related to public services and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

O. RECREATION

1. Increased Use
Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Page 86 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 45 of 121
Finding: No impacts. (DEIR, p. 5-7)
Explanation: The Project would construct two industrial/warehouse building and associated improvements. The Project does not propose any residential uses and would not directly or indirectly result in a substantial and unplanned increase in population growth within the Project area. As such, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or regional parks in the Town and surrounding area. In addition, as an industrial use, the Project does not propose recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-7)

2. Construction and Expansion
Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: No impacts. (DEIR, p. 5-7)
Explanation: The Project would construct two industrial/warehouse building and associated improvements. The Project does not propose any residential uses and would not directly or indirectly result in a substantial and unplanned increase in population growth within the Project area. As such, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or regional parks in the Town and surrounding area. In addition, as an industrial use, the Project does not propose recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-7) P. TRANSPORTATION

1. Conflict with a Program, Plan or Policy Addressing the Circulation System Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.9-21 – 4.9-24) Explanation:

Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) was adopted on September 3, 2020, and presents the land use and transportation vision for the region through the year 2045, providing a long-term investment framework for addressing the region’s challenges. The RTP/SCS established goals for the region and identifies transportation investments that address the region’s growing population, as well as strategies to reduce traffic congestion and GHG emissions. In addition, the RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emission reduction goals and compliance with federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support the region’s vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently.

Page 87 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 46 of 121
Consistency with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS goals, below, demonstrates that the Project would not conflict with the applicable goals in the RTP/SCS adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies set forth by the General Plan, the Town’s Municipal Code, and SCAG in regard to the RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-21 – 4.9-24.) San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan
The Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and elements of the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The Project would not impede the ability to maintain or enhance the performance of the multimodal transportation system. The Project would include on- and off-site roadway improvements to serve internal circulation needs and minimize impacts to travel delay. None of the proposed improvements would interfere with the existing or potential future improvements to the multimodal transportation system. The Project would participate in the Town’s Development Impact Fee program, which is coordinated with regional planning efforts in Victor Valley to meet regional transportation needs and to provide for adequate funding for mitigation of impacts from new development, consistent with the CMP. The CMP System Level of Service (LOS) Element and Performance Measures Element also contain LOS standards for CMP designated highways and roadways. However, there are no designated CMP roadways in the Project study area; therefore, the Project would have no impact on these roadways. (DEIR, p. 4.13-10.) Town of Apple Valley General Plan Circulation Element
The Project proposes changes to the Town’s circulation system that will require an amendment to the Town’s Streets and Road Plan in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The primary change is the abandonment of the current right of way and realignment of a segment of Apple Valley Road from Stoddard Wells Road to the existing alignment of Apple Valley Road just south of Wato Road. In addition, the current right of way alignment of Outer Highway 15 will be abandoned and realigned north of Stoddard Wells Road. The road reclassification amendments propose to change Norco Street from a Major Road to a Collector Street and change Papago and Wato Roads from Major Roads to Secondary Roads.

Beyond the amendments to the General Plan Circulation system, the Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element including policies related to maintaining and expanding a safe and efficient circulation and transportation system. The Project is located in an area with existing warehouse and distribution facilities and takes advantage of the proximity to an existing freeway interchange and the I-15 corridor to minimize truck travel through the Town, thereby discouraging traffic to utilize local residential streets for access or parking needs. Truck travel is anticipated to occur on Outer Highway 15 to I-15 at Stoddard Wells Road and on Apple Valley Road to I-15 at Quarry Road.

The Project would also not hinder the Town’s ability to provide for a comprehensive, interconnected recreational trails system suitable for bicycles, equestrians and/or pedestrians, nor hinder the Town’s ability to expand the public transit system. The Project would include on- and off-site roadway improvements to serve internal circulation needs, as well as to minimize impacts of increased traffic on the existing road system. The Project would also participate in the Town’s Development Impact Fee program. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the Town’s General Plan Circulation Element. (DEIR, p. 4.13-10 – 4.13-11.)

Page 88 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 47 of 121

2. Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.13-11 - 4.13-13) Explanation: The VMT analysis conducted to identify potentially significant Project-generated VMT impacts under CEQA concludes that the Project generates a VMT/Service population less than the VMT/Service population representing buildout of Apple Valley’s General Plan and, therefore, does not cause a significant impact based on the Town’s adopted significance thresholds for Project-generated VMT.

Another VMT analysis was conducted to identify potentially significant impacts of the Project’s “effects on town-wide VMT” under concluded that the VMT/Service population metric for the baseline and horizon year scenarios “with the project” do not increase the metric over the “without project” scenarios. Therefore, the Project does not cause a significant impact based on the Town’s adopted significance thresholds for the Project’s effect on town-wide VMT. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11 – 4.13-13.)

3. Increase Hazards or Create Incompatible Uses
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.13-13 – 4.13-15) Explanation: All roadway improvements required as part of the Project, both on- and off-site , would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal roadway standards and practices. As the Project continues through design review, detailed roadway construction plans will be developed in coordination with the Town. Roadway improvements would be overseen by Town and their qualified traffic engineers. This approach would ensure compliance with all applicable roadway design requirements. As such, no hazardous design features would be part of the Project’s roadway improvements or site access.

Furthermore, while congestion-based level of service effects are no longer used to evaluate a Project’s transportation impact under CEQA, a LOS analysis was prepared as part of the Project’s traffic impact analyses (Appendix J of the DEIR) as required by the Town’s Development Title standards. The LOS analysis was conducted for 14 intersections in the Project study area, including the Project driveways.

Based on the findings of the LOS analysis, Project-specific roadway and intersection improvements were recommended to improve the LOS at certain identified intersections. While the analysis focuses on operational deficiencies (e.g., LOS), the recommended improvements, such as providing deceleration lanes, installing traffic signals, etc. will also improve safety, access and circulation at the study intersections and roadways for both Project-related and future traffic conditions. The recommended frontage improvements identified on Falchion Road, Norco Street, Outer Hwy 15, and Apple Valley Road (detailed in Appendix J of the DEIR), in the immediate vicinity of the Project will be implemented as part of the Project and will be made a condition of Project approval. The Project would

Page 89 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 48 of 121
be required to make fair share payment towards long-range cumulative improvements that would be shared with other projects in the region. (DEIR, p. 4.13-14 - 4.13-25.)

4. Inadequate Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.13-15)
Explanation: The site plan would be subject to plan review by the Town’s Fire Department to ensure proper access for fire and emergency response is provided, and all required fire suppression features are included. All street improvements will be designed with adequate width, turning radius, and grade, in accordance with the Town’s requirements to facilitate access by the Town’s firefighting apparatus, and to provide alternative emergency ingress and egress. Therefore, the Project’s impact due to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-15.)

5. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to transportation?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.13-15 – 4.13-16) Explanation: The Project is consistent with the following plans addressing the circulation system and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities under cumulative conditions:
▪ Regional Transportation Plan- the Project in combination of other cumulative projects would not hinder the County’s ability to implement the long-term RTP goals. The Project includes on- and off-site improvements that will optimize the existing roadway system while providing improved vehicular and pedestrian access to the site. ▪ San Bernardino County CMP- The Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and elements of the CMP. The Project would not impede the ability to maintain or enhance the performance of the multimodal transportation system. The Project would include on- and off-site roadway improvements to minimize impacts to travel delay and would participate in the Town’s Development Impact Fee program, which is coordinated with regional planning efforts in Victor Valley. The CMP System LOS Element and Performance Measures Element also contain LOS standards for CMP designated highways and roadways. There are no designated CMP roadways in the Project study area; therefore, the Project would have no impact on these roadways. ▪ Town of Apple Valley General Plan– approval of the Project would ensure the proposed uses for the Project site are consistent with the General Plan.

Therefore, cumulative impacts related to a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system would be less than significant. Impacts related to conflicts with transit, bicycle or pedestrian transportation would be identical to the impacts described in the Project-specific impacts

Page 90 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 49 of 121
section. The Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to transit, bicycle or pedestrian access; therefore, all impacts would be less than significant.

In both the baseline and horizon year scenarios (which accounts for future cumulative growth in the area), the VMT/service population metric for the Project is less than the Town of Apple Valley’s General Plan buildout significance threshold. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on VMT. Likewise, the Project’s effect on Town-wide VMT, the VMT/Service population metric under the “with project” conditions compared to the metric under the “without project” conditions in both the baseline and horizon year scenarios does not increase and does not satisfy the Town’s significance threshold. Thus, the Project would result in less-than-significant cumulative impact on VMT.

The Project’s site access would not result in hazardous conditions into or out of the Project sites. As with the Project, driveways and/or circulation modifications proposed for other projects in the surrounding area would comply with applicable federal, state, regional, and/or local requirements.

Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts with respect to hazardous design features.

The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and Project impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. As with the Project, driveways and/or circulation modifications proposed for other projects in the surrounding area would comply with applicable federal, state, regional, and/or local requirements related to emergency access and evacuation plans. Further, because modifications to access are largely confined to a project site, project-specific emergency access impacts would likely not impact other cumulative projects. Therefore, the Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-15 – 4.13-16) Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. New Infrastructure
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.14-12 – 4.14-15) Explanation:

Water Facilities
The Project would involve the construction of water distribution infrastructure (i.e., pipes, valves, maters, etc.) to provide domestic water, firewater, and irrigation to the Project site. The Project is proposed to annex into the Liberty Utilities service area to receive water.

The annexation into the Liberty service area would involve the construction of water improvements that have the potential to cause environmental effects associated with the buildout of the Project as a whole. The water pipeline improvements have been considered as part of the Project, and their disturbance footprints and construction techniques, as well as their associated impacts, have been

Page 91 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 50 of 121
accounted for within the DEIR. There are no unique impacts associated with the installation of water infrastructure to serve the Project that has not been discussed and accounted for in this document.

Therefore, impacts associated with water facilities would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-13.) Water Treatment Facilities
While the Project would result in an incremental increase in demand for water treatment capacity, the Project’s water demand would not result in or require new or expanded water treatment facilities beyond those facilities that are already planned as part of Liberty Utilities’ 2020 UWMP. A WSA was prepared for the Project to evaluate Liberty Utilities’ projected supplies and demands and is included as Appendix H-3 of the Draft EIR. As concluded by the WSA (Appendix H-3), the Project would likely not adversely affect the water supply for Liberty Utilities-Apple Valley for the duration of the Project life and currently potable groundwater quality in their service area meets all regulatory requirements without treatment. As such, implementation of the Project would not result in the need to expand water treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with water treatment facilities would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-13.)
Wastewater Conveyance Facilities
The Project would construct new gravity-fed sewer lines along Frontage Road and Norco Street, including a line under the underpass connecting to a main trunk line at Stoddard Wells Road. The construction of the proposed sewer improvements has the potential to cause environmental effects associated with buildout of the Project as a whole. However, the proposed sewer improvements are primarily within existing road right of ways and have been considered as part of the Project, and their disturbance footprints and construction techniques, as well as their associated impacts, have been accounted for within this Draft EIR. There are no unique impacts associated with the installation of sewer infrastructure to serve the Project that have not been discussed and accounted for in this document. Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater conveyance facilities would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-13.)
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Upon build-out of the Project, the Project’s wastewater would be conveyed to the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA) Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (RWWTP), which has a treatment capacity of 18.0 mgd and currently produces an average flow of 10.7 mgd, or approximately 60% of its total capacity. Conservatively using the estimated total water demand for the Project as a basis for the wastewater generation rate, the Project would generate approximately

0.02946 mgd of wastewater. Projected wastewater from the Project would represent approximately

0.34% of the remaining capacity of the treatment facility. Given the remaining capacity of the VVWRA RWWTP, the VVWRA RWWTP should be able to adequately accommodate the Project’s generated wastewater. As such, no improvements to any of the Town’s or VVWRA’s facilities would be required to ensure sewer service to the Project site. Therefore, impacts associated with new wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-14.) Stormwater Drainage Facilities
The Project would be required to adhere to local drainage control requirements in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, as discussed above in Section V.(B) regarding hydrology.

Page 92 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 51 of 121
The proposed stormwater drainage system includes underground infiltration/and retention basins that would be sized and designed to prevent flooding from a 10-year or 100-year storm while also accommodating the required retention/detention volumes for water quality purposes. The basins would be designed to not exceed the pre-development runoff of at least 5% of the 10-year and at least 90% of the 100-year storm, with only very low flows being discharged off site.

Construction of the proposed storm drainage improvements described in the DEIR has the potential to cause environmental effects associated with buildout of the Project as a whole. The storm drainage improvements, however, have been considered as part of the Project, and their disturbance footprints and construction techniques, as well as their associated impacts, have been accounted for within the DEIR. There are no unique impacts associated with the installation of storm drain improvements to serve the Project that have not been discussed and accounted for in this document. Therefore, impacts associated with stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-14.) Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Electricity would be provided to the Project site by SCE. SCE conducts ongoing monitoring and electrical project development to ensures that it can provide adequate electrical service to the Project area.

SoCalGas’s projections out to 2035 continue to show available capacity that is well above the existing and future anticipated natural gas demand in the area serviced by SoCalGas. As discussed above in Section V. (E ), construction and operation of the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would be served by existing infrastructure and capacity.

There are a number of private telecommunications service providers that provide connections to their communication systems on an as-needed basis and maintain existing infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site.

Project demand for electricity, natural gas and telecommunications would be adequately served by existing infrastructure and capacity. Therefore, impacts associated with electric, natural gas, and telecommunication lateral connections would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-14 – 4.14-15.)

2. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.14-15 – 4.14-16) Explanation: Water demand for operation and landscape irrigation of the Project during the anticipated operational life would require an estimated 33 AFY of water which would be supplied by Liberty Utility (also discussed in Section V. (G)(2) and (4), and Section V. (M.) (1)).

Due to the unknown plans of future tenants, water demand from three different commercial warehouse businesses was used to estimate potential annual water volumes. This estimate was based on average water use per square foot of similar project types within the Liberty Utilities service area. The water use for the example warehouse developments was provided by Liberty Utilities. The three different water use rates provided by Liberty Utility applied to the Project footprint. For the purpose of analyzing the Project’s impacts, each scenario has been

Page 93 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 52 of 121
converted to AFY and then owing to the unknown plans of the future tenants, the highest demand was chosen with an extra buffer given to acknowledge the uncertainty. Construction water demand is estimated to be insignificant and would only be temporary.

The Liberty Utilities’ UWMP has planned for growth within its service area over the next 20 years.

Liberty Utilities has made an allowance for future demand estimates. Future demand for services is based on historical growth rates in the service area. The Liberty Utilities 2020 UWMP, Liberty Utilities projects a water demand increase of 2,692 AFY from 2025 (15,846 AFY) to 2045 (18,538 AFY) during normal years. The net water demand of the Project would be accounted for within this growth, as the Project is consistent with the underlying Town zoning designations for the Project site via the warehouse overlay.

The UWMP and Project-specific WSA (Appendix H-3 of the DEIR) identifies a sufficient and reliable water supply for Liberty Utilities-Apple Valley’s service area with a history of meeting demands and acknowledgement of future projects that should increase recycled water supply going forward. As a result, it was determined that there is sufficient water supply for the Project. Therefore, impacts associated with water supply would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-15 – 4.14-16)

3. Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.14-16)
Explanation: Upon build-out of the Project, the Project’s wastewater would be conveyed to the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility operated by Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA), which has a treatment capacity of 18.0 mgd and currently produces an average flow of 10.7 mgd, or approximately 60% of its total capacity. Assuming a conservative wastewater generation rate that is equal to the total water demand as estimated in the WSA, the Project would generate approximately 0.02946 mgd of wastewater. Projected wastewater from the Project would represent approximately 0.34% of the remaining capacity of the treatment facility. Given the remaining capacity of the VVWRA RWWTP, the VVWRA RWWTP should be able to adequately accommodate the Project’s contribution of wastewater.

Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-16.)

4. Increase in Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.14-17 – 4.14-18) Explanation: Construction of the Project would result in the generation of solid waste such as scrap lumber, concrete, residual wastes, packing materials, plastics, and soils. Per CALGreen, at least 65% of construction and demolition waste must be diverted from landfills. The Town

Page 94 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 53 of 121
also has construction and demolition debris diversion requirements equal to the requirements imposed by CALGreen (65% diversion). Any hazardous wastes that are generated during construction activities would be managed and disposed of in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. The remaining 35% of construction material that is not required to be recycled would either be disposed of or voluntarily recycled at a solid waste facility with available capacity. Two existing landfills within San Bernardino County currently accept inert waste, the Victorville Sanitary Landfill and the Chino Valley Rock Landfill. However, as waste from the Town is already transported to the Victorville Sanitary Landfill, it is assumed that waste would continue to be transported there. As of 2022, the Victorville Sanitary Landfill had an expected remaining capacity of 93,400,000 cubic yards and is expected to remain open until 2047.

The Town has a franchise agreement with Burrtec’s AVCO Disposal, Inc. as the Town’s exclusive waste hauler. Therefore, it is not an option to self-haul or use other companies to transport construction debris. As such, any construction requiring disposal at an inert waste landfill would be sufficiently accommodated by existing landfills. Prior to Victorville Sanitary Landfill reaching capacity, additional landfills and strategies would be identified so that disposal needs continue to be met. Landfills within San Bernardino County that exceed the expected lifespan of the Victorville Landfill include the Barstow Sanitary Landfill, which is expected to remain open another 51 years, and the Landers Landfill, which is expected to remain to open another 52 years. Additional strategies to accommodate solid waste generated by the Project during its lifespan include the expansion of existing landfills, the construction of new landfills, and the selection of landfills outside of the County. As such, in the event of closure of the Victorville Sanitary Landfill, other landfills in the region would be able to accommodate solid waste from the Project, and regional planning efforts would ensure continued landfill capacity into the foreseeable future.

For the reasons stated above, Project construction would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals (e.g., CALGreen and Town standards). Therefore, short-term construction and long-term operational impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-17 – 4.14-18.)

5. Consistent with Solid Waste Regulations
Threshold: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.14-18)
Explanation: Solid waste from the Town is brought to the Victor Valley Material Recovery Facility, where waste is sorted for recyclable materials. From there, non-recyclable waste is taken to the Victorville Sanitary Landfill. The Victorville Sanitary Landfill is regulated under federal, state, and local laws. Additionally, the Town is required to comply with the solid waste reduction and diversion requirements set forth in AB 939, AB 341, AB 132, and AB 1826.

As previously described, waste diversion and reduction during Project construction and operations would be completed in accordance with CALGreen standards and Town diversion standards. As a result, the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and

Page 95 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 54 of 121
regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-18.)

6. Cumulative
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to utilities and service systems?
Finding: Less than Significant (DEIR, p. 4.14-19 – 4.14-20) Explanation:

Water Supply
The development of the Project would increase land-use intensities in the area, resulting in increased water usage. As discussed in in Section V. (G)(2) and (4), and Section V. (M.) (1) and (2.), the Project would be served by Liberty Utilities-Apple Valley. As such, the development of the Project would increase the amount of water used in Liberty Utilities’ service area. Liberty Utilities-Apple Valley 2021 UWMP estimates the annual water demand for 2025 (normal year) is projected to be 15,846 acrefeet. This equates to approximately 4.44 billion gallons a year of water or 12.2 million gallons per day.

Liberty Utilities-Apple Valley UWMP states that Liberty Utilities and other water agencies in Southern California have planned provisions for regional water for the growing population, including drought scenarios for its service area. This plan includes a new water demand forecast prepared for the major categories of demand and uses regional population, demographic projections, the dry climate, historical water use to develop these forecasts. As such, the Project would not be expected to result in increased water usage causing the need for new entitlements, resources, and/or treatment facilities that are not already being planned to accommodate regional growth forecasts.

In addition, the Project-specific WSA (Appendix H-3 of the DEIR) concluded that water demand and supply for water demand and supply projections for Liberty Utilities-Apple Valley, including the Project, demonstrate that projected supplies exceed demand through the year 2045. These projections consider land use, water development programs and projects, and water conservation.

Lastly, compliance with the CALGreen Building Code would be required for new development. In addition, CALGreen Building Code standards require a mandatory reduction in outdoor water use, in accordance with the CDWR Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. This would ensure that the Project does not result in wasteful or inefficient use of limited water resources and may, in fact, result in an overall decrease in water use per person.

Due to water planning efforts and water conservation standards, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.14-19)
Wastewater
The Project would increase the amount of wastewater that is being generated in the area. However, with the Project’s proposed upsizing and installation of the sewer improvements, the wastewater treatment facilities would have the capacity to convey and treat municipal flows. Additionally the Town addresses its long-term planning efforts through the development of a long-term capital improvements program, which serves as a fundamental roadmap for required water, recycled water, and water

Page 96 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 55 of 121
reclamation facilities needed to support the build out of existing jurisdictional general plan documents throughout its service area. The Town’s Capital Improvement Program relies on its Sewer System Master Plan (Town of Apple Valley 2013) to identify the wastewater and recycled water infrastructure projects that will be necessary to accommodate future build-out in its service area. As cumulative increases in wastewater treatment demand within the service area require facility upgrades, the Town will charge service connection fees. Such fees ensure that capital improvements are completed sufficiently to accommodate increased wastewater inflows associated with the Project area. As such, due to the Town’s long-term planning efforts, the Town would have adequate capacity to serve the Project and cumulative projects’ projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments using existing entitlements and infrastructure, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.14-19)
Solid Waste
Development of the Project would increase land-use intensities in the area, resulting in increased solid waste generation in the service area for the Victorville Sanitary Landfill. However, per CALGreen, 65% of construction and debris waste must be diverted from landfills. Once operational, AB 939 mandates that cities divert from landfills, at a minimum, 50% of the total solid waste generated to recycling facilities. In addition, to reduce on-site solid waste generation, the Project would be required to implement waste reduction, diversion, and recycling during both construction and operation.

Therefore, through compliance with state and local solid waste diversion requirements, Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.14-20).

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunication
Development of the Project would add to demands for energy and would increase requirements for telecommunication technology infrastructure. The ISO plans and coordinates grid enhancements to ensure that electrical power is provided to California consumers. To this end, transmission owners (investor‐owned utilities such as SCE) file annual transmission expansion/modification plans to accommodate the state’s growing electrical needs. The ISO reviews and either approves or denies the proposed additions. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, the ISO works with other areas in the western United States electrical grid to ensure that adequate power supplies are available to the state.

In this manner, continuing reliable and affordable electrical power is assured to existing and new consumers throughout the state. Typically, upgrades to utility networks fall under the jurisdiction of CPUC and would be subject to environmental review as electrical projects are proposed. As a result of this process, which involves ongoing monitoring and electrical project development, SCE ensures that it can provide adequate electrical service to the Project area.

As part of the Project, natural gas and telecommunication lines would be extended onto the Project site through lateral connections, resulting in localized less-than-significant impacts. Given the nature of telecommunication and gas lines (which are not typically subject to the constraints of existing facilities), once telecommunication lines are extended to the Project site, no additional telecommunication or gas line construction is anticipated to be required. Additionally, cumulative development would be subject to review on a case-by-case basis. Should the applicable service provider determine that upgrades or extensions of infrastructure be required, any such upgrades would be included within each project’s environmental review. As a result, impacts associated with upgrades of electric, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities would not be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.14-20).

Page 97 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 56 of 121
R. WILDFIRE

1. Response Plans
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-7)
Explanation: Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Typical Town requirements include prior notification of any land or road closures with sufficient signage before and during any closures, flag crews with radio communication when necessary to coordinate traffic flow, etc. The Project developer would be required to comply with these requirements, which would maintain emergency access and allow for evacuation if needed during construction activities. The Town’s General Plan designates Central Road, State Highway 18, and Bear Valley Road as evacuation routes. The Project does not propose any changes to the geometry of these roadways, and moreover, the Project’s truck trips would not be directed towards these roads (as they would be directed towards I-15). Thus, it follows that these roadways’ ability to serve as emergency evacuation routes would not be compromised. As a result, the Project would not significantly affect emergency response or evacuation activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-7)

2. Pollutant Concentrations
Threshold: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
Finding: Less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-8)
Explanation: The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity maps have determined that the Project site is not in or near land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and impacts associated with wildfire in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are not anticipated (CAL FIRE 2024). The Project site is located in an area that is generally flat, lacking any steep slopes, and characterized as vacant land; these factors are not typically associated with the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Therefore, impacts associated with the spread of wildfire would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-8)

3. Infrastructure Risks
Threshold: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such a roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

Page 98 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 57 of 121
Finding: Less than significant. (DEIR. P. 5-8)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. While the Project does not include the construction of fuel breaks or power lines, the Project would involve the installation of infrastructure, including water, wastewater treatment, and storm drainage facilities. The installation of this infrastructure would be typical of development within the greater Project area and would not require the use of specialized techniques or machinery that would result in temporary or ongoing impacts beyond those impacts discussed within this Initial Study. Any impacts associated with the installation of this infrastructure would be done in compliance with existing regulatory requirements, such as SWPPP requirements, that would reduce potential impacts associated with construction of these facilities to below a level of significance. Therefore, impacts associated with infrastructure exacerbating fire risk would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-8)

4. Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Finding: Less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-8)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. As discussed in the Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix A of the Draft EIR) the Project would not result in significant risks associated with flooding or landslides, and the Project does not propose the use of fire (such as for a controlled vegetation burn) that would result in post-fire slope instability. Therefore, impacts associated with runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-8)
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Draft EIR identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that the Project may cause. Some of these significant impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level and will be significant and unavoidable. For the reasons set forth in Section IX; however, the Town has determined that overriding economic, social or other considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable effects of implementation of the Project (see Statement of Overriding Considerations).

The Town hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less-than-significant level, are as follows:

Page 99 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 58 of 121
A. AIR QUALITY

1. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.2-37 – 4.2-38) Explanation:

Toxic Air Contaminant Exposure
Operational Health Risk
An operational HRA was performed to estimate the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard Index for residential receptors associated with Project operations. Project operations would result in a Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of 5.6 in 1 million and a Chronic Hazard Index of 0.0055, both of which are below the significance thresholds of a maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 million and a chronic hazard index of 1.0. The Project operational Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) health risk impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation measures are required to minimize operational-related air quality impacts. MM-AQ-2 would require all off-road cargo handling and landscaping equipment to be zero-emission. MM-AQ-2 results in reductions in cancer risk and Chronic Hazard risk because it completely removes the largest contributors to localized health risk (e.g., diesel and CNG cargo handling equipment) and replaces them with zero-emission equipment.

This results in the elimination of all Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), as well as TACs produced through CNG combustion, such as benzene and formaldehyde, associated with cargo handling equipment.

Mitigated Project operational activities would result in a Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of 0.89 in 1 million at the nearest residence, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in 1 million.

Mitigated Project operations would result in a Chronic Hazard Index of 0.0009, which is below the 1.0 significance threshold. Mitigation measures would further reduce Project operational TAC health risk impacts, which would also be less than significant after mitigation. (DEIR, p. 4.2-38 – 4.2-39.)

2. Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR, p. 4.2-30 – 4.2-31) Explanation:

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction of the Project would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by onsite sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and VOC off-gassing from architectural coatings) and off-site sources (i.e., on-road haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Regional construction emissions would not exceed the applicable MDAQMD thresholds

Page 100 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 59 of 121
of significance for all criteria pollutants except for VOCs, which exceed the MDAQMD’s criteria pollutant threshold for maximum daily emissions. This impact would be potentially significant without mitigation.

The primary cause of VOC emissions during construction is paint or other coatings during the architectural coating phase. To limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings during construction, MM-AQ-1 will be implemented to reduce the VOC impacts, which requires that the Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints, which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits put forth by MDAQMD’s Rule 1113. MM-AQ-1 includes requirements for low VOC paints (less than 10 grams/Liter VOC content) to be used in architectural coatings, which reduces the maximum daily levels of VOCs to below the threshold of significance. Further, MM-AQ-1 would reduce construction equipment related emissions which do not exceed MDAQMD criteria thresholds. Thus, impacts of criteria pollutant emissions associated with the Project’s construction would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-30 – 4.2-31)
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Impacts to Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation (DEIR, p. 4.3-23 – 4.3-36) Explanation:

Special-Status Plant Species Direct and Indirect Impacts Non-Listed Special-Status Plant Species and Western Joshua Tree No non-listed special-status plant species were observed during the focused surveys conducted in April and May 2023; therefore, the Project would have no direct impacts to non-listed special-status plant species within the BSA. The BSA does not occur within federally designated critical habitat for special-status plant species, and there would be no direct impacts to critical habitat.

One listed special-status plant species, western Joshua tree, was observed within the BSA, and this species is further discussed below.

Direct Impacts to Western Joshua Tree
Western Joshua tree, a candidate for state listing under CESA, was observed and would be directly impacted by the Project. In total, 298 western Joshua tree individuals were observed within the Joshua tree inventory survey area (Project site plus off-site improvements and associated 50-foot buffer). Of the 298 trees found within the western Joshua tree inventory survey area, 283 western Joshua tree individuals are within the Project site plus off-site improvements area, with the remaining 15 western Joshua tree individuals located within the 50-foot Joshua tree inventory survey area buffer.

Based on the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (WJTCA), Fish and Game Code Section 1927.3 requires the applicant to mitigate by paying the statutorily prescribed fees. Trees located in the area

Page 101 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 60 of 121
described in Fish and Game Code Section 1927.3 (e) are in the reduced fee area; therefore, impacts to western Joshua tree can be mitigated on a per-tree basis as follows:
▪ Five meters or greater in height - $1,000
▪ One meter or greater but less than five meters in height - $200 ▪ less than one meter in height - $150
The Project would result in direct impacts to four western Joshua trees that are 5 meters or greater in height, 201 trees 1 meter or greater but less than 5 meters in height, and 78 trees less than 1 meter in height.

As required by MM-BIO-1 (Conservation of Western Joshua Tree Lands), mitigation for direct impacts to 283 individuals would be fulfilled through compliance with the WJTCA. Additionally, as required by MM-BIO-2 (Relocation of Desert Native Plants) and in accordance with Chapter 9.76 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, the preparation of a western Joshua tree and desert native plants relocation plan is required to mitigate impacts to western Joshua trees as a result of the Project. A Joshua Tree Preservation, Protection, and Relocation Plan, and California Desert Native Plant Relocation Plan (Appendix C of Appendix C-1 of the DEIR) was prepared to provide detailed specifications for the Project applicant to protect, preserve, and mitigate impacts to western Joshua trees. Implementation of MM-BIO-3 (Designated Biologist Authority), MM-BIO-4 (Compliance Monitoring), MM-BIO-5 (Education Programs), and MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook) would reduce potential direct impacts to the western Joshua tree to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-24 – 4.3-25; as revised per FEIR 2-3 – 2-4.)
Indirect Impacts to Western Joshua Tree
In total,15 western Joshua trees were mapped within the 50-foot survey buffer and the Project may result in indirect impacts to western Joshua tree. Construction-related, short-term indirect impacts may include inadvertent spillover impacts outside of the construction footprint, dust accumulation on western Joshua trees, chemical spills, stormwater erosion and sedimentation, and increased wildfire risk. Implementation of MM-BIO-3 (Designated Biologist Authority) gives the Project’s designated biologist the authority to stop work if construction is not compliant with this CEQA document. MM-BIO-4 (Compliance Monitoring) requires that an experienced biologist oversee compliance with the protective measures, including limiting impacts to the Project footprint. MM-BIO-5 (Education Program) would provide construction personnel with training related to special-status plants that could potentially occur on or adjacent to the impact footprint. MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook) provides for documentation that the education program was administered to applicable personnel. MM-BIO-7 (Delineation of Project Boundaries) requires that impacts occur within the fenced, staked, or flagged area that is clearly delineated within the Project impact footprint. The construction crew would be responsible for unauthorized impacts from construction activities to special-status plants that are outside the permitted Project footprint. Thus, implementation of MM-BIO-4 through MM-BIO-7 would help to avoid and minimize inadvertent spillover impacts outside of the approved impact footprint.

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

Page 102 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 61 of 121
MM-BIO-8 (Hazardous Waste) would ensure that a prompt and effective response to any accidental chemical spills would be implemented, and that repair and clean-up of any hazardous waste occurs.

Implementation of MM-BIO-8 (Hazardous Waste) would help to avoid and minimize impacts to specialstatus plants from any construction-related chemical spills.

A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for ground disturbing activities impacting more than 1 acre. A SWPPP would be prepared and implemented to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater during construction activities, with the intent of keeping sediment and any other pollutants from moving off site and into receiving waters. Best management practice (BMP) categories employed on site would include erosion control, sediment control, and non-stormwater good housekeeping as required by MM-BIO-13 (such as fully covering trash receptacles and keeping work areas clear of debris, litter, vehicle fuel leaks, and food waste). Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP would help to avoid and minimize the potential effects of stormwater erosion during construction.

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

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

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

Indirect impacts to western Joshua trees would be significant absent mitigation.

Implementation of MM-BIO-9 (Herbicides) would limit herbicide use to instances where hand or mechanical efforts are infeasible and would only be applied when wind speeds are less than 7 miles per hour to prevent drift into off-site special-status plants.

Implementation of low-impact-development features and BMPs in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit and the Mojave River Watershed Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans (as discussed in Section V. (G)(1)) would, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters, including inadvertent release of pollutants (e.g., hydraulic fluids and petroleum); the improper management of hazardous materials, trash, and debris; and the improper management of portable restroom facilities (e.g., regular service) in accordance with all relevant local and state development standards. In addition, in accordance with CALGreen requirements (California Green Building Standards Code, CCR, Title 24, Part 11), Project source controls to improve water quality would be provided for outdoor material storage areas, outdoor trash storage/waste handling areas, and outdoor loading/unloading areas. Therefore, impacts to specialstatus plants due to changes in water quality would be avoided and minimized through implementation of low-impact-development features and BMPs.

Upon completion of Project construction, with adherence to the Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code, and because of the low ignitability of the proposed structures and implementation of fire-resistant and

Page 103 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 62 of 121
irrigated landscaping, the Project would not facilitate wildfire spread or exacerbate wildfire risk.

Further, given that surrounding off-site fuels primarily consist of moderately spaced vegetation, wildfires in the immediate surrounding area are not common, and it is unlikely that the Project site would be exposed to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. It is not anticipated that the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would exacerbate wildfire risks or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire; thus, with adherence to the Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code, long-term indirect impacts to special-status plants associated with increased wildlife risk is not expected to occur.

Implementation of MM-BIO-3 (Designated Biologist Authority), MM-BIO-4 (Compliance Monitoring), MM-BIO-5 (Education Program), MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook), MM-BIO-7 (Delineation of Property Boundaries), MM-BIO-8 (Hazardous Waste), and MM-BIO-9 (Herbicides) would reduce potential indirect impacts to western Joshua tree to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-25 –

4.3-26)
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Direct impacts can potentially occur to special-status wildlife species from impacts to habitat and impacts to the species from injury or mortality of individuals from construction activities. The Project could result in significant, direct impacts to six special-status wildlife species that have a moderate potential to occur within the BSA (Mojave desert tortoise, burrowing owl, LeConte’s thrasher, loggerhead shrike, pallid bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat).

Indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species are those that occur during construction to species present near the site, but not within the construction zone. These include fugitive dust that can degrade habitat and result in health implications for wildlife species; noise and vibration that can stress wildlife species or cause them to leave an area of otherwise suitable habitat, or that can result in disruption of bird nesting and abandonment of nests; increased human presence, which can also disrupt daily activities of wildlife and cause them to leave an area; nighttime lighting, which can disrupt the activity patterns of nocturnal species, including many mammals and some birds, amphibians, and reptiles; and release of chemical pollutants, such as from oil leaks from construction vehicles and machinery. The Project could result in significant, indirect impacts to six special-status wildlife: Mojave desert tortoise, burrowing owl, LeConte’s thrasher, loggerhead shrike, pallid bat, and Townsend’s bigeared bat.

Special-Status Wildlife Direct and Indirect Impacts
One candidate for state listing under CESA, western Joshua tree, was observed and would be directly impacted by the Project. Four special-status wildlife species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the BSA and would potentially be directly impacted by the Project: burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and Mojave desert tortoise. Suitable habitat for Mohave desert tortoise, burrowing owl, LeConte’s thrasher, and loggerhead shrike would be directly impacted by the Project.

Mojave Desert Tortoise
Protocol surveys completed in May 2022, April 2023, and June 2023 resulted in no observations of active desert tortoise burrows or individual desert tortoises. However, there was one incidence of what is potentially desert tortoise scat within the BSA. The BSA contains suitable sandy soils, ephemeral washes, and creosote scrub to support this species. The nearest California Natural Diversity Database

Page 104 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 63 of 121
(CNDDB) occurrence was from 2005 and is mapped approximately 1 mile south of the BSA (CDFW 2023b), and the BSA is within an area of high probability predicted habitat for the species (CDFW 2023c). Therefore, based on the discussion above, and because Mojave desert tortoise is a mobile species that could enter the BSA prior to construction, this species was determined to have a moderate potential to occur, and potential direct and indirect impacts to Mojave desert tortoise would be significant absent mitigation under CEQA.

A pre‐construction Mojave desert tortoise clearance survey in compliance with current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol would be necessary to reevaluate the locations of potential Mojave desert tortoise burrows within the Project limits so take of Mojave desert tortoise can be avoided.

Consistent with MM-BIO-10 (Pre-construction Clearance Surveys for Mojave Desert Tortoise and Avoidance), a pre-construction clearance survey for Mojave desert tortoise would be conducted on the Project site 14 to 21 days prior to the start of construction activities; or, alternatively, pre-construction clearance surveys may be conducted following the installation of a desert tortoise exclusionary fencing encompassing the Project site that would ensure that tortoises cannot enter the Project after clearance surveys are completed. Should Mojave desert tortoises be located during the clearance survey, additional measures in compliance with current USFWS protocol would be required, as described further in MM-BIO-10 (Pre-construction Clearance Surveys for Mojave Desert Tortoise and Avoidance). In addition, implementation of MM-BIO-3 (Designated Biologist Authority), MM-BIO-4 (Compliance Monitoring), MM-BIO-5 (Education Programs), and MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook) would reduce potential direct impacts to less than significant.

Should Mojave desert tortoise be located during the clearance survey, the Project would result in the permanent loss of 165.4 acres of suitable habitat for Mojave desert tortoise, consisting of total vegetation impacts to creosote bush scrub, rubber rabbitbrush scrub, and disturbed habitat. These direct permanent impacts would be significant absent mitigation. As required by MM-BIO-10 (Preconstruction Clearance Surveys for Mojave Desert Tortoise and Avoidance), mitigation for direct impacts to 165.4 acres, should Mojave desert tortoise be found during pre-construction clearance surveys, would be fulfilled through conservation of suitable Mojave desert tortoise habitat through the purchase of credits at a minimum of 1:1 in-kind habitat replacement.

4.3-27 – 4.3-28; as revised per FEIR pp. 2-4)
Burrowing Owl
Although focused surveys for burrowing owl conducted in April, May, and June 2023 were negative, several suitable burrows were mapped within the BSA. Burrowing owl is a transient species and could potentially occupy the BSA prior to construction. Potential direct and indirect impacts to burrowing owl would be significant absent mitigation.

Pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA, focused non-breeding season surveys and a pre‐construction survey in compliance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) would be necessary to reevaluate the locations of potential burrowing owl burrows located within the Project limits so take of owls or active owl nests can be avoided. Consistent with

Page 105 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 64 of 121
MM-BIO-11.1 (Focused Non-Breeding Season Surveys and MM-BIO-11.2 (Pre-construction Survey), focused non-breeding season surveys will occur within the Project site prior to the start of construction activities in accordance with the 2012 Staff Report, and pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted within the Project site with the first survey no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities, and the second within 24 hours of start of construction. If it is evident that the burrows are actively being used by burrowing owl, avoidance and preparation of a Burrowing Owl Plan will occur as outlined in MM-BIO-11.3 (Avoidance) and MM-BIO-11.4 (Burrowing Owl Plan). In Accordance with MM-BIO-11.6 (Burrowing Owls Observed During Construction), CDFW shall be notified immediately if burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during Project implementation and construction. In addition, implementation of MM-BIO-3 (Designated Biologist Authority), MM-BIO-4 (Compliance Monitoring), MM-BIO-5 (Education Program), and MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook) would reduce potential direct impacts to a less-than significant level.

Furthermore, should burrowing owl be located during the pre-construction survey, the Project would result in the loss of 165.4 acres of suitable habitat for burrowing owl, consisting of total vegetation impacts to creosote bush scrub, rubber rabbitbrush scrub, and disturbed habitat. These direct permanent impacts would be significant absent mitigation. As required by MM-BIO-11.5 (Compensatory Mitigation), mitigation for direct impacts to 165.4 acres, should burrowing owl be found during pre-construction surveys, would be fulfilled through conservation of suitable burrowing owl habitat through the purchase of credits at a minimum of 1:1 in-kind habitat replacement.

Implementation of MM-BIO-3 (Designated Biologist Authority), MM-BIO-4 (Compliance Monitoring), MM-BIO-5 (Education Program), MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook), and MM-BIO-11 (Preconstruction Surveys for Burrowing Owl and Avoidance) would reduce potential direct impacts (permanent and temporary) to burrowing owl to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-28; as revised per FEIR pp. 2-4 – 2-5.)
LeConte’s Thrasher, Loggerhead Shrike, Foraging Bats, Including Pallid Bat and Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat
LeConte’s thrasher, Loggerhead Shrike, Foraging Bats, including Pallid Bat and Townsend’s BigEared Bat were not observed during any of the survey efforts conducted in 2022 and 2023; however, these species have a potential to occur within the Project site due to suitable nesting habitat present and could occupy the Project site prior to construction. Potential direct impacts to these species would be significant absent mitigation. The Project would result in the permanent loss of 165.4 acres of potentially suitable habitat for these species. However, the Project is surrounded by similar habitat that can continue to support loggerhead shrike, if present in the region. While focused surveys were not required nor conducted for loggerhead shrike, this conspicuous species would likely have been detected during numerous site visits conducted at the site in the winter, spring, or summer. The absence of detections indicates that there is low likelihood that this species is present in the region.

Impacts to potentially suitable habitat will be minimized through the conservation of Joshua tree woodlands as required by MM-BIO-.1, Thus, the loss of suitable habitat for LeConte’s thrasher, Loggerhead Shrike, Foraging Bats, including Pallid Bat and Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat would be considered less than significant.

To avoid potential impacts to nesting LeConte’s thrasher, Loggerhead Shrike, Foraging Bats, including Pallid Bat and Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat, vegetation removal activities would be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31). If vegetation cannot be removed

Page 106 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 65 of 121
outside the bird nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist is required prior to vegetation removal. This requirement is outlined in MM-BIO-12 (Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance). Implementation of MM BIO-12 (Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance) would reduce potential direct impacts to LeConte’s thrasher, Loggerhead Shrike, Foraging Bats, including Pallid Bat and/or Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat to less than significant.

Implementation of MM-BIO-3 (Designated Biologist Authority), MM-BIO-4 (Compliance Monitoring), MM-BIO-5 (Education Program), MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook), MM-BIO-8 (Hazardous Waste), MM-BIO-12 (Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance), MM-BIO-14 (Invasive Plant Management), and MM-BIO-15 (Lighting) would reduce potential indirect (short-term and long-term) impacts to LeConte’s thrasher, Loggerhead Shrike, Foraging Bats, including Pallid Bat and Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat, to less than significant.(DEIR, p. 4.3-29 – 4.3-30; as revised per FEIR pp. 2-5 – 2-7.)
Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
Short-term construction activities have the potential to result in indirect impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors and their habitats. Those impacts could include the loss of a nest through increased dust, noise, and vibration; increased human presence; and nighttime lighting. These potential shortterm or temporary indirect impacts to these species are considered significant absent mitigation.

To ensure compliance with the California Fish and Game Code and MBTA, and to avoid potential indirect impacts to nesting birds, vegetation removal activities would be conducted outside of the general bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31, depending on the species), and if vegetation cannot be removed outside the bird nesting season, a pre‐construction nesting bird survey (MM-BIO-12) by a qualified biologist would be required prior to vegetation removal. Indirect impacts, including increased dust, noise, and vibration; increased human presence; and nighttime lighting, would be offset through implementation of MM-BIO-15 (Lighting), which would require nighttime lighting during construction within 50 feet of habitat for special-status species to be shielded downward. MM-BIO-3 (Designated Biologist Authority), MM-BIO-4 (Compliance Monitoring), MM-BIO-5 (Education Program), and MM-BIO-6 (Construction Monitoring Notebook) would require that all workers complete WEAP training and would require ongoing biological monitoring and compliance with all biological resource mitigation requirements. To reduce fugitive dust resulting from Project construction and to minimize adverse air quality impacts, the Project would employ dust mitigation measures in accordance with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District’s Rules 401 and 403.2, which would limit the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction.

Long-term post-construction activities have the potential to result in indirect impacts to migratory birds and raptors and their habitat. Those long-term impacts could result from development within or adjacent to suitable habitat, including nighttime lighting. These potential long-term indirect impacts to migratory birds and raptors are considered significant absent mitigation under CEQA. MM-BIO-15 (Lighting) would require nighttime lighting during operations within 50 feet of habitat for special-status species to be shielded downward. This would reduce potential long-term indirect impacts to migratory birds and raptors to less than significant.

Page 107 of 283 ends

153515047.1 Page 66 of 121
indirect (short-term and long-term) impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-35 - 4.3-36.)
Incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-15 into the Project will ensure that these impacts are reduced to less than significant. The Town hereby directs that these mitigation measures be required in or incorporated into the Project. The Town therefore finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen or avoid this impact’s significant effects on the environment. (DEIR, p. 4.3-23 – 4.3-36) MM-BIO-1 Conservation of Western Joshua Tree Lands. Mitigation for direct impacts to 4 western Joshua trees that are 5 meters or greater in height, 201 trees 1 meter or greater but less than 5 meters in height, and 78 trees less than 1 meter in height will be fulfilled through a payment of the elected fees as described in Section 1927.3 of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, or through obtaining an Incidental Take Permit pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081. In conformance with the reduced fee schedule of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, mitigation will consist of payment of $1,000 for each western Joshua tree 5 meters or greater in height, $200 for each western Joshua tree 1 meter or greater but less than 5 meters in height, and $150 for each western Joshua tree less than 1 meter in height.

MM-BIO-2 Relocation of Desert Native Plants. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit an application and applicable fee paid to the Town of Apple Valley for removal or relocation of protected native desert plants under Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code Chapter 9.76, as required, and shall schedule a pre-construction site inspection with the appropriate authority. In addition, a plot plan shall be approved by the appropriate Town of Apple Valley Review Authority (County Certified Plant Expert, Planning Commission, or Town Council) indicating exactly which trees or plants are authorized to be removed.

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

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

Page 108 of 283 ends

Apple Valley City CouncilApril 22, 2025

Apple Valley City Council
April 22, 2025