Apple Valley City Council
August 25, 2026

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 50 With respect to groundwater management, Liberty Utilities would be supplying water to the Project site and sources its water from groundwater in the Alto Subarea of the Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin. The WSA prepared for the proposed Project which relied in part on the 2020 UWMP for Apple Valley, determined that demand of the Project can be met in normal, single year dry, and multiple dry year scenarios (Technical Appendix I3). Further, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and would not conflict with or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts associated with sustainable groundwater management plans would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18)

3.9.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
 Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to hydrology and water quality are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The cumulative impact area for hydrology/water quality impact considerations is generally defined as the area encompassed by the jurisdictional RWQCB. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19) Development of the Project site would incrementally increase impervious surfaces within the cumulative impact area, with related potential increases in the rate and quantity of local stormwater discharges. As presented within the preceding discussions, no significant impacts have been identified.

The Project would implement stormwater management components, and structural and non-structural BMPs, which collectively act to ensure that post-development stormwater discharge rates are adequately conveyed within available system capacities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19) The Project drainage concept would implement drainage systems and detention areas to accept developed stormwater discharges. The Project drainage and stormwater management systems would be required to comply with all stormwater system design, construction, and operational requirements mandated under the Town Municipal Code. The Project drainage and stormwater management systems would also be required to comply with regulations established by other jurisdictional agencies including Lahontan RWQCB, San Bernardino County, and California Department of Water Resources.

Additionally, consistent with established building code regulations, approved site-specific drainage studies reflecting precise pad locations, proposed drainage structures, detention facilities, etc., would be required prior to the issuance of building permits within the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19) Stormwater management systems implemented by the Project, mandated compliance with Town, Lahontan RWQCB, County, and State stormwater management requirements and policies, collectively

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 51 ensure that adequate stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities would be provided to support development and operations of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19) In summary, the contribution to cumulative hydrology/water quality impacts is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-19)

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

Findings are discussed below.

3.10.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not physically divide an established community.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 4.10.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Under existing conditions, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped. The area surrounding the Project site is zoned for industrial overlay (I-N), regional commercial (C-R), office professional (O-P), estate residential (R-E) uses. Surrounding properties to the north, east, and west consist of vacant and undeveloped land. The property located to the south consists of a commercial/residential use, approximately 280 feet south of the Project site, and vacant and undeveloped land. No housing exists within the Project site. No residents would be displaced by the Project, nor would the physical arrangement of any neighboring residential communities be modified or divided by the Project.

Therefore, implementation of the Project would not physically divide an established community. No impacts would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-4)

3.10.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.10.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 52  Substantial Evidence
The Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is discussed below. This section includes an analysis of consistency with Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Connect SoCal, the Town of Apple Valley General Plan, and the Town’s Development Code (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-4).

Connect SoCal
SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals are meant to provide guidance for municipalities throughout the SCAG jurisdictional area within the context of regional goals and policies. On April 4, 2024, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2024-2050 Connect SoCal. Draft EIR Table 4.10-1, SCAG 2024-2050 Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis provides an analysis of Project consistency with applicable policies with the 2024-2050 Connect SoCal. As shown, the Project would not conflict with any applicable 2024-2050 Connect SoCal policies. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-5) Town of Apple Valley General Plan
The Town of Apple Valley General Plan designated the Project site as Office Professional (O-P). The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the Town’s General Plan Land Use Map to modify the land use designation for the Project site from O-P to Regional Commercial (C-R) with I-N Industrial Overlay. Although the Project would result in a change to the General Plan land use designations for the Project site, these changes would not result in a conflict with applicable plans, polices, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing an environmental effect, as demonstrated in the analysis below. Accordingly, a less-than-significant environmental impact would result from the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-6 through 4.5-7) Draft EIR Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with all applicable General Plan goals and policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As shown, the Project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan goals or policies. Accordingly, the Project would have a less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-6)
Town of Apple Valley Development Code
The Town’s Development Code is contained within Title 9 of the Town’s Municipal Code and establishes specific standards for the use and development of all properties within the Town by regulating land uses, development intensity, including limits on building setbacks, landscaping standards, and building heights. The Project Applicant proposes a Zone Change and Development Code Amendment to rezone the Project site as Regional Commercial (C-R) with I-N Industrial Overlay and amend the existing C-R e-commerce fulfillment and distribution center overlay boundaries to include the Project site. The Town’s approval of and implementation of the Zone Change and Development Code Amendment would ensure that the Project would not conflict with the Town’s zoning regulations. Therefore, the Project would not introduce an incompatible land use in the Town.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 53 Impacts related to consistency with the zoning ordinance would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.

4.10-17)

3.10.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to land use and planning.
 Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to land use and planning are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to land use and planning; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The Project would not conflict with applicable General Plan Goals and Policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Town comprehensively updates and amends General Plan and Zoning documents to reflect cumulative land use changes within the impact area.

Regional agencies employ development-specific information and General Plan/Zoning information provided by the Town in developing regional plans and growth projections. In combination, these actions ensure that potential cumulative effects of evolving land use plans are appropriately addressed at local and regional levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-18)
Based on the preceding discussions, the Project’s contributions to potential cumulative land use and planning impacts are not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project would be less than significant. There are no known or probable related projects that would interact with the less than significant effects of the Project and thereby result in cumulatively significant impacts. Other development projects within the cumulative impact area would also be required to comply with requirements of necessary land use and planning discretionary actions and permits, acting to preclude or minimize potential land use and planning impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-18)

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

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

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 54  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 5.4.2 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project does not conflict with California Legislature’s 1975 Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), which provides guidelines of the classification and designation of mineral lands. According to the Town’s General Plan, the Project site is not within an area that has been identified to contain mineral resources. The California Department of Conservation does not show oil, gas, or geothermal fields underlying the Project site; and no oil or gas wells are recorded on or near the site in the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Well Finder. No mines, wells, or other resource extraction activity occurs, or is known to have ever occurred, on the Project site. Accordingly, no impacts would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-8)

3.11.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 5.4.2 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
As discussed above, no known valuable mineral resources exist on or near the Project site, and no mineral resource extraction activities occur on the site. Thus, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of locally important mineral resources. Accordingly, no impacts would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-8)

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

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

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 55  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a (construction and on-site operational noise) are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a (construction and onsite operational noise); therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Construction Noise
Each stage of construction has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than others.

Project construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages: site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-18) The construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels (see Draft EIR Table 4.11-3, Construction Reference Noise Levels) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. The RCNM equipment database provides a comprehensive list of the noise-generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-18 through 4.11-19) Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations were completed. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project site boundary) to each receiver location (building façade or outdoor living areas). Consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance for general construction noise assessment, Draft EIR Table

4.11-7, Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary, presents the combined noise level for all equipment, assuming they operate at the same time. As shown, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 42.6 to 56.4 A-weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent level (Leq) at the nearby receiver locations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-19)
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 75 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.11-8, Construction Noise Compliance, construction noise levels at the receiver locations would not exceed the daytime 75 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-19)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 56 On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Fuel Demands
To describe the temporary Project construction noise contributions to the existing ambient noise environment, the Project construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements at the nearest off-site receiver locations. The difference between the combined Project-construction and ambient noise levels is used to describe the construction noise level contributions. Temporary noise level increases that would be experienced at sensitive receiver locations when Project construction-source noise is added to the ambient daytime conditions are presented on Draft EIR Table 4.11-9, Daytime Construction Noise Increases. As previously outlined in Draft EIR Table 4.11-6, a temporary noise level increase of 20 dBA Leq is considered significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-20)
As indicated in Draft EIR Table 4.11-9, the Project will contribute construction noise increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA Leq during the daytime hours at the nearest receiver locations. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will not exceed the 20 dBA Leq noise increase significance threshold during Project construction activities. Therefore, temporary construction noise increase due to Project construction noise would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-20) Nighttime Concrete Pour
In addition to the daytime activities discussed above, nighttime concrete pouring activities will occur as a part of Project building construction activities. Nighttime concrete pouring activities are often used to support reduced concrete mixer truck transit times and lower air temperatures than during the daytime hours and are generally limited to the actual building pad area. Since the nighttime concrete pours take place outside the hours permitted by the Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code Section

9.73.060, the Project Applicant will be required to obtain authorization for nighttime work from the Town of Apple Valley. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-21)
Concrete pour noise sources may include concrete mixer truck movements and pouring activities, concrete paving equipment, rear mounted concrete mixer truck backup alarms, engine idling, air brakes, generators, and workers communicating/whistling. Noise levels that can be expected during the nighttime concrete pour activities are shown in Draft EIR Table 4.11-10, Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Level Compliance. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-21)
Nighttime concrete pour activities will not exceed the 60 dBA Leq nighttime residential noise level threshold at any of the nearest noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, noise impacts due to Project construction nighttime concrete pour noise activity would be less than significant at all receiver locations with prior authorization for nighttime work from the Town of Apple Valley. (Draft EIR, p.

4.11-21)
To describe the temporary concrete pour noise contributions, the concrete pour noise levels were combined with the existing nighttime ambient noise levels measurements at the nearest off-site receiver locations. The difference between the combined Project-construction and ambient noise levels is used to describe the construction noise level increases. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.11-11, Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Increases, the Project nighttime concrete pour activities would not contribute to

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 57 measurable noise increases during the nighttime hours at the nearest receiver locations and would not exceed the 5 dBA noise increase threshold during nighttime concrete pour activities. Therefore, temporary concrete pour construction noise increase would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.11-21 through 4.11-22)
Operational Noise
To present the potential worst-case noise conditions, this noise analysis assumed the Project would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Consistent with similar warehouse and industrial uses, the Project business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed buildings, except for traffic movement, parking, as well as loading and unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-22)
Operational source noise levels were calculated using reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations, including cold storage loading dock activity, tractor trailer storage activity, rooftop air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, trash enclosure activity, and truck movements. Operational noise levels that can be expected from the Project are shown in Tables 4.11- 12 to 4.11-4 of the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-22)
The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 35.6 to

47.1 dBA Leq. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the existing off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 35.5 to 47.0 dBA Leq. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-22) To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, Draft EIR Table 4.11-15 of the Draft EIR evaluates the Project-only operational noise levels against the applicable exterior noise level thresholds at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. As demonstrated, Project operational noise would not exceed exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11- 23)
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations that may be potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Draft EIR Tables 4.11-15 and 4.11- 16 of the Draft EIR, present the operational noise level increases that can be expected at the nearest receiver locations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-24)
As shown, the Project will generate a daytime operational noise level increase ranging from 0.0 to 0.0 dBA Leq and a nighttime operational noise level increase ranging from 0.0 to 0.1 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. As such, Project-related operational noise level increases will not exceed the applicable operational noise level increase significance criteria. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-25) Off-Site Traffic Noise
Off-site traffic noise impacts were evaluated based on noise level increases resulting from the Project.

Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 58 levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. To assess the off-site transportation Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise level impacts associated with development of the Project, noise contours were developed based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (Draft EIR Technical Appendix K1).

Noise contours were used to assess the Project's incremental 24-hour dBA CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at receiving land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-25)
Tables 7-1 through 7-4 of the Noise Impact Analysis (Draft EIR Technical Appendix J) present a summary of the noise contours under existing and opening year conditions, with and without the Project. Draft EIR Tables 4.11-17 and 4.11-18, provide the increases that can be expected along area roadways due to Project-generated traffic under existing and opening year conditions. (Draft EIR, p.

4.11-26, -27)
Off-site traffic noise level increases would not exceed the incremental noise level thresholds at the study area roadway segments. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-27) Summary
Project construction noise, on-site operational noise, and off-site traffic noise would not exceed applicable thresholds. As such, the potential for the Project to generate a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-27)

3.12.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Construction Analysis
Table 4.11-19, of the Draft EIR presents the expected Project-related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations. At distances ranging from 387 to 3,670 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.000 to 0.003 Peak Particle Velocity

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 59 (PPV) (in/sec). Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the damage thresholds at all the receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-27 through 4.11-28) Operational Analysis
Under long-term conditions, the operational activities of the Project would not include or require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in perceptible ground-borne vibration. Trucks would travel to and from the Project site on surrounding roadways; however, vibration and groundborne noise levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on smooth, paved surfaces, as is expected on the Project site and surrounding roadways is rarely perceptible. Accordingly, Project operation would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-28)

3.12.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels due to airport noise.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.11.6 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Apple Valley Airport is located approximately 3.3 miles east of the Project site. According to the Town of Apple Valley General Plan Noise Element, aircraft noise associated with the operation of the Apple Valley Airport, which is owned and operated by San Bernardino County, is limited to general aviation aircraft. The 60 dBA noise contour boundary for the airport has been identified as occurring within the Airport’s property, and noise levels on surrounding lands are not significantly affected.

While aircraft overflights may be heard within the Town, aircraft noise does not create significant noise impacts outside the immediate area. Therefore, airport noise impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-28)

3.12.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to noise (construction-related or on-site operational noise).
 Findings
Potential cumulative noise impacts of the Project related to construction and on-site operation are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.7 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 60 proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to noise; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The cumulative impact area for noise considerations is generally defined as surrounding properties that could receive Project-generated noise (either construction-source or operational-source) and would also include roadway corridors affected by Project-related traffic and associated vehicular noise. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-29)
Construction Noise
As discussed in the preceding analysis, Project construction-source noise would not exceed applicable thresholds and would not substantially contribute to ambient noise conditions or to other related noise sources. There are no known or probable related projects that would interact with the less than significant effects of the Project and thereby result in cumulatively significant impacts. Related projects in the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize construction noise consistent with Town policies and regulations, thereby minimizing cumulative impacts. Based on the preceding, the potential for Project construction-source noise to result in or cause cumulatively significant impacts is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-29) Operational Noise
Project operational noise would not exceed applicable thresholds. Noise levels resulting from Project operations would not substantially contribute to ambient noise conditions or to other related noise sources. There are no known or probable related projects that would interact with the less than significant effects of the Project and thereby result in cumulatively significant impacts. Related projects in the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize operational noise consistent with Town policies and regulations, thereby minimizing cumulative impacts. Based on the preceding, the potential for Project operational noise to result in or cause cumulatively significant impacts is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-29)
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Noise level increases associated with Project-generated off-site traffic would not exceed applicable thresholds along any roadway segments in the study area. As such, the potential for Project off-site traffic noise to result in or cause cumulatively significant impacts is considered less than significant.

Groundborne Vibration and Noise
During construction, the Project’s peak vibration impacts would occur during the grading phase when large pieces of equipment, like bulldozers, are operating on-site. Vibration effects diminish rapidly from the source; therefore, the only reasonable sources of cumulative vibration in the vicinity of the Project site could occur on properties abutting these sites. There are no known active or pending construction projects abutting the Project site that would overlap with the Project’s proposed construction schedule. Accordingly, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to the exposure of persons to substantial temporary groundborne vibration or noise. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-29)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 61 Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Project site. Trucks would travel to and from the site along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on paved surfaces are not perceptible beyond the roadway. The Project would not cumulativelycontribute to the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during longterm operation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-30) Airport Noise
There are no conditions associated with implementation of the Project that would contribute airport noise or exposure of additional people to unacceptable levels of airport noise. Accordingly, there is no potential for cumulative development to expose persons residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport-related noise levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-30)

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

3.13.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
No residential uses are located on the Project site, nor does the Project propose any residential uses.

Jobs created by the Project are typical of the region and are expected to be filled by existing local residents. Project employees would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with meeting these goods and services needs is expected to be marginal and accommodated by existing providers. The Project would create short-term jobs during the construction phase which would be filled by workers who, for the most part, reside in the region.

A small portion of workers may be employed from outside the local area but would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area as the construction phase would be temporary.

Therefore, construction of the Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in population within the Project area. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-8 through 5-9)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 62 Based on Table II-B of SCAG’s Employment Density Report with an employment rate of 1,195 s.f. per employee for warehouse uses in San Bernardino County, the Project may generate approximately 1,156 employees (1,381,412 sf ÷ 1,195 sf/employee ≈ 1,156 employees). According to SCAG’s Connect SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast, the Town’s employment opportunities are estimated to grow up by 9,400 in 2050. Therefore, the Project’s employment is within the estimated employment growth projects for the Town. (Draft EIR, p. 5-9) The jobs-housing ratio is a general measure of the number of jobs as compared to housing in a defined geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The jobs-housing ratio as well as the type of jobs versus the price of housing, has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tax revenues. A project’s effect on the jobs-housing ratio is one indicator of how it will affect growth and quality of life in the project area. SCAG applies the jobs-housing ratio at the regional and subregional levels in order to analyze the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure.

Generally, a ratio of less than 1 to 1 indicates a jobs-poor (housing-rich) area, and a ratio of one or more than 1 to 1 indicates a jobs-rich area. (Draft EIR, p. 5-9) According to the California Department of Finance (DOF) Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, the Town had an estimated population of 75,262 and estimated housing of 27,485 households as of January 2025. According to the California DOF Current Month Unemployment Rate and Labor Force Summary, as of June 2025, the most current data available, the Town had a labor force of 29,300, 27,200 that are employed, and an unemployment population of 2,100 (7.2 percent). The Town currently has a jobs-housing ratio of 1.07, which indicates a jobs-rich area according to SCAG’s definition. (Draft EIR, p. 5-9) According to the Town’s 2022-2029 Housing Element, 16.6 percent of the Town’s population works within the Town of Apple Valley and the remaining 83 percent work elsewhere, which suggests a jobshousing imbalance within the Town limits. The Project represents growth anticipated by the Town, as evidenced by the site’s existing General Plan (Office Professional) and zoning designations (O-P). As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1, although the Town is slightly jobs-rich under existing conditions (1.07), the Town’s General Plan and SCAG project that the Town will be housing-rich in 2035 and 2050, respectively. The Town forecasts the employment housing ratio to be 0.61 by 2035 while SCAG forecasts the employment housing ratio to be 0.78 by 2050, which is closer to the recommended range for the jobs-housing ratio of 1.0. Therefore, the jobs generated by the Project would be consistent with this trend and would assist in providing a more balanced jobs-housing ratio at Project and General Plan buildout. Taking into consideration a more balanced jobs-housing ratio, the current unemployment rate, and that the majority of residents work outside of Town limits indicates that the Project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements will be met by the Town’s existing labor force without people needing to relocate into the Project region. The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Project area, either directly or indirectly, and would not exceed regional or local growth projections. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-9 through 5-10)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 63

3.13.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The property has remained undeveloped since at least 1952 and no residential uses are currently located on the Project site, nor are any proposed as part of the Project. Construction of the Project would not displace any existing housing or residents, nor require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-10)

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

3.14.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection; Police Protection; Schools; Parks; or Other Public Facilities.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 4.12.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project proposes the construction and operation of one industrial building totaling approximately 1,381,412 square feet. The Project does not include the construction of a new fire station, police station, school, public park, or recreation and other public facilities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7) Project impacts could arise from the construction and operation of industrial uses at the Project site.

The Project does not propose the construction of new homes or dwelling units that would directly introduce new residents to the area. Based on the estimated employment rates specified in Table II-B

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 64 of the Employment Density Study Summary Report prepared by SCAG, warehouse uses within San Bernardino County generate approximately one employee per 1,195 sf of building space. As such, the Project may generate approximately 1,156 employees (1,381,412 sf ÷ 1,195 sf/employee ≈ 1,156 employees). The Project’s employment generation would not induce substantial residential population growth in the area because it is anticipated in the employment growth projections of the Town and would result in industrial-oriented jobs, which are anticipated to attract employees from the Town and surrounding area (see Section 5.4.3, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR). The Project would supply employment opportunities to people already residing in the area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7) Fire Protection Services
Construction of the Project could result in an increase in demand for fire protection services due to the increase in employees onsite during construction. However, this increase would be temporary, shortterm, and would cease upon completion of the construction activities. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services during construction would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7) During operation, the Project is expected to create the typical range of fire and emergency service calls and would increase call volumes due to the anticipated employee generation, which impacts response times for emergency and non-emergency services. As per Policy 1.H of the Police and Fire Protection Element of the Town’s General Plan, the Apple Valley Fire Protection District (AVFPD) maintains a 6-minute or less response time. Within the Town’s corporate limits, the average response time is 6 minutes and 25 seconds. The AVFPD’s desired ratio for full-time fire personnel to population is approximately 1:1,500. According to the California Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, the Town had an estimated population of 75,262 and estimated housing of 27,485 households as of January 2025. The Town currently has a full-time fire personnel ratio of one firefighter to 1,476 residents, meeting its desired ratio. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7) Project development would occur in an area of the Town already served by AVFPD; therefore, the Project would not result in an expansion of AVFPD’s service area. A need for new or expanded public services, such as fire protection facilities, is typically associated with population increases. The Project does not propose the construction of new homes or dwelling units that would directly introduce new residents to the area and as concluded in Draft EIR Section 5.4.3, Population and Housing, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the Town. The Project’s permanent employment requirements is expected to be met by the Town’s existing labor force without people needing to relocate into the Project region. The AVFPD’s ratio for full-time personnel to population would not decrease as the Project would not result in an increase in population growth.

Therefore, the Project would not result in an expansion of AVFPD’s service area as the service ratio would be maintained. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8)
In the event of an emergency within the Project site that requires more resources than the primary fire station (Station 332, approximately 4.4 miles south of the site) that serves the area could provide, AVFPD would direct resources to the site from other AVFPD stations nearby (Station 336 approximately 6.5 miles south of the site). Additionally, as previously discussed, AVFPD maintains a mutual aid agreement with Victorville, San Bernardino County Fire Department, and the Bureau of

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 65 Land Management. This agreement allows fire departments in the region to actively support one another regardless of geographic or jurisdictional boundaries. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8) The Project does not propose or require construction or modification of fire protection facilities. The Project site is not designated or proposed as the location for new or modified fire protection facilities.

Incremental fire protection service demands generated by the Project are offset through the payment of Development Impact Fees. A portion of the Town’s Development Impact Fees are allocated for fire protection services. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent Town Development Impact Fees at issuance of building permit(s). Furthermore, the Project is required to comply with Town and AVFPD fire prevention and suppression requirements, including building/site design requirements, fire flow adequacy, and provisions for emergency access, thereby reducing potential increased demands for fire protection services. Therefore, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8)
Police Protection Services
Buildout of the Project would increase demands for police protection services in the Project area.

During the construction and operation of the Project, the need for police services is expected to grow due to the increase in employment and associated potential for additional crime and accidents. Crime and safety issues during Project construction may include theft of building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism. After construction, the Project is anticipated to generate a typical range of police service calls as similar developments, such as vehicle burglaries, disturbances, and driving under the influence. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8) A need for new or expanded public services, such as police facilities, is typically associated with population increases. The proposed Project does not include the construction of new homes. While the proposed Project would lead to increased employment on site (up to approximately 1,156 employees), the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth. As concluded in Draft EIR Section 5.4.3, Population and Housing, the jobs generated by the Project would assist in providing a more balanced jobs-housing ratio at Project and General Plan buildout. The Project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements will be met by the Town’s existing labor force without people needing to relocate into the Project region. The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Project area, either directly or indirectly, and would not exceed regional or local growth projections. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9)
Police units are continuously mobile, and service calls are responded to by the nearest available mobile unit. The Apple Valley Police Department (AVPD) prefers a ratio of one police officer per 1,500 population. The average response time for highest priority emergency calls is five minutes. The Town has approximately one police officer per every 1,476 residents, meeting its desired ratio. No increases in population would result from the implementation of the Project; thus, the Town’s service ratio one police officer per every 1,500 residents would be maintained. The increase in potential services needed would not require the construction of a new police station or improvements to the existing station that serves the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 66 Moreover, the Project does not propose or require construction or modification of police protection facilities. The Project site is not designated or proposed as the location for new or modified police protection facilities. Incremental police protection service demands generated by the Project are offset through the payment of Development Impact Fees. A portion of the Town’s Development Impact Fees are allocated for police protection services. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent Town Development Impact Fees at issuance of building permit(s). (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9) Additionally, the Project site plan concept and proposed building designs would be reviewed by the Apple Valley Police Department to ensure incorporation of appropriate safety and security elements.

Such design features would include secure building designs, defensible spaces, and area and facility security lighting. These design features would act to reduce Project demands for police protection services. Therefore, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered police protection facilities is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-9)
School Services
The Project does not propose residential uses that would result in populations of resident school-aged children requiring public education. As discussed in EIR Section 5.4.3, Population and Housing, the Project may generate approximately 1,156 employees which would likely be met by the Town and Project region’s existing labor force without employees and their children needing to relocate into the Project region. The Project would not stimulate substantial population growth or a population concentration above what is assumed in the Town’s General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not directly cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-9 through 4.12-10)
The Project does not propose or require construction or modification of school facilities. The Project site is not designated or proposed as the location for new or modified school facilities. Project incremental impacts to school services would be offset through payment of school impact fees. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent school impact fees at issuance of building permit(s). Payment of school impact fees would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to school services to levels that would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-10) Parks
The Project does not propose residential uses and would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the Town. Thus, the Project would not increase demands for parks or park services. The potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered parks facilities is less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.

4.12-10)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 67 Other Public Facilities
Given the industrial nature of the Project and the lack of population growth that would result from the Project, the Project would not increase the use of libraries and other public facilities. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered other public facilities is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-10)

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

3.15.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 5.4.4 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project does not propose residential uses that would increase the use of existing parks and/or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. As discussed above, 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 induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Project area, either directly or indirectly, and would not exceed regional or local growth projections.

Incremental public service demands generated by the Project are offset through the payment of Town Development Impact Fees. A portion of the Town’s Development Impact Fees are allocated for the maintenance of recreational facilities. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent fees at issuance of building permit(s). No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-10)

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

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 68  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 5.4.4 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project does not propose any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse effect on the environment. In addition, no offsite parks or recreational improvements are proposed or required as part of the Project. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-11)

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

3.16.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.5 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Circulation system and mobility plans and policies applicable to the Project include SCAG’s Connect SoCal and the Town of Apple Valley General Plan Circulation Element. An analysis of the Project’s potential to conflict with these plans is presented below (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9).

SCAG 2024-2050 RTP/SCS
SCAG’s Connect SoCal seeks to improve mobility, promote sustainability, facilitate economic development, and preserve the quality of life for the residents in the region. Table 4.10-1, SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis, in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, addresses the Project’s consistency with SCAG’s Connect SoCal. As shown, the Project would not conflict with any applicable 2024-2050 Connect SoCal policies such as Policy 03 and Policy 05 under the Mobility Element. The Project Applicant would be required to pay DIF, and fair share fees towards transportation improvements. Additionally, the Project would include roadways improvements consistent with Town Requirements. As such, the Project would contribute to SCAG’s goal of providing a safe, multimodal network and would include roadway improvements to accommodate site

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 69 access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations. Project consistency with Connect SoCal illustrates consistency with goals set forth for the Project region. Moreover, the Project proposes to develop a Class A industrial building in the Town of Apple Valley in close proximity to the State highway system which will facilitate SCAG’s goal of first/last mile delivery for the movement of goods. As demonstrated, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning program. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9) San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan
The intent of the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions. The Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and elements of the San Bernardino County CMP shown in section 4.13.2B.2 in the Draft EIR. The Project would not impede the ability to maintain or enhance the performance of the multimodal transportation system. The Project would include roadway improvements to serve internal circulation needs. None of the proposed roadway improvements would interfere with the existing or potential future improvements to the County’s multimodal transportation system. The Project 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 of mitigation for impacts of 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. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with the San Bernardino County CMP. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-10) Town of Apple Valley General Plan Circulation Element
Table 4.13-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, of the Draft EIR presents a discussion of the Project’s consistency with the goals, policies and programs of the Town’s General Plan Circulation Element. As shown, the Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.

4.13-10)
As demonstrated, the Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-12)

3.16.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.5 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 70  Substantial Evidence
The Project is generally consistent with Town’s vision for the area, as evidenced by the site’s existing land use designation. The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along adjacent roadways under existing conditions. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-16)
Efficient and safe access within, and access to, the Project is provided by the site plan design concept, site access improvements, and site adjacent roadway improvements included as components of the Project. On-site traffic signing and striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site. Sight distance at each Project access point would be reviewed to ensure conformance with Town sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-16) Trucks accessing the Project site would be required to travel along Town-designated truck routes.

Mandatory use of truck routes would minimize potential conflicts between truck traffic and other motorized and non-motorized transportation modes. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-16) Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis
A project would result in a significant impact, if it would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. However, for informational purposes only, a queuing analysis was performed for the off‐ramps at the I-15 Freeway at Quarry Road, Stoddard Wells Road, and Dale Evans Parkway interchanges to assess vehicle queues for the off ramps that may potentially result in deficient peak hour operations at the ramp‐to‐arterial intersections and may potentially “spill back” onto the I‐ 15 Freeway mainline. (Final EIR, p. 3-13) Queuing analysis findings for the Existing (2025) traffic conditions are presented in Table 3-2 of the Traffic Analysis (Draft EIR Technical Appendix K1). As shown, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak under Existing (2025) traffic conditions. (Final EIR, p. 3-13)
Queuing analysis findings for Opening Year Cumulative (2028) traffic conditions are shown in Table 5-2 of the Traffic Analysis (Draft EIR Technical Appendix K1). As shown, the following movement is anticipated to experience off-ramp queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM 95th percentile traffic flows under Opening Year Cumulative (2028) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions: (Final EIR, p. 3-13)
• I-15 NB Ramps & Stoddard Wells Road (#3) Southbound shared left-through-right – AM and PM peak hours
Although queue lengths could increase in the Opening Year, such queuing is consistent with general freeway conditions throughout the region and would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. Additionally, inadequate queuing at these locations would occur in 2028 without the Project. Therefore, the potential for the Project to substantially

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 71 increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-16, Final EIR, p. 3-13)

3.16.3 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 4.13.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project does not propose elements or aspects that would obstruct or restrict emergency access to or through the area. Additionally, representatives of the Apple Valley Fire Protection District (AVFPD) and San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (SBCSD) would review the Project’s plans to ensure that emergency access is provided consistent with AVFPD and SBCSD requirements. (Draft EIR, p.

4.13-16)
Construction
All Project construction materials and equipment would be stored/staged on the Project site and would not interfere with emergency vehicles traveling adjacent to the site. Any Project construction activities that would occur within the public right-of-way and require a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or vehicle travel lane would require a traffic control plan that complies with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that must be approved by the Town to ensure that emergency response is not adversely affected. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-16 through 4.13-17) Operation
The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along surrounding roadways under existing conditions and would not interfere with the circulation of emergency vehicles along public streets adjacent to the Project site. Project plans would be reviewed and approved by AVFPD and SBCSD to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided throughout the site. The preceding, the potential for the Project to result in inadequate emergency access is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-17)

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

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 72  Findings
Potential cumulative transportation impacts of the Project related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system; increase in hazards; and inadequate emergency access are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.6 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to these topics; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development. The analysis under Threshold “a” indicates that the Project would not conflict with relevant SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) or Town General Plan programs, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system. Further, the Project does not include any features that would preclude the Town from completing and complying with these guiding documents and policy objectives. Future development in the Town would be expected to comply with all applicable relevant programs, plans, and policies. Therefore, no cumulative impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-17) The Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s Technical Advisory states that “a project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold (e.g., VMT per service population) that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact.

Accordingly, a finding of a less than significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact and vice versa. This is similar to the analysis typically conducted for greenhouse gas emissions, air quality impacts, and impacts that utilize plan compliance as a threshold of significance.” As discussed under Threshold b, even with the implementation of mitigation, VMT impacts of the Project would be significant at the Project level, and therefore, would also be cumulatively significant. Related projects in the cumulative impact area would similarly be required to minimize impacts to the extent feasible and demonstrate compliance with Town programs, plans, policies and ordinances addressing the above topics, thereby minimizing potential cumulative impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-17)
Based on the review of the Project site driveways, no safety concerns relating to geometric design of the Project site access points would occur. Furthermore, the Project is compatible with the uses in the immediately surrounding area. Therefore, impacts are not considered to be cumulatively-considerable and no significant cumulative impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-17) As discussed above, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to inadequate emergency access, and no cumulative impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-18)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 73

3.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for Tribal Cultural Resources Cumulative Impacts do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.

3.17.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACT
Impact Statement: The Project does not have the potential to result in cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources.
 Finding
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to tribal cultural resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.14.6 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to tribal cultural resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The cumulative impact area for tribal cultural resources includes the Project site and immediately surrounding area. Impacts to tribal cultural resources within this area would be site-specific. In the event that potentially significant tribal cultural resources are encountered at any development sites within the cumulative impact area, specific mitigation measures would be applied before construction activities could proceed. The Lead Agency has initiated tribal cultural consultation processes pursuant to AB 52/SB 18. Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1 establishes monitoring protocols, and provisions for avoidance, protection, or curation of tribal cultural resources that may be identified through the AB 52/SB 18 consultation process. These mitigation measures reduce the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-6) There are no known or probable related projects that would interact with the Project and thereby result in cumulatively significant impacts. Additionally, related projects in the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize tribal cultural resources impacts consistent with State, local, and potentially affected Tribe policies and regulations, thereby minimizing cumulative impacts. The Project’s cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-6)

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

3.18.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 74 telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 4.15.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Water Facilities
As shown in Figure 3-8, Conceptual Grading, Utility, and Drainage Plan of the Draft EIR, the Project proposes water connections from the southwestern corners of the building to the existing 16-inch water main on the new proposed public road, Wrangler Road. Construction of all water lines would occur within the Project site, or within dedicated public easements/right-of-way. All Project water system improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with Town/provider requirements. The extension and construction of water lines necessary to serve the proposed land uses is considered part of the Project; the disturbance footprint, construction techniques, and associated impacts have been accounted for within this Draft EIR. As the Draft EIR evaluation demonstrates, construction impacts of the Project, including the water lines necessary to serve the Project, would be less than significant, or less than significant as mitigated. Additionally, the Project would pay applicable development impact fees, water connection fees, and service fees, which act to fund water improvement plans, operations, and maintenance generally. The potential for the Project to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-11 through

4.15-12)
Wastewater Facilities
Sewer service to the Project site would be provided by the Town of Apple Valley Public Works Wastewater Division. The Project proposes 6-inch laterals from the southwestern corners of the building to the existing 8-inch sewer main on Wrangler Road. As the Draft EIR evaluation demonstrates, the construction impacts of the Project, including the sewer lines necessary to serve the Project, would be less than significant, or less than significant as mitigated. Additionally, the Project would pay applicable development impact fees, sewer connection fees, and service fees, which act to fund water improvement plans, operations, and maintenance generally. The potential for the Project to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-12)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 75 Stormwater Drainage Facilities
Onsite
The Project’s drainage system would consist of one (1) drainage management area. The Project would be designed to closely replicate the existing drainage patterns to minimize downstream impacts. Runoff would be collected by multiple catch basins located throughout the Project site and directed to an onsite underground infiltration system located in the southern section of the property. The underground infiltration system would be sized to accommodate the Design Capture Volume and provide peak storm detention (100-year storm event). Prior to entering the infiltration system, stormwater would pass through hydrodynamic separator units (e.g., Contech CDS or approved equivalent) for pre-treatment, ensuring removal of debris and pollutants. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-12) Once the system reaches its maximum storage capacity, excess runoff would overflow through two proposed 36-inch on-site storm drains and discharge into a new 60-inch public storm drain along Wrangler Road. From there, the overflow would be conveyed downstream to the Bell Mountain Wash, Mojave River, then to Silver Lake, and ultimately to Soda Lake. All Project stormwater drainage facilities would be constructed within the Project site. The construction of stormwater drainage facilities necessary to serve the proposed land uses is considered part of the Project; the disturbance footprint, construction techniques, and associated impacts have been accounted for within the Draft EIR. As the EIR evaluation demonstrates, the construction impacts of the Project, including the storm water drainage facilities necessary to serve the Project, would be less than significant, or less than significant as mitigated. The potential for the Project to require or result in the relocation or construction of new stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-12) Natural Gas, Electricity, and Telecommunications
Electrical power for the Town is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and natural gas service is provided by the Southwest Gas Holdings, Inc. (Southwest Gas). Telecommunications services would be provided by Charter Communications and Spectrum. The Project would involve utility connections to provide electric power and telecommunications services to the Project site. No natural gas would be used for the Project. Dry utilities internal to the site would be installed underground in accordance with applicable purveyor standards and specifications, and to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. The locations and configurations of utilities connections, transformers, switches, pull boxes, and manholes would be determined in conjunction with final Project designs and engineering. Again, it is noted that no natural gas would be utilized on the Project site. The extension and construction of dry utilities necessary to serve the site is considered part of the Project; the disturbance footprint, construction techniques, and associated impacts have been accounted for within the Draft EIR. As the Draft EIR evaluation demonstrates, the construction impacts of the Project, including the dry utilities necessary to serve the Project, would be less than significant, or less than significant as mitigated. The potential for the Project to require or result in the relocation or construction of new electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-13)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 76 Environmental Impacts from Utility and Infrastructure Systems Water infrastructure, sewer lines, storm drain infrastructure, and dry utilities would be installed in compliance with the requirements of the respective utility providers, and consistent with final plans approved by the utility providers. Construction activities associated with the proposed utility infrastructure would be within the Project’s construction impact area as discussed, in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The installation of the proposed infrastructure improvements would result in physical environmental impacts; however, these impacts have been included in the analyses of construction-related effects presented throughout the EIR, (e.g., air quality impacts, impacts to biological and cultural resources, water quality impacts, and noise and vibration impacts, etc.). Any applicable Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would address potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of utilities. Therefore, through consistent implementation of a variety of measures related to construction impacts, no additional impacts related to construction and operation of utility systems would occur.

Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-13)

3.18.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.15.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
As previously mentioned, Liberty Utilities would provide water service to the site. Liberty Utilities does not use surface water or purchase imported water to meet its water demands but instead relies solely on groundwater obtained from 20 active wells in the Mojave Basin Area. Liberty only pumps the amount of water necessary to serve the demand. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-13 through 4.15-14) To estimate the water demand for the Project, recent consumption data for industrial users within Liberty Utilities’ service area was reviewed and compared with other published industrial factors for other water suppliers. Liberty Utilities provided three years of consumption data for two existing industrial customers for evaluation. According to the Project’s WSA, the projected water demand for the Project is 104 acre-feet per year (AFY). The Project’s water demand was compared to the Liberty Utilities’ existing and projected demand for industrial uses presented in the 2020 UWMP. Liberty Utilities may pump groundwater above its free production allowance (FPA) to meet demands (and purchase replacement water assessment (RWA) for any groundwater pumped above the FPA).

Therefore, it is expected that Liberty Utilities can serve the additional demand posed by the Project with existing supply sources. Based on review of the Liberty Utilities Urban Water Management Plan and the 2021-2022 Watermaster Report, the WSA concluded that Liberty Utilities can meet its water

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 77 demands (including the Project) during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years over the next 20 years. Therefore, water supply impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-14)

3.18.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.15.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
As previously discussed, 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). VVWRA has a treatment capacity of 18.0 million gallons per day (mgd), and currently treats an average flow of 10.7 mgd, or approximately 60% of its total capacity. According to the Town’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), the commercial/industrial average daily wastewater flow rate is 1,500 gallons per day (gpd) per acre. The Project would generate approximately

0.048 mgd1 of wastewater. Projected wastewater from the Project would represent approximately

0.66%2 of the daily remaining capacity of the treatment facility. Given the remaining capacity, the VVWRA would be able to adequately accommodate the Project’s contribution of wastewater. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-14)
The Project would pay applicable sewer connection fees and service fees, which act to fund wastewater treatment/reclamation improvement plans, operations, and maintenance generally. The Town, in consultation with VVWRA, would determine when and in what manner area-serving facilities would be constructed and/or upgraded to meet increasing demands of areawide development. The potential for the Project to result in capacity impacts to the wastewater treatment provider which serves the site is less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-14)

3.18.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
1 1,381,412 sf * 1 acre/43,560 sf * 1,500 gpd/acre * 1 mgd/1,000,000 gpd = 0.048 mgd 2 0.048 mgd * (18.0 mgd – 10.7 mgd) * 100 = 0.66%

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 78  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 4.15.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
As stated previously, solid waste from the Town is transported to the Victorville Landfill, which is currently operated by the County of San Bernardino. As of 2020, the Victorville Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 3,000 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 79,400,000 cubic yards.

According to the landfill’s site inspection report dated December 2024, the peak tonnage for the month was 2,478.51 tons per day. The landfill has an approximate excess daily capacity of 521.5 tons per day. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-15)
Based on the anticipated building square footage of 1,381,412 square feet and the US EPA’s construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds per sf for non-residential uses, approximately 5,995,3283 pounds (or approximately 2,997 tons) would be generated during the building construction phase. Additional waste would be expected from infrastructure installation and other Project-related construction activities. The Project Applicant would be required to comply with Chapter 8.19 of the Town Municipal Code, which requires the recycling of construction and demolition debris for certain projects within the Town of Apple Valley. The Project Applicant would be required to prepare a Waste Management Plan (WMP) which would be reviewed and approved by the Town as part of the application packet for the building or demolition permit. The WMP would indicate the estimated volume or weight of construction and demolition materials that would feasibly be diverted via reuse or recycling. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-15)
At buildout, based on a solid waste generation factor of 1.42 pounds per 100 sf per day, the Project would generate approximately 19,6164 pounds of solid waste per day (or approximately 9.8 tons per day). In compliance with AB 939, the Project Applicant would be required to implement a Solid Waste Diversion Program and divert at least 50 percent of the solid waste generated by the Project from the Victorville Landfill. As such, approximately 9,808 pounds or 4.9 tons per day, which represents approximately 0.94%5 of the landfill’s excess daily capacity, would be required to be disposed of at the Victorville Landfill. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-15)
Construction and operation of the Project would be required to comply with State and local solid waste reduction, diversion, and recycling policies and regulations. The Project proposes conventional industrial uses and would not generate volumes or types of waste not already considered and addressed under existing policies, regulations, and infrastructure systems. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-15) 3 1,381,412 sf * 4.34 pounds/sf= 5,995,328 pounds
4 1,381,412 sf * 1.42 pounds/100 sf/day = 19,616 pounds/day 5 4.9 tons per day/521.5 tons per day * 100 = 0.94%

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 79 The Project’s estimated solid waste generation represents approximately 0.94% of the Victorville landfill’s excess daily capacity and would not contribute significantly to the daily throughput.

Accordingly, the potential for the Project to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.15-15 through 4.15-16)

3.18.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.5 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Town has implemented programs to ensure compliance with Statewide solid waste source reduction and recycling strategies and targets. The Project would be required to comply with applicable Town and State waste diversion and recycling mandates. Moreover, the Project would implement conventional industrial uses and would not establish uses or activities that would conflict with or obstruct local, State and federal solid waste management regulations (AB 939, AB 341). All solid waste generated by the Project would be collected and disposed of as part of the Town’s municipal waste stream. Solid waste management services are provided throughout the Town including collection and transfer of refuse, green waste, and bulky items. Recycling services are also provided. The potential for the Project to conflict with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste is therefore considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-16)

3.18.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project does not have the potential to result in cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems.
 Finding
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to utilities and service systems are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.8 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems; therefore, no mitigation is required.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 80  Substantial Evidence
The cumulative impact area when considering potential cumulative utilities and service systems impacts comprises affected purveyor service areas including service sources/supplies, and service conveyance/distribution/treatment facilities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-16) As discussed within this Section, the Project would implement all necessary infrastructure improvements. Utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines implemented by the Project would be constructed, operated, and maintained pursuant to purveyor requirements and consistent with applicable infrastructure master plans. Infrastructure improvements would be located within existing improved streets or otherwise disturbed properties, thereby limiting or avoiding potential environmental impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-16) The Draft EIR evaluates likely maximum impacts associated with all Project actions and operations, including but not limited to construction and operation of utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines. Construction and operation of the Project utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines would not result in conditions or environmental impacts not already considered and addressed elsewhere in the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-16) Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize utilities and services impacts consistent with Town, State, and service purveyor requirements, thereby minimizing potential cumulative utilities and services impacts. There are no known or probable related projects that would interact with the less than significant effects of the Project and thereby result in cumulatively significant impacts. On this basis, Project contributions to cumulative impacts regarding utilities and service systems would not be considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-16 through 4.15-17)

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

3.19.1 THRESHOLDS A THROUGH D
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; the Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire; the Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; and the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 81  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Thresholds a through d are discussed in Section 5.4.5 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Thresholds a through d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
According to CalFire, the Project site is located within the limits of the Town of Apple Valley outside of the SRA and is not located within a VHFHSZ. The Project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) within a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone. (Draft EIR, p. 5-11) Incremental fire protection service demands generated by the Project are offset through the payment of Development Impact Fees. A portion of the Town’s Development Impact Fees are allocated for fire protection services. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent Town Development Impact Fees at issuance of building permit(s). (Draft EIR, p. 5-11)
To the satisfaction of the Apple Valley Fire Protection District, the Project would comply with Town and Fire District fire prevention and suppression requirements, including building/site design requirements, fire flow adequacy, and provisions for emergency access, thereby reducing potential wildfire impacts. The Project would also be required to comply with State and local regulations pertaining to emergency access. The Project would provide on-site and off-site water, sewer, electricity, and gas infrastructure improvements which would be constructed in compliance with regulatory requirements and would not exacerbate fire risk. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-11 through 5-12) In addition, the Project site is generally flat and lacks factors that are typically associated with the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-12)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 82

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS-THANSIGNIFICANT

4.2 AIR QUALITY

4.2.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project could potentially conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5 of the Draft EIR. The Project’s proposed land use and zoning designations for the Project site would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP. However, the Project would exceed the applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds during construction for ROGs/VOCs emissions.

As demonstrated below, Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, which requires the use of Super-Compliant low VOC paints. With Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, the Project would not conflict with the AQMP. The Town has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
The Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan for the Mojave Desert set forth a comprehensive set of programs that will lead the MDAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The control measures and related emission reduction estimates within the Federal Particulate Matter Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly, conformance with these attainment plans for development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance the indicators discussed below:

Consistency Criterion No. 1
Local Land Use Plan and/or Population Projections
The Town of Apple Valley General Plan designates the Project site for Office/Professional (O-P) and the Project site is zoned Office Professional (O-P). The Project Applicant proposes a general plan and zoning amendment to change the designation to Regional Commercial (C-R) and Regional Commercial (C-R) with I-N Industrial Overlay, respectively. Additionally, the Project would require a Development Code Amendment to expand the existing C-R e-commerce fulfillment and distribution center overlay boundaries to include the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-32)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 83 Although the Project is not consistent with the current General Plan and zoning designations and would require a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Code Amendment; the Project would not result in an operational-related air quality impact (see analysis under Threshold b, below).

As a result, the Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP. Furthermore, the Project, as evaluated herein, would not exceed the operational regional or localized air quality significance thresholds and would meet consistency criterion No. 1. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-32) Consistency Criterion No. 2
All MDAQMD Rules and Regulations
The Project would be required to comply with all applicable MDAQMD Rules and Regulations, including, but not limited to Rules 401 (Visible Emissions), 402 (Nuisance), 403 (Fugitive Dust), and 1113 (Architectural Coatings). The Project Applicant would be required to coordinate with MDAQMD and obtain construction and operation-related permits for compliance with the above-mentioned regulations. Because the Project would not conflict with any MDAQMD rules or regulations, the Project would meet consistency criterion No. 2. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-32) Consistency Criterion No. 3
Demonstrating that the Project Will Not Increase the Frequency or Severity of a Violation in the Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standards
As discussed in detail under the analysis of Threshold b below, Project operational-source emissions for ROG/VOC, Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Oxides (SOX), Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM10), and Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) would not exceed applicable MDAQMD significance thresholds. However, construction-source emissions would exceed applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds for ROGs/VOCs emissions. As such, the Project would have the potential to increase the frequency or severity of a violation in the federal or state ambient air quality related to Project construction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-33) Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 has been incorporated into the Project.

MM 4.2-1 During construction, the construction contractor shall, at the minimum, use “SuperCompliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits put forth by Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1113.

Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10 grams per liter of VOC or less for all interior and exterior building coatings. Alternatively, the applicant may utilize tilt-up a concrete building that does not require the use of architectural coatings.

This mitigation measure shall be noted on construction drawings verified by the Town of Apple Valley prior to issuance of any construction permits and during coating activities.

Project construction would exceed the applicable MDAQMD regional thresholds. As demonstrated below, Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, which requires the use of SuperPage 162 of 416 “ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 84 Compliant low VOC paints. With Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, the Project would not conflict with the AQMP.

4.2.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project could potentially 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.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5 of the Draft EIR. Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of MDAQMD thresholds and other surrounding air districts. Therefore, Project operational-source emissions would be considered less than significant. However, Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would result in exceedances of MDAQMD thresholds for ROGs/VOCs emissions.

The estimated maximum daily construction emissions, with mitigation, are summarized in Table 4.2- 12, Construction Emissions Summary – With Mitigation of the Draft EIR. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, ROG/VOC emissions would be reduced below the applicable threshold. Super-Compliant low VOC paints are manufactured to have lower levels of VOCs than those required by regulatory standards; therefore, the use of low VOC paints would reduce the Project’s ROGs/VOCs emissions during construction. Alternatively, the Project applicant may utilize tilt-up a concrete building that does not require the use of architectural coatings and would also substantially reduce the Project’s ROGs/VOCs emissions. Therefore, the Project with mitigation would not exceed the criteria pollutant thresholds for regional construction emissions and impacts would be less than significant impact. The Town has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
Construction Emissions Impact Analysis
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of ROGs/VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction-related emissions would occur during construction activities, including site preparation, grading, building, paving, architectural coating, and construction workers commuting to the site. As shown in Table 4.2-6, Construction Emission Summary of the Draft EIR, emissions resulting from the Project construction will exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the MDAQMD for ROG/VOC emissions. As such, impacts would be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-33)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 85 Operational Emissions Impact Analysis
Project Emissions in MDAQMD
Operational emissions would be expected from mobile source emissions, area source emissions, energy source emissions, stationary source emissions, on-site cargo handling equipment emissions, and Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) emissions. Mobile source emissions derive primarily from vehicles trips generated by the Project, which also considers high-cube cold storage uses as further detailed in Section 3.5.1, Mobile Source Emissions, of the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (Draft EIR Technical Appendix B1). As shown in Table 4.2-7, Project Operation Emissions Summary, of the Draft EIR, the Project would not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the MDAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant. As such, operational impacts would be considered less-than-significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-34)
Project Emissions in Other Air Districts
The Project’s truck and TRU trip related emissions that could occur outside of MDAQMD including Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), and SCAQMD were evaluated. The Project’s modeled average truck trip length is 62.1 miles, as discussed previously under Section 4.2.3, Methodology. To accurately reflect regional travel behavior, this total distance was distributed among the applicable air districts based on StreetLight Data’s Truck Volume Metrics for medium-duty (MDT; 2- and 3-axle) and heavy-duty (HDT; 4+-axle) trucks within the Project area.

Analysis of these data indicates that approximately 72 percent of Project-related truck trips are expected to cross into the SCAQMD, with an average trip length of 21 miles occurring within that jurisdiction. The remaining 36.85 miles were conservatively divided evenly among the EKAPCD, SJVAPCD, and AVAQMD. The balance of approximately 4.35 miles represents truck travel within the MDAQMD, accounting for local circulation and connections within the district boundary. These allocations were used to apportion Project-generated truck emissions among the affected air districts, ensuring a comprehensive and regionally representative assessment of potential air quality impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-35)
Draft EIR Table 4.2-8 through Table 4.2-11 summarizes the emissions that could occur due to off-site truck and TRU travel within the aforementioned air districts. The emissions are presented in tons per year for the EKAPCD and SJVAPCD (as there is no seasonal variation), and pounds per day for AVAQMD and SCAQMD (for summer and winter) consistent with the applicable thresholds in each air district. As shown below, Project emissions would not exceed any of the regional thresholds of significance established by the air districts and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.

4.2-35)
The Project would exceed the applicable regional thresholds during construction for ROGs/VOCs emissions. The estimated maximum daily construction emissions, with mitigation, are summarized in Draft EIR Table 4.2-12, Construction Emissions Summary – With Mitigation,. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, ROG/VOC emissions would be reduced below the applicable threshold. Super-Compliant low VOC paints are manufactured to have lower levels of

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 86 VOCs than those required by regulatory standards; therefore, the use of low VOC paints would reduce the Project’s ROGs/VOCs emissions during construction. Alternatively, the Project applicant may utilize tilt-up a concrete building that does not require the use of architectural coatings and would also substantially reduce the Project’s ROGs/VOCs emissions. Therefore, the Project with mitigation would not exceed the criteria pollutant thresholds for regional construction emissions and impacts would be less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-43)

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.4.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project could potentially have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.5 of the Draft EIR. The Project has the potential to result in impacts to the Western Joshua Tree and Burrowing Owl, if the Project site were to become occupied prior to the commencement of construction activities.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-3 would ensure that appropriate preconstruction surveys for the Burrowing Owl are conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities and/or vegetation removal. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 and MM 4.3-3 would ensure the preservation of Western Joshua Trees to the greatest extent practicable prior to issuance of grading permits. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce Project impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-4 and MM 4.3-5 would ensure that the limits of disturbance are clearly marked and that construction activities do not attract predators and nuisance species. Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-8, MM 4.3-9, and MM 4.3-11 have been added to ensure that the Project would not impact lands that could be utilized by the Mohave Ground Squirrel, Desert Tortoise, Desert Kit Fox, and American Badger as habitat. Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-10 has been added to ensure that the Project would not pose a threat to the Crotch’s Bumblebee population. The Town has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.  Substantial Evidence
Special-Status Plants
No special-status federal or State-listed plant species were observed within the study area during the field surveys. The study area does not include any USFWS-designated critical habitats for plants. One (1) desert cactus species - silver cholla (Cylindropuntia echinocarpa) was observed as scattered individuals within the Project site. Additionally, a total of eleven (11) Western Joshua Trees were

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 87 observed within the Project site. Of the 11, only 2 trees were alive and 9 were dead at the time of the surveys. The removal or disturbance of the Western Joshua Trees is considered a regulated activity due to the species’ protected status under the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. The Project would require removal of the two live Western Joshua Trees. Thus, impacts would be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-11)
Special-Status Animals
No federally-listed wildlife species were observed within the Project site during the 2025 field surveys.

The Project site does not include USFWS-designated critical habitat for wildlife. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3- 11)
Burrowing Owl
A single adult Burrowing Owl was observed perched and moving between multiple distinct ground squirrel burrows along the northwestern boundary of the study area (just outside the Project site) during two early-morning winter surveys. During the focused breeding season survey visits (March, April, May, June and July, 2025), no Burrowing Owls were seen or heard on the Project site or within the study area. No evidence of nesting behavior (concentration of pellets, decoration of burrow entrances with dung or debris and no defensive posturing or alarm calls) was observed anywhere within the study area. Other wildlife (desert cottontails and ground squirrels) was observed using the burrows in the Project site during spring, suggesting that the owl observed in winter had vacated the study area. Within the Project site, no nesting territories were established by burrowing owls in 2025. The 2025 breeding season surveys indicate an absence of Burrowing Owl nesting activity on the Project site. Based on observation of Burrowing Owls near the Project site, it is possible for burrowing owls to occupy the site prior to grading; therefore, impacts are determined to be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3- 12)
Desert Tortoise
No Desert Tortoises or tortoise sign were detected anywhere within the Project site or survey area during focused surveys in 2025. The Project site lies at the periphery of the range of the Desert Tortoise.

Moreover, the busy Interstate-15 corridor near the Project site has been a known mortality hazard and barrier for tortoises in this region, making it unlikely for any to migrate into the area. Also, very few burrow-like structures of any kind were present in the hard, compacted ground (aside from shallow small mammal burrows) during the focused surveys. The Project would not impact lands that could be utilized by the Desert Tortoise as habitat. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-12) Mohave Ground Squirrel
No Mohave Ground Squirrel or diagnostic sign (e.g. scat, tracks, vocalizations) were detected on the Project site during focused surveys in 2025. The habitat is low-quality for these species and shows no indication of current or historical occupancy. Past and ongoing disturbances (e.g. off-road vehicle trails, old foundations/wells, illegal dumping, etc.) have further degraded Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat quality and connectivity on and around the Project site. Given the absence of required forage

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 88 plants, cover, and any recent regional Mohave Ground Squirrel records, the Project site does not support Mohave Ground Squirrel. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-12) Desert Kit Fox
No definitive evidence of Desert Kit Fox presence was found on the Project site and no kit fox individuals were observed during the diurnal surveys. Human activity within the Project site (some evidence of occasional camping and dog-walking was found), and the general disturbance (off-road vehicles, etc.) reduce the study area’s attractiveness to kit fox for denning. The survey found no evidence of regular or past kit fox use such as old dens, prey middens, or territorial markings. The soils and topography are suitable for kit fox denning (sandy substrates, gentle washes), but ongoing coyote presence and human disturbances likely make the Project suboptimal habitat. Desert Kit Foxes do not currently occupy or breed on the Project site. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-12 through

4.3-13)
Crotch’s Bumblebee
Crotch’s Bumblebee individuals or colonies were not detected during any of the survey events on the Project site. Despite the absence of the target species, the site demonstrated abundant insect activity and diverse pollinator presence, indicating that survey conditions were favorable for detecting bumble bees. However, in a portion of the Project site (for example, near Stoddard Wells Road) show signs of anthropogenic disturbance, including increased non-native invasive plants and scattered trash/debris.

These disturbances degrade the habitat quality, introducing competition for native flora and altering the vegetation structure in those areas. Crucially, while the Project site does offer some nectar and pollen sources for generalist pollinators, it lacks the key floral hosts that Crotch’s Bumblebee relies on. Given these conditions, the Project site is inadequate for supporting the Crotch’s Bumblebee and the Project would not pose a threat to the population. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-12) Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-5 and MM 4.3-8 through MM 4.3-11 have been incorporated into the Project.

MM 4.3-1 A 30-day pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owl in compliance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012 (or most recent version), shall be conducted prior to initial ground-disturbing activities (including vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.) to safeguard that no owls have colonized the Project site.

If Burrowing Owls have colonized the Project site prior to the initiation of grounddisturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall immediately inform the Town of Apple Valley to determine if “take” would occur and coordinate with CDFW if impacts to burrowing owl cannot be fully avoided to obtain an incidental take permit.

If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the Project site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, another pre-construction survey shall be conducted no less than fourteen (14) days prior to resuming ground-disturbing activities to safeguard that Burrowing

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 89 Owl has not colonized the Project since it was last disturbed. If Burrowing Owls are found, the same coordination with CDFW in conjunction with the Town of Apple Valley described above shall be required.

MM 4.3-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall obtain authorization from CDFW under the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (WJTCA) and a native plant removal permit from the Town of Apple Valley for removal of any native desert plant that is protected by the Town of Apple Valley Plant Protection and Management Policy (Chapter 9.76), the County of San Bernardino’s Desert Native Plant Protection, the State Desert Native Plants Act (i.e., Food and Agricultural Code 80001 et seq.), and the WJTCA. The Project Applicant shall transplant impacted trees where feasible with priority given to smaller individuals, and provide compensatory mitigation as required (e.g., payment of WJTCA in-lieu fees into the state WJT Conservation Fund and/or purchase of conservation bank credits) at agency-approved ratios. Additionally, the Project Applicant shall avoid impacting clusters of cacti (e.g., silver cholla) where practicable by flagging/fencing them for avoidance. Where avoidance is not feasible, salvage whole cactus plants and/or pads prior to grading, and transplant them into protected open-space areas on the Project site or to an agencyapproved off-site receiver location.

MM 4.3-3 Prior to construction activities, a qualified Biologist shall develop and implement a worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to Burrowing Owl and Western Joshua Tree protection.

The training shall occur prior to construction activities and educate workers on sensitive wildlife and native plants that could occur on site, clarify that collection or harm of such resources is strictly prohibited, review all relevant permit conditions (including any issued under the WJTCA), and outline stop-work and notification procedures in the event any protected species (or other unanticipated biological resource) is encountered during work.

MM 4.3-4 In order to ensure that construction activities are limited to the Project site boundaries, prior to the issuance of grading permits, a note shall be placed on the grading plan verified by the Town Engineer, which requires delineation of the limits of disturbance.

Limits of grading and construction activities shall be clearly delineated with temporary construction staking, flagging, or similar materials. All workers and equipment shall confine activities within these defined limits to avoid inadvertent disturbance outside the approved impact area.

MM 4.3-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a note shall be placed on the grading plan verified by the Town Engineer that the limits of disturbance are clear of debris, trash, and food waste that could attract wildlife. Trash shall be secured in containers and removed from the site regularly. To prevent the introduction or spread of invasive weeds, ensure all construction equipment arrives clean (free of mud or plant debris) and, where feasible, use only weed-free materials (e.g. mulch, fill). Promptly stabilize

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 90 or re-vegetate any temporarily disturbed soils with native seed or plants per agencyapproved plans.

MM 4.3-8 Prior to commencement of ground disturbing Project activities, a focused visual encounter pre- construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within suitable habitat for MGS . The survey shall be conducted on the Project site’s limits of disturbance within suitable habitat for Mohave ground squirrel during daylight hours by the qualified biologist who holds a CDFW Memorandum of Understanding for MGS and other species. If the survey or monitoring confirms presence, the Project Proponent shall contact CDFW immediately (within 24 hours) and fully avoid all impacts to Mohave ground squirrel or obtain an incidental take permit.

MM 4.3-9 Prior to initial ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused preactivity clearance survey for desert tortoise and desert tortoise sign within the Project site, prior to Project activities and adjacent accessible areas where Project activities could affect the species. The pre-construction clearance survey methods will be consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2019 desert tortoise survey guidance (USFWS, 2019). The survey shall utilize survey routes that provide 100-percent visual coverage for desert tortoise and their sign. If desert tortoise is observed, or if project activities may affect desert tortoise and complete avoidance is not feasible, work in the affected area shall stop and the Project Proponent shall coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine and obtain any required approvals or authorizations before activities resume. Project activities shall fully avoid impacts to desert tortoise to the maximum extent practicable or obtain a ESA/CESA authiroizations if impacts are unavoidable.

MM 4.3-10 If Project activities are due to occur anytime during the Colony Active Period (generally April through August) for Crotch’s bumble bee, immediately prior to ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal, a Designated Biologist shall conduct a survey of the entire Project site and a 50-foot buffer where floral resources are present to confirm Crotch’s bumble is not foraging on the Project site. If Crotch’s bumble bee is present, it shall be allowed to move out of harm’s way of its own volition and CDFW shall be notified immediately (within 24 hours). All impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee shall be fully avoided or if impacts are unavoidable a CESA ITP should be obtained.

MM 4.3-11 Within 14-21 days prior to the beginning of surface disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused pre- construction clearance survey to determine if active desert kit fox or American badger dens or sign of activity (e.g., tracks, scat, prey remains) are present within the Project site and within a 50-foot buffer of the of the disturbance area.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 91 If active natal dens (a den with pups, cubs, or kits) are detected, a minimum of 500- foot no disturbance buffer (reduction of the no-disturbance buffer may occur upon consultation with CDFW) shall be maintained until the den is confirmed by the qualified biologist as no longer active through on going monitoring as follows:

Excavation and backfill of inactive and unoccupied dens within the Project site, shall only occur with dens in which the entirety of the den can clearly be seen (e.g., the den isn’t deep and doesn’t curve). In cases where the entirety of the den cannot be clearly seen, the CDFW-approved Designated Biologist(s) or Biological Monitor(s) shall monitor the den for 3 consecutive nights using infrared camera stations at the entrance(s). If no tracks or sign are observed at the den or no photos of desert kit fox or American badger are captured after 3 nights, then the den shall be excavated by hand and backfilled with handheld equipment or mechanized equipment.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-3 would ensure that appropriate preconstruction surveys for the Burrowing Owl are conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities and/or vegetation removal. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 and MM 4.3-3 would ensure the preservation of Western Joshua Trees to the greatest extent practicable prior to issuance of grading permits. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce Project impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-4 and MM 4.3-5 would ensure that the limits of disturbance are clearly marked and that construction activities do not attract predators and nuisance species. Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-8, MM 4.3-9, and MM 4.3-11 have been added to ensure that the Project would not impact lands that could be utilized by the Mohave Ground Squirrel, Desert Tortoise, Desert Kit Fox, and American Badger as habitat. Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-10 has been added to ensure that the Project would not pose a threat to the Crotch’s Bumblebee population. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18; Final EIR, p. 3-4 through 3-7)

4.4.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project could potentially have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.3.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Project site does not contain federally-protected wetlands. There are 2.17 acres of Waters of the State (WOTS) within the Project site that are subject to regulation under Section 1600 (et seq.) of the California Fish and Game Code and Section 13260 of the CWC.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-6 would ensure that impacts to WOTS are appropriately mitigated through purchase of wetland establishment and or rehabilitation credits from the Mohave River Watershed Mitigation Bank and that pertinent discretionary permits/authorizations

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 92 are obtained prior to undertaking ground-disturbing activities within or immediately adjacent to WOTS. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to the WOTS to less than significant levels. The Town has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
No jurisdictional wetlands occur within the Project site and no features meet the criteria for Waters of the United States (WOTUS) within the study area. Six (6) ephemeral swales (Features 1 through 6) within a combined 2.17-acre area were mapped within the Project site. These features convey surface water only during infrequent, high-intensity storm events. These signatures qualify solely as WOTS subject to limited regulation under the California Fish and Game Code §1600 and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. As such, impacts would be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-13) Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-6 has been incorporated into the Project.

MM 4.3-6 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the Town of Apple Valley that impacts to 2.17 acres of non-riparian ephemeral streambeds that are subject to regulation under California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 and California Water Code Section 13260 have been mitigated through purchase of wetland establishment and or rehabilitation credits from an approved mitigation bank, including but not limited to the Mohave River Watershed Mitigation Bank, at a minimum 1:1 ratio. In addition, prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide the Town with evidence of demonstrating compliance with California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 and California Water Code Section 13260, as applicable.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-6 would ensure that impacts to WOTS are appropriately mitigated through purchase of wetland establishment and or rehabilitation credits from the Mohave River Watershed Mitigation Bank and that pertinent discretionary permits/authorizations are obtained prior to undertaking ground-disturbing activities within or immediately adjacent to WOTS. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to the WOTS to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18)

4.4.3 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project could potentially interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.5 of the Draft EIR. The Project has the potential to impact nesting migratory birds protected by the Migratory

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 93 Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code, should habitat removal occur during the nesting season and should nesting birds be present.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-7 would ensure that appropriate pre-construction surveys are conducted during the bird nesting season and further would ensure that any active nests are avoided and protected by an appropriate buffer area. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels. The Town has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.  Substantial Evidence
The study area and all adjacent properties are designated for urban uses. No migratory wildlife corridors have been identified within the study area. The Project would not substantially affect any offsite designated wildlife habitat linkage or movement corridor. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-14) A single adult Burrowing Owl was observed perched and moving between multiple distinct ground squirrel burrows along the northwestern boundary of the study area (just outside the Project site) during two early-morning winter surveys. As such, raptors and other nesting birds have the potential to occur within the Project site. Thus, the Project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed during the nesting season. Raptors, migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by the federal MBTA. Impacts to nesting birds is a potentially significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-14) Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-7 has been incorporated into the Project.

MM 4.3-7 In order to comply with Section 10 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant sections of the California Fish and Game Code, any necessary vegetation clearing shall take place outside of the typical avian nesting season for protected species (February 1 through August 31).

If work must occur during the nesting season for protected avian species, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey of the work area and 500- foot buffer not more than 3 days prior to the onset of ground disturbance. If any active nests are found, the biologist shall establish an appropriate no-work buffer around the nest (typically 50–100 ft for songbird nests and 100–500 ft for raptors, adjusted based on species and observed behavior). Construction within the buffer will be deferred until the nest is no longer active (fledged or failed), as confirmed by the biologist. If Swainson’s hawk is detected nesting within or adjacent to the Project site and impacts cannot be fully avoided, the Project Proponent shall coordinate with CDFW regarding appropriate protective measures and any required authorization before work proceeds in the affected area.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-7 would ensure that appropriate pre-construction surveys are conducted during the bird nesting season and further would ensure that any active nests are avoided and protected by an appropriate buffer area. Implementation of the required mitigation

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 94 would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18; Final EIR, p. 3-5)

4.4.4 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project could potentially conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.5 of the Draft EIR The Project site contains native desert plants that are protected by local ordinance. As such, a native plant removal permit must be obtained from the Town prior to the removal of protected plants.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 would ensure that the appropriate native plant removal permit is obtained from the Town prior to the removal of any protected plants. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the Project’s potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant. The Town has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.  Substantial Evidence
During the 2025 surveys, several native plant resources were identified within the Project site: silver cholla (Cylindropuntia echinocarpa, a native cactus species), and a total of 11 Western Joshua Trees (Yucca brevifolia; 2 live individuals and 9 dead). Removal of the Western Joshua Trees would require consultation with CDFW under the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-14) Additionally, these species are subject to Municipal Code Chapter 9.76, Plant Protection and Management Policy, the County of San Bernardino’s Desert Native Plant Protection, and the State Desert Native Plants Act (i.e., Food and Agricultural Code 80001 et seq.). In accordance with the Town’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.76 (Plant Protection and Management Policy), a native plant removal permit must be obtained from the Town prior to the removal of protected plants. The Project would require the removal of the native plants that were identified onsite. As such, impacts are considered potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-14) Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 would ensure that the appropriate native plant removal permit is obtained from the Town prior to the removal of any protected plants. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the Project’s potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18 through 4.3-19)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 95

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.5.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project could have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.5 of the Draft EIR. No known historical or archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are present on the Project site. However, there is a remote potential for the Project site to contain unidentified surface or subsurface archaeological resources. Therefore, Project impacts to previously-undiscovered resources that may occur onsite would be significant prior to mitigation.

Implementation of the Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-3 would ensure that any cultural resources identified on-site during ground disturbing activities are appropriately treated as directed by a qualified archaeologist. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to subsurface cultural resources to below a level of significance. The Town has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.  Substantial Evidence
A total of nine sites were identified within the Project boundaries during the Phase I Archaeological Assessment, one of which was previously recorded with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at CSU Fullerton. The identified sites are primarily surficial historic artifact scatters associated with transient roadside refuse disposal in Apple Valley area (sites Temp-1 to Temp-7). Site Temp-8 is a historic occupation site that reflects settlement of the area in the 1950s and includes one foundation, one water wellhead, and nine surficial historic artifact scatters. Based on archival research, the archaeological assessment concluded that these sites are not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage (California Register of Historic Resources [CRHR] Criterion A); they are not associated with the lives of persons important in our past (CRHR Criterion B); they do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values (CRHR Criterion C); and given the surficial nature of the artifact scatters identified, they have not yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (CRHR Criterion D). (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-12)
Site P-36-009360 is a previously recorded alignment of Stoddard Wells Road. Segments of Site P-36- 009360 have previously been recommended to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and CRHR under Criteria A/1. However, this segment was determined ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP or CRHR for an extensive history of alterations. Therefore, none of the resources or portions of resources located within the Project boundaries are considered “historically significant” resources under CEQA criteria. Given the presence of known resources within the Project site, in addition to the

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 96 records search results, there is potential for inadvertent discoveries of undocumented buried historic resources during ground-disturbing activities. As such, impacts would be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-12)
Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-3 have been incorporated into the Project.

MM 4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall retain a Registered Professional Archaeologist, meeting Secretary of Interior standards, (“Project Archaeologist”) subject to the approval of the Town to be on-call during all mass grading and trenching activities. The Project Archaeologist’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to, performing the tasks that require the need for a qualified archaeologist pursuant to Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-2 through MM 4.4-3 below.

In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and the Project Archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, any culturally-affiliated tribes (including the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department [YSMN]) shall be contacted as detailed within Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1, regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided information after the Project Archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regard to significance and treatment.

MM 4.4-2 If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, that includes performance standards identified in Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-3. The drafts of which shall be provided to any consulting tribes (including YSMN) for review and comment, as detailed within Mitigation Measure MM 4.14-1. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be subject to final approval by the Town of Apple Valley Planning Department. The Project Archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly.

MM 4.4-3 In the event that buried archaeological resources/Tribal Cultural Resources are uncovered during the course of ground disturbing activity associated with the Project, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the discovery and the Project Archaeologist shall visit the site of discovery and assess the significance and origin of the archaeological resource in coordination with consulting tribes. The following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:
1) Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite or at

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 97 the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the Project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversite of the process; and
2) Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the Town of Apple Valley Planning Department with evidence of same:
a) Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. This will require revisions to the grading plan, denoting the location and avoidance of the resource. b) Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed; location information regarding the reburial location shall be included into the final report.

Copies of the report shall be provided to the Town for their records, any consulting tribes, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. c) Curation. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within San Bernardino County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.

Implementation of the Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-3 would ensure that any cultural resources identified on-site during ground disturbing activities are appropriately treated as directed by a qualified archaeologist. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to subsurface cultural resources to below a level of significance. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-16 through 4.4-17; Final EIR, p. 3-8)

4.5.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project could have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 98  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.5 of the Draft EIR. No known historical or archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are present on the Project site. However, there is a remote potential for the Project site to contain unidentified surface or subsurface archaeological resources. Therefore, Project impacts to previously-undiscovered resources that may occur onsite would be significant prior to mitigation.

Implementation of the Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-3, above, would ensure that any cultural resources identified on-site during ground disturbing activities are appropriately treated as directed by a qualified archaeologist. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to subsurface cultural resources to below a level of significance. The Town has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.  Substantial Evidence
The SCCIC records search indicated that the Project site has not been previously studied, and the Site P-36-009360 has been studied three times for linear surveys. The Project site retains no previously recorded resources, and Site P-36-009360 retains one previously recorded resource. A total of 30 previous studies have been conducted within one mile of the project, and five resources have been recorded within one mile of the project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-13) Eight previously unrecorded historic cultural resources, including seven historic refuse scatters (sites Temp-1 to Temp-7) and one historic foundation with an associated wellhead and nine historic refuse scatters (Site Temp-8) were observed during the field survey. In addition, one previously recorded resource (Site P-36-009630) was identified within the Project vicinity. No prehistoric cultural resources were identified. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-13)
Additionally, the Project site is located outside the area identified as “highly sensitive for both prehistoric and historic-period cultural resources” in the Town of Apple Valley General Plan. The Project is located in an area that was not previously surveyed and identified as “undetermined cultural resource sensitivity”. According to the findings of the Project’s Phase I Archaeological Assessment, the Project site yields a moderate potential for the presence of buried cultural resources, given the presence of the historic-era residence and surficial historic artifact scatters. Additionally, due to the location of resources in close proximity to natural water ways, and the limited disturbance to the site given the lack of previous agricultural and structure development, there is a low to moderate potential to encounter prehistoric resources within the Project site. Given the presence of known resources within the Project site, in addition to the records search results, there is potential for inadvertent discoveries of undocumented archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities. As such, impacts would be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-13) Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-3 (above) have been incorporated into the Project.

Implementation of the Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-3 would ensure that any cultural resources identified on-site during ground disturbing activities are appropriately treated as

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 99 directed by a qualified archaeologist. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to subsurface cultural resources to below a level of significance. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-16 through 4.4-17)

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6.1 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project could have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.5 of the Draft EIR. The alluvial deposits that exist on the Project site are known to produce significant terrestrial vertebrate fossils at shallow depths in the region. Project-related ground disturbance has the potential to affect paleontological resources.

Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 would ensure the identification and subsequent treatment of any significant paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Project. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant. The Town has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.  Substantial Evidence
During field surveys conducted in September 24 and 25, 2025, paleontological resources, or evidence of paleontological resources, were not identified. As discussed previously, the Project site lies at the edge of a broad alluvial fan mapped as early Pleistocene to possibly late Miocene-aged, very old alluvial deposits, characterized as moderately consolidated, strong brown to yellowish-red sand and gravel deposits. Research has confirmed the existence of potentially fossiliferous Pleistocene-aged very old alluvial deposits that are present at the Project site. These alluvial deposits are known to produce significant terrestrial vertebrate fossils at shallow depths in the region. As such, Project-related ground disturbance has the potential to affect paleontological resources. Impacts would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1 through MM 4.6-2 have been incorporated into the Project.

MM 4.6-1 Prior to the start of the proposed Project activities, all field personnel shall receive a worker's environmental awareness training on paleontological resources. The training shall provide a description of the laws and ordinances protecting fossil resources, the types of fossil resources that may be encountered in the Project area, the role of the paleontological monitor, an outline of steps to follow if a fossil discovery is made, and

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 100 the contact information for the Project paleontologist. The training shall be developed by the Project paleontologist.

MM 4.6-2 Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall retain both a qualified paleontologist and paleontological monitor to prepare and implement a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Project (PRIMP), which describes monitoring and fossil collection procedures. If a paleontological resource is discovered, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert the construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and, if appropriate, collected. If the resource is determined to be of scientific significance, the Project paleontologist shall complete the following:
1) Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be halted to allow the paleontological monitor and Project paleontologist to evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. If the fossils are determined to be potentially significant, the Project paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological resources as outlined in the paleontological mitigation plan for the Project. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity.

In some cases, larger fossils, such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils, require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In the case of discovery of larger fossils, the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossils can be removed in a safe and timely manner.

Bulk sampling and screening of fine-grained sedimentary deposits (including carbonate-rich paleosols) shall be performed if the deposits are identified to possess indications of producing fossil “microvertebrates” in accordance with “Microfossil Salvage” section of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth. 2) Fossil Preparation and Curation. The paleontological mitigation plan for the Project shall identify the museum that has agreed to accept fossils that may be discovered during Project-related excavations. Upon completion of fieldwork, all significant fossils collected shall be prepared in a properly equipped laboratory to a point ready for curation. Preparation may include the removal of excess matrix from fossil materials and stabilizing or repairing specimens. During preparation and inventory, the fossils specimens shall be identified to the lowest taxonomic level practical prior to curation at an accredited museum. The fossil specimens must be delivered to the accredited museum or repository no later than 30 days

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 101 after all laboratory work is completed. The cost of curation shall be assessed by the repository and will be the responsibility of the Project Applicant. 3) Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activity, and curation of fossils if necessary, the Project paleontologist shall prepare and submit to the Town of Apple Valley a final paleontological mitigation report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report shall include a discussion of the location, duration, and methods of monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils and where fossils were curated.

Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 would ensure the identification and subsequent treatment of any significant paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Project. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-15)

4.7 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.7.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project could have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.14.5 of the Draft EIR. The Project may impact previously undiscovered tribal resources.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-1 and MM 4.14-2 address the requests of the responding tribes, and would ensure that any tribal cultural resources identified on-site during ground disturbing activities are appropriately treated as directed by a qualified archaeologist and consulting tribes. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to subsurface cultural resources to below a level of significance. The Town has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.  Substantial Evidence
As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR, a records search at the South Central Coastal Information System indicated that no cultural resources have previously been recorded within the Project site boundaries. Additionally, results of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands Files results were negative for the presence of Native American sacred sites or locations of ceremonial importance within the vicinity of the Project site. The field survey conducted

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 102 as part of the Cultural Resources Survey did not identify any tribal resources within the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-8)
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which became effective on July 1, 2015, requires lead agencies to provide notice to Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-8)
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. The consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code 65450 et seq.). (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-8) Outreach letters were sent to 19 individuals representing 10 local Native American tribal groups to elicit information on Native American cultural resources that may be in the vicinity of the proposed Project. These letters included: (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-8) • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Gabrielino Tongva Indians
• Kern Valley Indian Community
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• San Fernando Band of Mission Indians
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
• Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also known as San Manual Band of Mission Indians) The outreach letters provided formal notification of the Project, elicited information on Native American cultural resources that may be in the vicinity of the Project site and offered formal consultation pursuant to AB 52/SB 18. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-9) Representatives from the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation requested copies of the cultural and geotechnical reports for review and indicated that the project area is located within Serrano ancestral territory and is of interest to the tribe. The Town is currently in consultation with the tribe. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-9)
Much of the written and oral communication between the Native American tribes and the Town is considered confidential in respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural significance. Although relied upon in part for the preparation of the EIR, those communications are treated as confidential and are not available for public review. Through AB 52 consultation, it was determined the Project area could be considered culturally sensitive. As such, potential impacts to previously undiscovered tribal resources are considered potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-9)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 103 Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-1 and MM 4.14-2 have been incorporated into the Project:

MM 4.14-1 Any culturally-affiliated Tribes (including the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department and/or Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians) shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1, of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during grading activities, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regard to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with the Tribe, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents the Tribe for the remainder of the Project, should the Tribe elect to place a monitor on-site.

If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the Project.

MM 4.14-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the Project Applicant and Town for dissemination to the culturally-affiliated Tribes (including) YSMN. The Town and/or Project Applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the Tribes (including YSMN) throughout the life of the Project.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-1 and MM 4.14-2 addresses the requests of the responding tribes and would ensure that any tribal cultural resources identified on-site during ground disturbing activities are appropriately treated as directed by a qualified archaeologist and consulting tribes. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to subsurface cultural resources to below a level of significance. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-10; Final EIR, p. 3- 14)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 104

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE

AFTER MITIGATION
The Town finds the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in the following impact categories after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)(2), the Town cannot approve the Project unless it first finds (1) under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities to highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR; and (2) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b), that the remaining significant effects are acceptable under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 because the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed Project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Therefore, a statement of overriding considerations has been prepared (see Section 9.0, herein).

5.1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

5.1.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5. The Project would exceed the screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year (MTCO2e/yr).

Therefore, impacts are significant.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-23 would reduce operational emissions by reducing the Project’s water and energy consumption with measures such as on-site solar generation, Energy Star-rated appliances, low-water use appliances and fixtures, and drought-tolerant plants, implementing solid waste reduction measures, using electrical cargo handling equipment, installing EV charging stations, reducing idling and queuing on public streets, reducing fugitive dust, and using use zero-emission light- and medium-duty trucks. While Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM

4.7-23 are identified as part of the Project and are expected to contribute to reductions in operational emissions, the reductions associated with these measures are not easily quantified. Therefore, as a conservative measure, emission credits or reductions from the implementation of these measures are not presented. The predominance of the Project’s operational-source emissions are generated by passenger cars and trucks accessing the Project. Neither the Project Applicant nor the Town have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, and no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond the measures identified herein exist that would reduce Project operational-source GHG emissions to levels that are less-than-significant. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 105 Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures and alternatives identified in the EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
Construction
For construction phase emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project.

Construction-related GHG emissions are expected to come from demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The latest version of CalEEMod was used to determine construction-related GHG emissions. Output from the model runs for Project constructionrelated activities is provided in Appendix 3.1 of the Project’s GHG report (Technical Appendix G). To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project, the MDAQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year Project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. The amortized construction emissions from each phase are presented in Draft EIR Table 4.7-3, Amortized Annual Construction Emissions. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-28)
Operation
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and Refrigerant emissions from the following primary sources:
(Draft EIR, p. 4.7-29)
• Mobile Source Emissions;
• Area Source Emissions;
• Energy Source Emissions;
• Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution;
• Solid Waste;
• Refrigeration;
• Stationary Source Emissions;
• On-site Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions; and
• TRU Source Emissions
The estimated Project-related GHG emissions are summarized in Table 4.7-4, Project GHG Emissions Summary in the Draft EIR. The latest version of CalEEMod was used for this Project to determine GHG emissions. Output from the model runs for operational activities for the Project is provided in Appendix 3.1 of Technical Appendix G of the Draft EIR. CalEEMod includes GHG emissions from the following source categories: construction (amortized), area, energy, mobile, waste, water, refrigerants, stationary, on-site cargo handling and TRU sources. Refer to Section 3.5, Operational Emissions, of the Project’s GHG report (Draft EIR Technical Appendix G) for further discussion on activities from the primary sources listed above. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-29)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 106 As discussed previously under Section 4.7.4, Basis for Determining Significance of the Draft EIR, the Town of Apple Valley has elected to rely on compliance with a local air district threshold in the determination of significance of Project-related GHG emissions. Specifically, the Town has selected the interim 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold recommended by SCAQMD staff for residential and commercial sector projects against which to compare Project-related GHG emissions. Although the Project is not located within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction, the SCAQMD’s recommended threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is more restrictive than the MDAQMD’s adopted significance threshold for GHGs of 100,000 tpy (90,719 MTCO2e /yr). MDAQMD identifies that 100,000 tpy of GHG emissions from a single facility constitutes major sources that require a federal operating permit. If Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less-than-significant impact. On the other hand, if Project-related GHG emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the Project would be considered a substantial source of GHG emissions. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-30)
Construction and operation of the Project would generate a total of approximately 18,176.56 MTCO2e/yr, which would exceed the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr; therefore, Projectrelated GHG emissions are considered potentially significant. The majority of the GHG emissions (83%) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these emissions. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-30)
Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-23 have been incorporated into the Project.

MM 4.7-1 The Project shall implement the following measure in order to reduce operational energy source GHG emissions to the extent feasible:
• Commit to on-site solar generation sufficient to meet at least 75% of the Project’s total operational energy requirements from within the building envelope. • Install Energy Star-rated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances. • Provide information on energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy management, and existing energy incentive programs to future tenants of the Project.
• Structures shall be equipped with outdoor electric outlets in the front and rear of the structures to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment.

MM 4.7-2 In order to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills, the Project would implement a 75% waste diversion program. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project, the Project applicant shall provide building plans that include the following solid waste reduction measures:

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 107 • Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste in new construction, and food waste storage, if a pick-up service is available.
• Evaluate the potential for onsite composting.

MM 4.7-3 To reduce water demands and associated energy use, subsequent development proposals within the Project site would be required to implement a Water Conservation Strategy and demonstrate a minimum 20% reduction in indoor and outdoor water usage when compared to baseline water demand (total expected water demand without implementation of the Water Conservation Strategy). Prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project, the Project applicant shall provide building plans that include the following water conservation measures:
• Install low-water use appliances and fixtures.
• Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces.
• Implement water-sensitive urban design practices in new construction. • Install rainwater collection systems where feasible
MM 4.7-4 The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall implement the following measures:
• The Project’s landscape plan shall incorporate drought-tolerant plants and use water-efficient irrigation techniques.
• All appliance fixtures shall be Energy Star-rated.
• All fixtures installed in restrooms and employee break areas shall be U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) WaterSense certified or equivalent.

MM 4.7-5 As a condition of certificates of occupancy, all on-site cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and other on-site equipment) shall be required to be powered by electricity. Each building shall include the necessary charging stations or other necessary infrastructure for cargo handling equipment. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.

MM 4.7-6 Electrical Infrastructure for Electric Equipment and Vehicles. The Project shall be designed to include electrical infrastructure to accommodate the required number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, the anticipated number charging stations for electric cargo handling equipment, and the potential installation of additional automobile and truck EV charging stations per Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Electrical conduit shall be installed within

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 108 reasonable locations (e.g., parking areas, at or near dock doors) at the time of building construction to satisfy this requirement. The Project’s electrical rooms shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the upsizing of electrical equipment to accommodate potential future electrical loads for electric truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available.

MM 4.7-7 EV Charging Stations. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Level 2 (or faster) EV charging stations shall be installed on-site for employees for the percentage of employee parking spaces commensurate with CALGreen requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance plus additional charging stations equal to 5% of the total employee parking spaces in the building permit, whichever is greater. By the later of 2030 or whenever sufficient electric power is both commercially available and is no more than 25% more expensive than diesel or gasoline, Level 2 (or faster) electric vehicle charging stations shall be installed for 25% of the employee parking spaces required.

MM 4.7-8 Sustainable Energy, Waste, and Water Design Measures. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall implement the following measures:
• Structures shall be equipped with outdoor electric outlets in the front and rear of the structures to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment. • Storage areas shall be provided for recyclables and green waste, as well as food waste storage if a pick-up service is available.
• The roof shall provide R-19 insulation to decrease overall energy consumption and increase occupant comfort.
• A timer system for lighting to ensure that lights shall be switched off during times of non-operation shall be installed on the Project site.

MM 4.7-9 Design of Ingress/Egress Points. Entry gates into the loading dock/truck court areas shall be sufficiently positioned to ensure that all truck and other vehicles are contained on site and inside the property line. Queuing, or circling of vehicles, on public streets immediately pre- or post-entry to the Project shall be strictly prohibited unless queuing occurs in a deceleration lane or right turn lane exclusively serving the Project site.

MM 4.7-10 Measures to Reduce the Urban Heat Island Effect. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce the urban heat island effect:
• The Project’s roof structures shall be designed to include “cool roof” materials with a minimum aged reflectance and thermal emittance values that are equal to or greater than those specified in the current edition of CALGreen, Table A5.106.11.2.3 for Tier 1 standards.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 109 • Sufficient shade trees shall be provided throughout the Project site so that at least 30% of the automobile parking areas will be shaded within 15 years after Project construction is complete (excluding the truck courts where trees cannot be planted due to interference with truck maneuvering).

MM 4.7-11 Truck Requirements and Restrictions. The following measure shall be implemented during all ongoing business operations and shall be included as part of contractual lease agreement language to ensure that tenants and operators of the Project are informed of the following operational responsibility:
• Only haul trucks meeting California Air Resources Board (CARB) model year 2010 (or newer) engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the Project site. In addition, tenants shall be in, and monitor compliance with, all current air quality regulations for on-road trucks including CARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.

MM 4.7-12 Idling Time Restriction. The following measure shall be implemented during all ongoing business operations and shall be included as part of contractual lease agreement language to ensure that tenants and operators of the Project are informed of the following operational responsibility:
• Upon commencement of operations, the tenant/operator of the Project shall be required to restrict truck idling on site to a maximum of 3 minutes, subject to exceptions defined by the CARB’s commercial vehicle idling requirements. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing this requirement.

MM 4.7-13 Anti-Idling Implementation Measures. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions from idling:
• Signage. Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify the Project’s threeminute idling restriction. At a minimum, each sign shall include: (1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; (2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 3 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged; (3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations; and (4) that penalties apply for violations. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the Town of Apple Valley shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 110 • Efficient Load Management. The facility operator(s) shall be required to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
• Anti-Idling Training. Tenants and operators on the Project site shall ensure that site enforcement staff in charge of keeping the daily log and monitoring for excess idling will be trained/certified in diesel health effects and technologies, for example, by requiring attendance at CARB-approved courses (such as the free, one-day Course #512).

MM 4.7-14 Truck Routing Plan. The Project Applicant or successor in interest shall establish and submit for approval to the Town of Apple Valley a Truck Routing Plan that provides for routes between the Project site and the State Highway System. The Truck Routing Plan shall include measures, such as signage, pavement markings, and enforcement, for preventing truck queuing, circling, stopping, and parking on public streets. The Truck Routing Plan shall make every effort to avoid passing sensitive receptors, to the greatest extent possible, unless otherwise superseded by an applicable truck routing ordinance adopted by the Town of Apple Valley. The tenant/operator of the Project shall be responsible for enforcement of the Truck Routing Plan. A revised plan shall be submitted to the Town of Apple Valley prior to a business license being issued by the Town of Apple Valley for any new tenant/operator of the Project site. The revised plan shall expand upon the original Truck Routing Plan and describe the operational characteristics of the use of the tenant/operator, including, but not limited to, hours of operations, types of items to be stored within the building, and whether any modifications to the Project’s designated truck routes are necessary. The Town of Apple Valley shall have discretion to determine if changes to the Truck Routing Plan are necessary including any additional measures to alleviate truck routing and parking issues that may arise during the life of the Project. Signs and drive aisle pavement markings shall clearly identify the on-site circulation pattern to minimize unnecessary on-site vehicular travel.

MM 4.7-15 Transportation Demand Management Plan. For occupants with more than 250 employees, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce employee commute vehicle emissions shall be established, subject to review and approval by the Town of Apple Valley. The TDM plan shall apply to Project tenants through tenant leases. The TDM plan shall discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. Examples of trip reduction measures may include, but are not limited to:
• Transit passes
• Car-sharing programs
• Telecommuting and alternative work schedules

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 111 • Ride sharing programs
MM 4.7-16 Yard Sweeping to Reduce Fugitive Dust. The following measure shall be implemented during all ongoing business operations and shall be included as part of contractual lease agreement language to ensure that tenants and operators of the Project are informed of the following operational responsibility:
• Yard and parking area sweeping shall be periodically conducted to minimize dust generation from the Project site. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing this requirement.

MM 4.7-17 Provision of Information Regarding Programs to Reduce Emissions from Trucks.

Prior to tenant occupancy, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the Town of Apple Valley demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the Project site have been provided informational documentation regarding:
• Funding opportunities that provide incentives for using cleaner than-required engines and equipment, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program. The U.S. EPA SmartWay Program, which assists freight shippers, carriers, logistics companies, and other stakeholder partner with the U.S. EPA to measure, benchmark, and improve logistics operations and reduce air pollutant emissions from transport of cargo.

MM 4.7-18 Fire Pump Requirements. All diesel-fueled fire pump shall meet U.S. EPA-certified Tier 4 Interim emissions standards, at a minimum.

MM 4.7-19 The Project Applicant/Developer/Owner shall require tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty trucks as part of business operations, if such trucks are commercially available, as reasonably determined by the Lead Agency.

MM 4.7-20 The Project shall implement the following measures in order to reduce operational offroad equipment, stationary source, and on-road vehicle air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
• All diesel-fueled emergency generators shall be equipped with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Final compliant engines (as set forth in Section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) or better by including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts with successful contractors.
• In anticipation of a transition to zero emissions truck fleets during the lifetime of the Project, at least four heavy-duty truck vehicle charging stations shall be

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 112 installed on-site by the later of 2030 or whenever electric power is both available and is no more than 25% more expensive than diesel or gasoline. • All heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage to or from the Project site shall be zero emission by the later of 2030 or whenever electric power is both available and is no more than 25% more expensive than diesel or gasoline. • Meal options on site or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations shall be provided, as feasible.
• Vegetation and tree canopy in and around the Project site shall be improved and maintained in accordance with the approved landscaping plan.

MM 4.7-21 The following measures shall be included as part of contractual lease agreement language to ensure that tenants and operators of the Project are informed of the following operational responsibility:
• Train staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request;
• Enroll in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and if tenant owns, operates, or hires trucking carriers with more than 10 trucks to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers, as feasible.

MM 4.7-22 The following measures shall be implemented to reduce off-road equipment exhaust and off-site mobile source emissions during construction:
• Require all generators, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower, to be zero-emissions or equipped with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Final compliant engines (as set forth in Section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) or better by including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts with successful contractors. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the Town of Apple Valley in the event that the applicant documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment (for example, another piece of equipment can be replaced with a zero-emission equipment to offset the emissions associated with using a piece of equipment that does not meet Tier 4 Final standards). Before an exemption may be considered by the Town, the

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 113 applicant shall be required to demonstrate that at least two construction fleet owners/operators in the San Bernadino Region were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Final or better equipment could not be located within the San Bernardino Region. To ensure that Tier 4 Final construction equipment or better would be used during the proposed Project’s construction, the applicant shall include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Successful contractors must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.
• Provide infrastructure for zero-emission off-road construction equipment if the contractors selected to construct the Project plan to use zero-emission off-road construction equipment.
• Provide electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than diesel fueled generators, for contractors’ electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors. In applicable bid documents and contracts with contractors selected to construct the Project, include language requiring all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers, etc.) used during Project construction to be electric.
• Require construction equipment to be turned off when not in use. • Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11. Prohibit off-road dieselpowered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day, as feasible.
• Designate an area in the construction site where electric-powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge, as feasible.
• Keep on site and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications, as feasible. • Conduct an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts, as feasible.
• Provide information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees, as feasible.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 114 • Provide meal options on site or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees, as feasible.

MM 4.7-23 The Project shall be designed to include the following:
• Be able to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification and meet or exceed California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application. Documentation shall be provided to the Town of Apple Valley demonstrating that the Project meets this requirement prior to the issuance of building permits. • Include the application of surface treatments (such as PURETi Coat or PlusTi) on impervious ground surfaces that lessen impervious surface-related radiative forcing.
• Include high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) air filtration systems within all warehouse facilities.

Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-23 would reduce operational emissions by reducing the Project’s water and energy consumption with measures such as on-site solar generation, Energy Star-rated appliances, low-water use appliances and fixtures, and drought-tolerant plants, implementing solid waste reduction measures, using electrical cargo handling equipment, installing EV charging stations, reducing idling and queuing on public streets, reducing fugitive dust, and using use zero-emission light- and medium-duty trucks. While Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM

4.7-23 are identified as part of the Project and are expected to contribute to reductions in operational emissions, the reductions associated with these measures are not easily quantified. Therefore, as a conservative measure, emission credits or reductions from the implementation of these measures are not presented. The predominance of the Project’s operational-source emissions are generated by passenger cars and trucks accessing the Project. Neither the Project Applicant nor the Town have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, and no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond the measures identified herein exist that would reduce Project operational-source GHG emissions to levels that are less-than-significant. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-38; Final EIR, p. 3-8 through 3-12)

5.1.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section

4.7.5. The Project would exceed the screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Therefore, impacts are significant.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 115 Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-23 would reduce operational emissions by reducing the Project’s water and energy consumption with measures such as on-site solar generation, Energy Star-rated appliances, low-water use appliances and fixtures, and drought-tolerant plants, implementing solid waste reduction measures, using electrical cargo handling equipment, installing EV charging stations, reducing idling and queuing on public streets, reducing fugitive dust, and using use zero-emission light- and medium-duty trucks. While Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM

4.7-23 are identified as part of the Project and are expected to contribute to reductions in operational emissions, the reductions associated with these measures are not easily quantified. Therefore, as a conservative measure, emission credits or reductions from the implementation of these measures are not presented. The predominance of the Project’s operational-source emissions are generated by passenger cars and trucks accessing the Project. Neither the Project Applicant nor the Town have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, and no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond the measures identified herein exist that would reduce Project operational-source GHG emissions to levels that are less-than-significant. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-38; Final EIR, p. 3-8 through 3-12)
Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures and alternatives identified in the EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
Pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions. As such, the Project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, is discussed below. It should be noted that the Project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan also satisfies consistency with AB 32 since the 2022 Scoping Plan is based on the overall targets established by AB 32 and SB 32. Consistency with the 2008 and 2017 Scoping Plan is not necessary, since both of these plans have been superseded by the 2022 Scoping Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-30 through 4.7-31) 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Consistency
The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current transportation sector policies the Project will comply with (through vehicle manufacturer compliance) include: Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use OffRoad Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon pricing through the Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Further, as previously stated, CARB recommends the use of a CAP to determine a project’s impacts with respect to GHG and states that projects that are consistent with a CAP are presumed to be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. As such, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-31)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 116 Town of Apple Valley CAP Consistency
The Town of Apple Valley Climate Action Plan (CAP) includes several strategies aimed at helping the Town reduce GHG emissions consistent with State targets. As shown on Table 4.7-5, Project CAP Consistency Reduction Measures of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable CAP measures with incorporation of project design features and mitigation measures.

However, although the Project would be consistent with the CAP, the Project would still exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7- 31)
Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-23 would reduce operational emissions by reducing the Project’s water and energy consumption with measures such as on-site solar generation, Energy Star-rated appliances, low-water use appliances and fixtures, and drought-tolerant plants, implementing solid waste reduction measures, using electrical cargo handling equipment, installing EV charging stations, reducing idling and queuing on public streets, reducing fugitive dust, and using use zero-emission light- and medium-duty trucks. While Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through MM

4.7-23 are identified as part of the Project and are expected to contribute to reductions in operational emissions, the reductions associated with these measures are not easily quantified. Therefore, as a conservative measure, emission credits or reductions from the implementation of these measures are not presented. The predominance of the Project’s operational-source emissions are generated by passenger cars and trucks accessing the Project. Neither the Project Applicant nor the Town have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, and no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond the measures identified herein exist that would reduce Project operational-source GHG emissions to levels that are less-than-significant. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-38; Final EIR, p. 3-8 through 3-12)

5.1.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.
 Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to greenhouse gas emissions are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6 of the Draft EIR. Project greenhouse gas emissions would be considered significant and unavoidable on a Project-specific and cumulative basis. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures and alternatives identified in the EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis consistent with the requirements outlined in CEQA Guidelines 15064(h)(3). As discussed, implementation of the

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 117 Project would comply with the 2022 Scoping Plan and Town’s CAP but would result in net annual emissions that exceed the GHG emissions significance threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. Therefore, Project-related GHG emissions and their contribution to global climate change would be cumulatively considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would be potentially significant.

5.2 TRANSPORTATION

5.2.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.5 of the Draft EIR. Project-generated VMT was found to exceed the Town’s VMT per Service Population (SP) impact threshold and would result in a potentially significant VMT impact on a Project and cumulative basis. However, the Project’s cumulative effect on VMT per SP was found to decrease in the With Project scenario compared to the No Project scenario, under both baseline and cumulative conditions, which is below the Town’s cumulative impact threshold.

Implementation of the preceding mitigation is expected to reduce a portion of the Project’s VMT impact as it promotes transit and alternative transportation, use of alternatively fueled vehicles, and practices to reduce vehicle trips. However, even with the inclusion of mitigation, the Project will not be able to mitigate its VMT impact to a level of less than significant and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures and alternatives identified in the EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
VMT Guidelines, as adopted by the Town, state that a project would result in a significant projectgenerated impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied: (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-12)

1. The baseline project generated VMT per SP exceeds the Town of Apple Valley General Plan Buildout VMT per SP, or

2. The cumulative project generated VMT per SP exceeds the Town of Apple Valley General Plan Buildout VMT per SP.

A project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if it results in either of the following conditions to be satisfied: (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-12)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 118

3. The baseline link-level boundary Town-wide VMT per SP increases under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition, or

4. The cumulative link-level boundary Town-wide VMT per SP increases under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition.

The San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) is a travel forecasting model that represents a sub-area (San Bernardino County) of the SCAG regional traffic model and was designed to provide a greater level of detail and sensitivity in the San Bernardino County area as compared to the regional SCAG model. The current version of SBTAM (version 3.2, also referred to as SBTAM+) was last released in June 2024 and represents the most current sub-regional transportation model for San Bernardino County. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-12)
The Town of Apple Valley’s VMT per capita was calculated utilizing the SBTAM’s horizon year (2050) traffic model. All TAZs located within Town of Apple Valley were selected and the Total VMT was calculated from SBTAM. The VMT for the Town was then divided by the Town’s service population which results in the Town of Apple Valley’s General Plan Buildout average of 35.7 VMT per service population, as presented in Table 4.13-2, General Plan Buildout VMT per Service Population of the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-12)
Consistent with the Town’s adopted VMT Guidelines, the Origin/Destination (OD) method was utilized to estimate Project-generated VMT and is presented as total VMT per Service Population (SP).

Total VMT provides an estimate of the total vehicle travel (inclusive of both cars and trucks), while VMT per person/employee measures the efficiency of travel. Total VMT per SP is an efficiency metric that represents all VMT generated on a typical weekday per person who lives and/or works in a given area (e.g., Project Boundary or Town of Apple Valley). As the Project proposes only industrial land uses, its SP would be comprised solely of employees. Project impacts were estimated using the following methods: (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-13)
• Origin/Destination (OD) VMT
The OD method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip ending in the study area and tracks those trips to their estimated origins/destinations.

Origins are all vehicle trips that start in a specific traffic analysis zone (TAZ) and destinations are all vehicle trips that end in a specific TAZ.
• Boundary VMT Method
Town Guidelines identifies that any VMT analysis should also contain an evaluation of a project’s effect on VMT, which can be performed using the boundary method of calculating VMT. The boundary method is the sum of all weekday VMT on the roadway network within a designated boundary (i.e., Town boundary). The boundary method estimates VMT by multiplying vehicle trips on each roadway segment within the boundary by that segment’s length. This approach consists of all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary. Consistent with Town Guidelines, the Town of Apple Valley was used as the boundary for this assessment.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 119 The VMT estimates performed for the Project along with a comparison of the Town’s impact threshold are presented in Draft EIR Table 4.13-3, Project-Generated VMT. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-13) Projectgenerated VMT was found to exceed the Town’s VMT per SP impact threshold. Impacts would be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-14)
The Project’s cumulative effect on VMT was calculated using the boundary method. Land use information representing the proposed land use changes contemplated by the Project were coded into the Project TAZ to represent the “With Project” condition. Draft EIR Table 4.13-4, Cumulative Boundary VMT summarizes the boundary VMT under the No Project and With Project scenarios for both baseline and cumulative conditions and any increase to VMT per service population would be considered to have a significant cumulative VMT impact. As shown, the Project’s cumulative effect on VMT per SP was found to decrease in the With Project scenario compared to the No Project scenario, under both baseline and cumulative conditions, which is below the Town’s cumulative impact threshold. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-14)
Supplemental VMT Analysis for Truck Travel
A Supplemental VMT assessment (Draft EIR Technical Appendix K3) was prepared to accompany the Project’s VMT Analysis (Draft EIR Technical Appendix K2), which followed the Town’s adopted VMT Guidelines and only considers travel demand model-based truck travel lengths using StreetLight™ Data’s Truck Volume Metrics. Refer to the Supplemental VMT assessment (Technical Appendix K3) for further discussion regarding StreetLight data. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-14 through 4.13- 15)
To ensure that the survey results reflect the operational characteristics of large-scale warehouse uses comparable to those proposed by the Project, survey data from the Walmart and Big Lots facilities in the Town of Apple Valley was utilized as they represent modern, high-cube warehouse operations with multiple dock-high loading positions and truck circulation features consistent with large-scale logistics development. Although the Big Lots facility ceased operations near the end of 2024, the survey data was collected during 2021–2022 when the site was fully operational. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-15) Data from these facilities captures both truck activity and employee travel patterns characteristic of logistics-oriented warehouses, which offers a reliable and representative basis for evaluating the Project’s trip generation and VMT impacts. The data for this survey includes information on Medium Heavy-Duty Trucks (MDT) and Heavy Heavy-Duty Trucks (HDT) that either originated, ended, or passed through the surveyed area during the most recent consecutive 12-month period available from StreetLight™ Data for truck travel volume metrics. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-15) Table 4.13-5, Project -Generated VMT – Truck Travel of the Draft EIR presents an estimation of total VMT for the Project, which utilizes vehicle trip generation rates consistent with the Project’s traffic study (Draft EIR Technical Appendix K1) multiplied by the average trip length for each vehicle type. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-15)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 120 Table 4.13-6, VMT per SP of the Draft EIR presents the calculation of the efficiency metric total VMT per SP. Table 4.13-6 identifies a comparison between the Project’s total VMT per SP to the Town’s adopted impact threshold. As specified in the Town of Apple Valley’s adopted VMT Guidelines, if the baseline Project-generated VMT per SP exceeds the Town of Apple Valley General Plan Buildout VMT per SP, the Project would result in a significant impact. As calculated from SBTAM, the Town of Apple Valley average VMT per service population is 35.74. As shown, the Project is forecast to generate total VMT per SP of 59.8, which would exceed the Town’s VMT impact threshold and result in a significant VMT impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-15)
Mitigation Measure MM 4.13-1 has been incorporated into the Project.

MM 4.13-1 Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the tenant, the Project operator or tenant shall: 1) prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to the Town Engineer for review, detailing strategies for reducing the use of single occupant vehicles by employees; and 2) provide written documentation to the satisfaction of the Town that the TDM Program requirement is incorporated into any lease agreement for the project site to ensure enforceability. The TDM Program shall include all feasible transportation measures recommended by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and analyzed in the VMT report (see EIR Technical Appendix K2) as calculated pursuant to the “CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity” or other substantial evidence. Transportation measures to be considered in the TDM Program may include, but are not limited to:
• T-7 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Marketing, to educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT, including:
o Onsite or online commuter information services.
o Employee transportation coordinators.
o Onsite or online transit pass sales.
o Guaranteed ride home service.
• T-8 Ridesharing Program.
o Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles.
o Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles.
o Providing an app or website for coordinating rides.
• T-10 End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities. The Project shall install and maintain endof-trip facilities for employee use. End-of-trip facilities may include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 121 Implementation of the preceding mitigation is expected to reduce a portion of the Project’s VMT impact as it promotes transit and alternative transportation, use of alternatively fueled vehicles, and practices to reduce vehicle trips. However, even with the inclusion of mitigation, the Project will not be able to mitigate its VMT impact to a level of less than significant and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-19)

5.2.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (VMT)
Impact Statement: The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative impacts (VMT) are discussed in detail in Section

4.13.6 of the Draft EIR. Even with the implementation of mitigation, VMT impacts of the Project would be significant and unavoidable at the Project level, and therefore, would also be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, the Town has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible alternatives and mitigation measures identified in the EIR.  Substantial Evidence
The Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s Technical Advisory states that “a project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold (e.g., VMT per service population) that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact.

Accordingly, a finding of a less than significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact and vice versa. This is similar to the analysis typically conducted for greenhouse gas emissions, air quality impacts, and impacts that utilize plan compliance as a threshold of significance.” As discussed under Threshold b, even with the implementation of mitigation, VMT impacts of the Project would be significant at the Project level, and therefore, would also be cumulatively significant. Related projects in the cumulative impact area would similarly be required to minimize impacts to the extent feasible and demonstrate compliance with Town programs, plans, policies and ordinances addressing the above topics, thereby minimizing potential cumulative impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-17)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 122

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The State CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved with the proposed action should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2[d]). An environmental change would fall into this category if: a) the project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; c) the project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environment accidents; or d) the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy).  Finding
The Project’s potential to result in significant irreversible environmental changes are discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. The Project would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes, as described below. Construction and long-term operation of the Project would be compatible with the existing and planned land uses that surround the Project site and would not result in significant physical environmental effects to nearby properties. Although the Project would cause unavoidable impacts to the environment associated with greenhouse gas emissions and transportation, the Project’s impact related to air quality and transportation would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes.
 Substantial Evidence
Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible environmental changes requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. The Project site is currently and has historically been vacant and undeveloped. The Project would permanently alter the site by converting vacant and undeveloped property to urban uses, which would commit future generations to similar uses. This is a significant irreversible environmental change that would occur because of Project implementation. (Draft EIR, p. 5-2)
The Project presents no significant possibility of irreversible environmental damage from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project. That is, the Project does not propose facilities or uses that would result in potential environmental accidents. Moreover, all feasible mitigation is incorporated in the Project to reduce its potential environmental effects. (Draft EIR, p. 5-2) Construction and long-term operation of the Project would require the commitment and reduction of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable resources, including petroleum fuels and natural gas (for vehicle emissions, construction, lighting, heating, and cooling of structures) as well as lumber, sand/gravel, steel, copper, lead, and other metals (for use in building construction, piping, and roadway infrastructure). Other resources that are slow to renew and/or recover from environmental stressors would also be impacted by Project implementation, such as air quality (through the combustion of fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases) and water supply (through the increased demands for

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 123 potable water for drinking, cleaning, landscaping, and general maintenance needs). However, use of nonrenewable resources is not expected to negatively impact the availability of these resources.

Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which will minimize the Project’s demand for energy, including energy produced from non-renewable sources. No natural gas would be used for the Project. Further, as indicated in Section 4.5, Energy, of the Draft EIR, the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. (Draft EIR, p. 5-2)
An increased commitment of public and utility services (e.g., police, fire, sewer, and water services) would also be required. Due to the proposed size of the development, the Project would result in an irreversible commitment of land, energy resources, and public services. After the 50- to 75-year structural lifespan of the building is reached, it is improbable that the site would revert to its current use due to the large capital investment that will already have been committed. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-2 through 5-3)

6.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the Project could be growth-inducing. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth-inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2 [e]). New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area.
 Finding
The Project’s potential to result in growth-inducing impacts is discussed in detail in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. For the reasons described in detail below, the Project will not 1) remove obstacles to growth because the Project’s proposed utility infrastructure, on- and off-site, are designed to accommodate only the proposed development as opposed to widespread, new development; 2) result in the need to expand one or more public services (see Public Services of the Draft EIR); 3) encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment; and 4) involve a precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment because there are no proposed changes to the type or location of uses allowed by the General Plan and zoning ordinance. Based on the entire record, the Town finds that the Project would not directly or indirectly induce growth in the surrounding area, which could result in a significant adverse effect to the environment.  Substantial Evidence
Would this project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)?

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 124 The Project would require the construction and extension of roadways and utility infrastructure to serve the development. A new north/south public street would be constructed connecting Stoddard Wells Road and Johnson Road, along the western Project site boundary. A new signal would be installed at the intersection of the new road and Stoddard Wells Road. The Project would also construct driveways along Stoddard Wells Road and the new public street. Since all proposed roadways would be constructed on site and for the exclusive purpose of serving the proposed development, the Project would not create major new infrastructure that could result in substantial, unplanned growth. (Draft EIR, p. 5-4)
Water service to the Project site would be provided by Liberty Utilities. The Project proposes water connections from the southwestern corners of the building to the existing 16-inch water main on the new proposed public road, Wrangler Road. Sewer service to the Project site would be provided by the Town of Apple Valley. The Project proposes 6-inch laterals from the southwestern corners of the building to the existing 8-inch sewer main on Wrangler Road. Since all proposed utility infrastructure would connect to existing infrastructure near the Project site and would be sized to exclusively serve the proposed development, this Project infrastructure would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth. (Draft EIR, p. 5-4)
Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.12, Public Services, the Project would not necessitate the expansion of existing public service facilities to maintain the desired levels of service. The Project does not propose or require construction or modification of any public facilities. Incremental service demands generated by the Project would be offset through the payment of Development Impact Fees, a portion of which is allocated for the maintenance of public facilities. The potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities is considered less than significant. If these facilities or associated resources do need to be expanded in the future, funding mechanisms such as the Town Development Impact Fees are in place through existing regulations and standard practices to accommodate such growth. This Project would not, therefore, have significant growth inducing consequences with respect to public services. (Draft EIR, p. 5-4) Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and services associated with the increase in Project population and thus reducing or removing the barriers to growth. This occurs in suburban or rural areas where population growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population. This type of growth is, however, a regional phenomenon resulting from the introduction of a major employment center or regionally significant housing project. For example, additional commercial uses may be

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 125 drawn to the area by the increased number of residents in the area because of a project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5)
Jobs created by the Project are typical of the region and are expected to be filled by existing local residents. Project employees would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with meeting these goods and services needs is expected to be marginal and accommodated by existing providers. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5) According to the California Department of Finance’s (DOF) Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, the Town had an estimated housing of 27,485 households as of January 2025. According to the California DOF Current Month Unemployment Rate and Labor Force Summary, as of June 2025, the most current data available, the Town had a labor force of 29,300, 27,200 that are employed, and an unemployment population of 2,100 (7.2 percent). According to SCAG’s Connect SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast, the Town’s employment opportunities are estimated to grow up by 9,400 in 2050. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.4.3, Population and Housing, the Project would generate up to approximately 1,156 employees. Therefore, the Project’s employment is within the estimated employment growth projects for the Town. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5) Moreover, according to the Town’s 2022-2029 Housing Element, 16.6 percent of the Town’s population works within the Town of Apple Valley and the remaining 83 percent work elsewhere, which suggests a jobs-housing imbalance within the Town limits. As shown in Table 5-1, Town of Apple Valley General Plan Population, Households, and Employment Projections vs. SCAG’s Connect SoCal, in the Draft EIR, although the Town is slightly jobs-rich under existing conditions (1.07), the Town’s General Plan and SCAG project that the Town will be housing-rich in 2035 and 2050, respectively. The Town forecasts the employment housing ratio to be 0.61 by 2035 while SCAG forecasts the employment housing ratio to be 0.78 by 2050, which is closer to the recommended range for the jobs-housing ratio of 1.0. Therefore, the Project-related increase of approximately 1,156 employees would bring new employment to the Town and would contribute to a more balanced jobshousing ratio for the Town of Apple Valley at General Plan buildout. Taking into consideration a more balanced jobs-housing ratio, the current unemployment rate, and that the majority of residents work outside of Town limits indicates that the Project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements will be met by the Town’s existing labor force without people needing to relocate into the Project region. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5)
Accordingly, the Project’s introduction of employment opportunities on the Project site would not induce substantial growth in the area. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6) Would approval of this project involve some precedent setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? The entire Project site is located within the Town of Apple Valley. Surrounding properties to the north, east, west, and south are zoned Regional Commercial (C-R), Estate Residential (R-E), Estate Residential (R-E), Office Professional (O-P), and Regional Commercial (C-R). Additionally,

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 126 surrounding land uses to the east and north are part of the Town’s E-Commerce Regional Commercial (C-R) Overlay. The Project uses are limited to the Project site’s boundaries and does not include any components that would indirectly affect existing or planned uses on neighboring properties. The development of the proposed industrial uses on the Project site would not reasonably or foreseeably cause the redevelopment of other properties or cause development on other properties. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6)
Furthermore, the Project’s potential influence on other nearby properties to redevelop at greater intensities and/or different uses than the Town’s General Plan and Development Code allow is speculative beyond the rule of reason; however, it should be noted that implementation of the Project would not result in the approval of proposed uses on any other property outside of the Project site.

CEQA does not require the analysis of speculative effects (CEQA Guidelines § 15145). All projects proposed within the Town would require evaluation under CEQA based on their own merits, including an analysis of direct and cumulatively considerable effects. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6) The Project represents growth anticipated by the Town. Incremental public service demands generated by the Project are offset through the payment of Town Development Impact Fees. A portion of the Town’s Development Impact Fees are allocated for the maintenance of public service facilities. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent fees at issuance of building permit(s). Accordingly, the Project would not directly promote growth either at the Project site or at the adjacent and surrounding properties that were not accounted for in the Town’s General Plan. Upon the approval of the Project Applicant’s requested discretionary applications (General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2024-001, Zone Change (ZC) 2024-007, Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2024-001, Development Permit – Major Project 2025-013, Tentative Parcel Map No. 21034 and a Development Agreement), the Project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and Zoning classification for the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6; Final EIR p. 3-2)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 127

7.0 ALTERNATIVES

7.4.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
An EIR is required to identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected. Factors described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 in determining whether to exclude alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR include: a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, b) infeasibility, or c) inability to avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant environmental impacts. The Project’s significant impact that cannot be mitigated to less than significant is: greenhouse gas emissions and transportation.

With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives to the proposed Project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) provides:
“Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site…” In determining a range of reasonable alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR, a number of possible alternatives were initially considered and, for a variety of reasons, rejected. Alternatives were rejected because either: 1) they could not accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project, 2) they would not have avoided or substantially lessened significant adverse environmental impacts, or 3) they were considered infeasible to construct or operate. Alternatives that were considered but rejected are described below.

Alternative Sites
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to a project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[5][B][1]). In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is “remote and speculative,” such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-4 through 6-5) The Project proposes to develop a 92.73-acre site with one industrial building totaling approximately 1,381,412 sf, including 15,000 sf of office space and 15,000 sf of mezzanine space. The Project Applicant has ownership and control over the Project site, and the Project site’s location in proximity to I-15 and SR-18 provides direct access to the regional transportation network. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5; Final EIR, p. 3-2)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 128 Given the size and type of the proposed development, a similarly sized project and land use elsewhere in the Town of Apple Valley would result in the same or greater project-level and cumulative transportation impacts. The Project’s location is preferrable for industrial development compared to other areas of the Town because of its proximity to the regional transportation network and major infrastructure, reducing VMT. The Project area is largely undeveloped with minimal traffic, any development of this size in this area would increase traffic and VMT on surrounding roadways similar to the Project. Impacts related to GHG emissions are dependent on the building size and VMT, therefore GHG emissions would not change by place the Project in another location. Therefore, analysis of an alternative site for the Project is neither meaningful nor necessary because the significant impacts resulting from the Project would not be avoided or substantially lessened by its implementation in an alternate location. As a result, this alternative was rejected from further consideration. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5)
Alternative to Eliminate GHG Impacts
he Project would result in a significant unavoidable impact due to the exceedance of the GHG emission significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, as determined in Draft EIR Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. The source of GHG emissions is mainly due to mobile source emissions from truck trips, which account for approximately 14,031.45 MTCO2e/yr or 77% attributed to mobile sources. The only way to reduce the GHG emissions impact to less than significant for this specific project and allow for similar industrial warehouse uses, consistent with the Town’s zoning, would be to reduce the building size and associated total daily truck trips. To reduce the Project-related GHG emissions from 18,176.56 MTCO2e/yr below the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, the Project would need to be reduced by 83.5%, resulting in an approximate 227,933 sf building, which represents a proportional decrease in automobile and truck trips and building square footage. An 83.5% reduction of the Project would not support the Project’s main objectives including the following:

A. To efficiently develop a vacant and underutilized property with industrial uses to help meet the regional demands for goods movement facilities. An 83.5% reduction in building square footage would not efficiently utilize the 92.73-acre Project site. Therefore, this alternative would not achieve this objective as effectively as the Project.

B. To expand economic development, facilitate job creation, and increase the tax base for the Town of Apple Valley by establishing new industrial development adjacent to established and planned industrial areas. This alternative would have 83.5% less building space than the Project and thus would not generate as much tax revenue as the Project.

Therefore, this alternative would not achieve this objective as effectively as the Project.

C. To attract new businesses to the Town of Apple Valley and thereby provide a more equal jobs-housing balance in the Inland Empire area that will reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment. The 83.5% reduction would not maximize job opportunities and would not contribute to a more equal jobs-housing balance in the Inland Empire.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 129 D. To make efficient use of a property in the Town of Apple Valley by maximizing its buildout potential for employment-generating uses. This alternative would attain this objective, but not to the extent of the Project since the reduced building size would also reduce the number of potential jobs created (when considering jobs are based on a certain number of employees per square foot of development).

E. To develop a Class A speculative industrial building in the Town of Apple Valley that is designed to meet contemporary industry standards, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. The 83.5% reduction of building space would not accommodate a wide variety of users and be economically competitive with similar buildings in the local area and region.

Therefore, this objective would not be achieved.

Moreover, while decreasing the size of the building on this specific site may reduce GHG emissions generated as a result of this specific Project, it is highly speculative whether it would result in any reduction of GHG emissions regionally or otherwise. Any reduction of the building size would fail to fully satisfy the demand for industrial building space in the area, thereby creating demand for that industrial building space at another location. The method of estimating GHG emissions for logistics facilities is highly dependent on the size of the facility, such that the estimated GHG emissions from a 500,000 SF facility would be substantially the same as the GHG emissions from two facilities of 400,000 SF and 100,000 SF. The GHG emissions resulting from the development of that additional industrial building space elsewhere may or may not exceed the reduction in GHG emissions associated with the reduction in building size at this Project site. Therefore, because this alternative fails to meet a majority of the Project Objectives and because the GHG emission reductions associated with this alternative are highly speculative (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145), the alternative was rejected from further consideration.

7.4.2 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
A. No Project/No Development Alternative
 Finding
The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that no development or improvements would occur on the Project site and the entire 92.73-acre site would remain as is. Under this alternative, no improvements would be made to the Project site and none of the Project’s internal parking, utility, and other infrastructure improvements would occur. Additionally, this alternative would eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation.

The Town finds that each of the reasons set forth below is an independent ground for rejecting the No Project/No Development Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of the No Project/No Development Alternative, and hereby rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 130  Substantial Evidence
The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that no development or improvements would occur on the Project site and the entire site would remain as is (vacant, undeveloped land). This alternative was selected by the Town as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site in its existing condition (as described in Draft EIR Section 2.0, Environmental Setting). (Draft EIR, p. 6-3)
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in any physical environmental changes to the Project site. This alternative would eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions and transportation (VMT). However, this alternative would not receive the environmental benefits from the implementation of stormwater drainage and water quality filtration features that would be constructed by the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-11) Additionally, The No Project/No Development Alternative would fail to meet all the Project Objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12)
B. No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative  Finding
The No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative would consider the development of the Project site with a use that conforms to the existing land use and zoning standards for the Project site, specifically the Office Professional (O-P) land use and O-P Zoning designation. This alternative would consider the development of one or more administration/professional office buildings at the Project site, which would contain individual office suites occupied by a range of professional tenants, for a total of 600,000 sf6
. The remaining areas of the Project site would be developed with parking areas, drive aisles, driveway(s), lighting, utility connections, stormwater treatment and conveyance facilities, and landscaped areas. Under this Alternative, vehicular access to the site would be similar to that which is proposed by the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3)
The Town finds that each of the reasons set forth below is an independent ground for rejecting the No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of the No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative, and hereby rejects the No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative.  Substantial Evidence
Assuming all administration/professional office uses on the Project site, the No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative would generate 4,698 daily trips, including 744 AM peak hour, and 708 PM peak hour trips, resulting in an increase of 1,898 daily, 532 AM peak hour, and 475 PM 6 Square footage reduced from Project to account for addition of parking spaces required (approximately 2,400 parking spaces) per Table 9.72.020 -A Required Parking Spaces of the Town’s Development Code (1 space per 250 sf of gross floor area, minimum of 4 spaces.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 131 peak hour trips compared to the Project. Trip generation under the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Office (Code 710) would generate more trips compared to the trip generation used for the Project which assumed 138,141 sf of general light industrial, 207,212 sf of high-cube cold storage warehouse use, and 1,036,059 sf of high-cube fulfillment (non-sort) center warehousing use. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-3 through 6-4)
The No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Designation Alternative would result in increased impacts during operation related to air quality and energy, due to the change to office use and associated increase in vehicular trips. Significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions and VMT would continue to occur from implementation of this alternative. Impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would be less than or similar to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-17)
The No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Designation Alternative would partially meet the Project Objectives (Objectives C and D), as described in Draft EIR Section 6.1.1. This alternative would not meet the following Project Objectives, due to the change in use from industrial to office:
(Draft EIR, pp. 6-17 through 6-18)
A. To efficiently develop a vacant and underutilized property with industrial uses to help meet the regional demands for goods movement facilities.

B. To expand economic development, facilitate job creation, and increase the tax base for the Town of Apple Valley by establishing new industrial development adjacent to established and planned industrial areas.

E. To develop a Class A speculative industrial building in the Town of Apple Valley that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region.

F. To develop an industrial building in close proximity to the I-15 and SR-18 freeways that can be used as part of the southern California goods movement network.

C. Reduced Intensity Alternative
 Finding
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would consider the development of the Project site with a 15 percent reduction in building square footage, in order to reduce impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions and transportation. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems due to the reduction in square footage and associated vehicular trips. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation would continue to occur

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 132 from implementation of this alternative. Impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, transportation, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the Project.

The Town finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and hereby rejects the Reduced Intensity Alternative.  Substantial Evidence
The Reduced Intensity Alternative was selected to reduce impacts associated with GHG and transportation. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would consider development of the Project site with a 15% reduction in building square footage. Under this alternative, a total of 1,174,200 sf of industrial uses would be constructed. This alternative would generate approximately 983 employees using an employment generation rate of 1 employee per 1,195 square feet for warehouse uses, compared to the 1,156 employees that would be generated by the Project. The development impact area would generally remain the same as the Project. Access to the site would be the same with a proportional reduction in the number of parking spaces. (Draft EIR, p. 6-4)
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, transportation, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-22)
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems due to the reduction in square footage and associated vehicular trips. (Draft EIR, p. 6-22) The significant and unavoidable impacts identified under the Project (GHG and transportation) would continue to occur under this alternative. (Draft EIR, p. 6-22) The Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet Project Objectives B, C, and F, as described in Draft EIR Section 6.1.1. As compared with the Project, this alternative would not meet the following objectives to the same extent, due to the reduced square footage and proportional reduction in employees: (Draft EIR, p. 6-22)
A. To efficiently develop a vacant and underutilized property with industrial uses to help meet the regional demands for goods movement facilities.

D. To make efficient use of a property in the Town of Apple Valley by maximizing its buildout potential for employment-generating uses.

E. To develop a Class A speculative industrial building in the Town of Apple Valley that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards, can accommodate a wide variety of

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 133 users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region.

Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the proposed building would not be able to maximize the use of the Project site. Additionally, the 15 percent reduction would reduce the amount of potential employment opportunities for community residents; therefore, the building would not be fully responsive to future local and regional trade demands. (Draft EIR, p. 6-22)

7.4.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (Draft EIR, p. 6-23)
The No Project/No Development Alternative has the least impact to the environment because it would not involve any construction activities or industrial operations. There would be no Project or cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions and VMT. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable for the Project. While this alternative would avoid the significant effects of the Project, it would not receive the environmental benefits from hydrology/water quality improvements.

Additionally, none of the Project Objectives would be met. (Draft EIR, p. 6-23) The Reduced Intensity Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project. As shown in Draft EIR Table 6-1, Comparison of Alternatives and Project-related Environmental Impacts, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have less impacts under six of the environmental topical areas. The reduction in impacts is due to the reduced building square footage and associated number of employees and trips, resulting in a reduction in impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, energy, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems impacts. However, this alternative would not eliminate the Project’s significant unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions and VMT. As shown in Draft EIR Table 6-2, Alternatives Attainment of Objectives, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would only partially meet some of the Project’s Objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 6-23)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 134

8.0 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS

8.4.1 RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
The Town finds that the Draft EIR does not require recirculation under CEQA (CEQA Section 21092.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).
(a) CEQA requires that the lead agency recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice of its availability has previously been given but prior to its certification. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; or
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. (c) If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified. (d) Recirculation of an EIR requires notice pursuant to Section 15087, and consultation pursuant to Section 15086.
(e) A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

The Final EIR documents minor revisions to the Draft EIR, including additional analysis to clarify or amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, Responses to Comments contained in the Final EIR fully considered and responded to comments claiming that the Project would have significant impacts or more severe impacts not disclosed in the Draft EIR. Moreover, the Responses to Comments include substantial evidence that none of these comments provided substantial evidence that the Project would result in changed circumstances, significant new information, considerably different mitigation measures, or new or more severe significant impacts than were discussed in the Draft EIR. In addition,

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 135 CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b) provides that “recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies and amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” Recirculation also is not required simply because new information is added to the EIR; rather, new information is oftentimes added given CEQA’s public/agency comment and response process and CEQA’s post-Draft EIR circulation requirement of proposed responses to comments submitted by public agencies.

The Town has thoroughly reviewed the public comments received regarding the Project and the Draft EIR to determine whether any of the public comments provide substantial evidence that would require recirculation of the EIR prior to its adoption.

8.4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
To the extent that these Findings conclude that the proposed mitigation measures outlined herein are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the Town hereby commits to implementing 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 approves the proposed Project. The mitigation measures that are referenced herein and adopted concurrently with these Findings will be effectuated through the process of construction and implementation of the proposed Project. In accordance with the Requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the Town must adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is incorporated herein by this reference. The Town reserves the right to make amendments and/or substitutions of mitigation measures if the Town determines that the amended or substituted mitigation measure will mitigate the identified potential environmental impacts to at least the same degree as the original mitigation measure, and where the amendment or substitution would not result in a new significant impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated.

8.4.3 CONSIDERATION OF RECORD; INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
In approving the proposed Project, the Town decision-makers have reviewed and considered the Draft EIR and appendices, the Final EIR and appendices, and all other pertinent evidence in the record of proceedings. All such materials and all other materials related to the EIR were extensively reviewed and, where appropriate, modified by the Planning Department or other Town representatives and/or peer review consultants. As such, the Draft EIR, Final EIR, technical studies, and all other related materials reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the Lead Agency.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 136

9.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and (b), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, require the Town, acting as the Lead Agency, to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the Project against its significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and determine whether those benefits of the Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts. If the Town finds that these benefits of the Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the Town may approve the Project.

As set forth in Section 4.0 above, the EIR identified all of the Project’s adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s impacts to less-than-significant level where feasible. As further set forth in Section 5.0, the EIR presents evidence that implementing the Project would cause or contribute to two impacts (greenhouse gas emissions and transportation) that would remain significant and unavoidable even after the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures.

Finally, as set forth in Section 7.0, herein, there are no feasible alternatives to the Project that would mitigate or avoid the Project’s significant and avoidable greenhouse gas emissions and transportation impacts to less-than-significant level while still attaining most of the Project’s basic objectives.

Based on the facts presented throughout this document, the EIR, and all other evidence in the record, the Town makes the following finding:

As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed Project, the Town has reviewed the Project description and the alternatives to the Project, as presented in the EIR, The Town finds and determines that:
(i) All of the significant impacts of the Project, except for greenhouse gas emissions and transportation, will be reduced to less-than significant levels by the mitigation measures described in the Final EIR and approved and adopted by these Findings; (ii) The Town’s approval of the Project will result in two significant adverse environmental effect (greenhouse gas emissions and transportation) that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (iii) All potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR, Final EIR and public testimony and there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that would further mitigate or avoid the remaining significant environmental effect. The significant effect related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation has not been mitigated to a less-than-significant level and is considered significant and unavoidable. Having considered the potential for the Project to cause or contribute to significant and unavoidable adverse impact related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation, the Town hereby determines that all feasible mitigation measures have been adopted to reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable impact

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 137 identified in the EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation or alternatives are available to further reduce or avoid significant impacts. (iv) Economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project outweigh the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact and approval of the Project is appropriate.

Despite the significant and unavoidable impact, it is the Town's considered judgment that the benefits offered by the proposed Apple Valley 84 Project outweigh its adverse effect. Each of the overriding considerations and Project benefits set forth below separately and individually outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effect (greenhouse gas emissions and transportation) identified in the EIR, and the Town therefore finds the impact to be acceptable. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that approval and implementation of the Project will provide the benefits listed below.

Each of the separate benefits listed below provides a separate and independent ground for the Town’s decision that the Project’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental impact identified in the EIR.

The Project would meet the following objectives:

A. To efficiently develop a vacant and underutilized property with industrial uses to help meet the regional demands for goods movement facilities.

B. To expand economic development, facilitate job creation, and increase the tax base for the Town of Apple Valley by establishing new industrial development adjacent to established and planned industrial areas.

C. To attract new businesses to the Town of Apple Valley and thereby provide a more equal jobshousing balance in the Inland Empire area that will reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

D. To make efficient use of a property in the Town of Apple Valley by maximizing its buildout potential for employment-generating uses.

E. To develop a Class A speculative industrial building in the Town of Apple Valley that is designed to meet contemporary industry standards, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region.

F. To develop an industrial building in close proximity to the I-15 and SR-18 freeways that can be used as part of the southern California goods movement network.

The Town finds that any one of these Project benefits standing alone would be sufficient to sustain the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 138

1. The Town of Apple Valley finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen Project impacts to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the Town of Apple Valley finds that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because, while they have similar or fewer environmental impacts, they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are they otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared to the Project, as described in the Statement of Facts and Findings.

With the exception of greenhouse gas emissions and transportation, based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIR, potential Project impacts are adequately reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the identified Project-level mitigation measures developed for the Project.

As discussed throughout the Draft EIR, there is no feasible mitigation to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation to a less than significant level. With the exception of the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Project alternatives would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts (refer to the discussion provided in Section 7.0). Elimination of the significant and unavoidable impact would require reducing the number of vehicle trips through a reduction in the size of the Project to a level that would result in a substantial underutilization of the Project site and would not meet the Project objectives. Further, any reduction in development area to reduce development and associated impacts would delay but would not avoid the future development of the Project site.

2. The Apple Valley 84 Project is consistent with and will contribute to achieving the goals and objectives established by the Town of Apple Valley General Plan. Implementing the Town’s General Plan as a policy is a legal and social prerogative of the Town.

The Town of Apple Valley General Plan designated the Project site as Office Professional (OP). The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the Town’s General Plan Land Use Map to modify the land use designation for the Project site from O-P to Regional Commercial (C-R) with I-N Industrial Overlay. Although the Project would result in a change to the General Plan land use designations for the Project site, these changes would not result in a conflict with applicable plans, polices, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing an environmental effect, as demonstrated in Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis of the Draft EIR. Accordingly, a less-than-significant environmental impact related to land use and planning would result from the Project.

Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis of the Draft EIR, provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with all applicable General Plan goals and policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As shown, the Project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan goals or policies. Accordingly, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 139

3. Apple Valley 84 Project will contribute towards implementing employment opportunities in the Town to improve the jobs-housing balance and to reduce unemployment within the Town. Jobs for residents at a variety of income levels will be provided.

The Project consists of the construction and operation of one industrial building totaling approximately 1,381,412 square feet. The Draft EIR estimates the Project would generate approximately 1,156 new employment opportunities. Thus, development of the Project would result in the creation of new jobs, which would be an increase over existing conditions where no employment opportunities currently exist. This increase in jobs would be an overall benefit to the local and regional economy, as discussed below.

As discussed in Section 5.4.3, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR, as of June 2025, the most current data available, the Town had a labor force of 29,300, employment of 27,200 with an unemployment population of 2,100, a 7.2% rate. According to the Town’s 2022-2029 Housing Element, 16.6 percent of the Town’s population works within the Town of Apple Valley and the remaining 83 percent work elsewhere, which suggests a jobs-housing imbalance within the Town limits. Therefore, the provision of additional jobs by maximizing employment in the Project area would support a better jobs-to-housing ratio, thereby reducing the need for long distance commutes. Additionally, as discussed below, the Project would generate shortterm construction-related opportunities.

4. Development and construction of the Apple Valley 84 Project will create both temporary and permanent onsite jobs and will indirectly support local and regional jobs.

Additionally, construction spending will create a one-time stimulus to the local and regional economies. Once the Project is completed, Apple Valley 84 will ultimately spur the creation of both local and regional jobs, and there would be additional output and earnings to the local and regional economies.

Temporary construction and long-term operational jobs created by the Project would result in increased spending throughout the region, including in the Town of Apple Valley. It is anticipated that annual personal earnings would increase through the generation of new jobs, and these earnings would ripple through the local and regional economy, creating a one-time increase in output and earnings associated with construction jobs and an on-going increase in output and earnings associated with permanent jobs. Employment generation associated with operation of the proposed building is discussed under Item 3, above. Refer to Exhibit A, Apple Valley 84 Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis.

5. The Apple Valley 84 Project will help meet the existing demand for high-quality, largescale, high cube warehouse/distribution centers within a geographic area that allows for access to a multi-modal transportation system.

The Project site is located in close proximity to the State highway system such as Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Route 18 (SR-18) and is situated astride the regional transportation network.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 140 Due to the Project site’s proximity to State highway systems, development of the site with the Project would efficiently facilitate the movement of goods. The Project will help to fulfill southern California’s unconstrained demand for warehousing space (i.e., demand without accounting for the amount of suitably zoned land for future development), which is estimated to be approximately 1.81 billion square feet by the year 2040, as projected by SCAG7 . In doing
so, the Project will further diversify the Town’s economy and secure the Town’s position in the regional, State, and international marketplace.

6. The Apple Valley 84 Project will provide new development that will generate revenues for the Town in the years and decades ahead. Once construction is completed, the facility will annually generate additional Town revenue. This increased revenue from the development will be driven by sales tax and property tax as documented in the Fiscal Impact Analysis (Exhibit A).

The Project would have a positive fiscal impact on the Town of Apple Valley through construction and development of the Project, as well as throughout the life of the Project. The construction and development of the site would produce an economic stimulus as a result of the payment of one-time fees and recurring revenues. An Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project in November 2025 by Andrew Chang & Company (see Exhibit A). At Project buildout, the Project is expected to generate approximately $11.7 million in property and sales tax revenues cumulatively by 2030. The construction and ongoing business activity of the Project is projected to increase the Town’s economic output by $1.9 billion cumulatively by 2030. Construction activities will result in approximately $120 million of economic output in 2026. Operations of the tenants are slated to start in 2027 and is expected to increase the economic output within the Town by $450 million on an ongoing basis.

In summary, as documented in the Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis (Exhibit A):

1. The proposed project is expected to inject approximately $1.8 billion cumulatively into the local economy by 2030 as a result of construction and ongoing tenant operations in the project facilities. (Figure 6.1 of Exhibit A)

2. As a result of the direct infusion of monies, approximately 1,800 permanent jobs are expected to be created annually within the local economy both directly and indirectly as a result of tenant operations. (Figure 7.1 of Exhibit A)

3. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately $340 million in Town residents’ personal earnings cumulatively by 2030. (Figure 8.1 of Exhibit A) 7 SCAG. (April 2018). Southern California Association of Governments Industrial Warehousing Supply. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/industrial_warehousing_report_- _revised_2018.pdf?1605989650

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 141

4. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately $1.9 billion in cumulative economic output by 2030. (Figure 9.1 of Exhibit A)

5. The Town is projected to collect approximately $11.7 million in additional sales and property taxes by 2030 as a result of the proposed project. (Table 10.1 of Exhibit A)

7. Apple Valley 84 will provide infrastructure and circulation improvements required to meet Project and local needs in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

The Project would provide infrastructure needed to serve its proposed use. Water, wastewater, drainage, and dry utility lines that would be installed as part of the Project are described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR.

Additionally, as described in Section 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR, the following improvements to adjacent roadways would be completed as part of the Project:
• Widen Wrangler Road and Stoddard Wells Road to their ultimate sections and construct Johnson Road along the Project frontage
• Construct a total of four (4) driveways: one on the northeast along Johnson Road, two on the southwest along Wrangler Road, and one on the southeast along Stoddard Wells Road. • Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road and Wrangler Road.

In conclusion, the Town finds after consideration of the Final EIR and the evidence in the record, that each of the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project as set out above independently and collectively outweighs the identified significant adverse environmental impact and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. The Town further finds that each of the individual benefits discussed above outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and, therefore, finds those impacts to be acceptable. The Town further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the Town Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.

The reasons for approval cited above are not unitary, so that even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the Town determines that each remaining reason standing alone would be sufficient to justify approval of the Project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the Final EIR and the CEQA Findings, above, which are incorporated by reference into the documents found in the administrative record. On the basis of the Findings made in Sections 3.0 through 8.0 included herewith, and the substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding, it is specifically found that there are significant benefits of the Project in spite of the unavoidable significant impacts. It is further found that, as part of the process of obtaining Project approval, all significant effects on the environment from implementation of the Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible. Any remaining significant

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 142 effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are found to be acceptable due to the abovediscussed specific overriding economic, technical, legal, social and other considerations.

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 143

10.0 ADDITIONAL FACTS ON RECORD

10.1 CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the Town of Apple Valley, Planning Department, 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, CA 92307. The custodian for these records is David Contreras, Planning Director. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 144 Exhibit A
Apple Valley 84
Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Apple Valley 84 Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2025100104
Prepared for:

Town of Apple Valley
14955 Dale Evans Pkwy
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Prepared by:

T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
714-505-6360
May 2026

Lead Agency: Town of Apple Valley SCH No. 2025100104

CEQA Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document that includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes to the project that it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. The appropriate reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code §21081.6; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15091(d)).

The Town of Apple Valley will coordinate the monitoring of the mitigation measures and regulatory requirements with each applicable Town department or division, while various Town departments/divisions would be responsible for monitoring and verifying compliance of specific mitigation measures and regulatory requirements (see the beginning on page 3). Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure and regulatory requirement has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure and regulatory requirement; and 3) retention of records in the project file.

Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed Apple Valley 84 (the “Project”) include the following:
• To efficiently develop a vacant and underutilized property with industrial uses to help meet the regional demands for goods movement facilities.
• To expand economic development, facilitate job creation, and increase the tax base for the Town of Apple Valley by establishing new industrial development adjacent to established and planned industrial areas.
• To attract new businesses to the Town of Apple Valley and thereby provide a more equal jobshousing balance in the Inland Empire area that will reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.
• To make efficient use of a property in the Town of Apple Valley by maximizing its buildout potential for employment-generating uses.
• To develop a Class A speculative industrial building in the Town of Apple Valley that is designed to meet contemporary industry standards, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. • To develop an industrial building in close proximity to the I-15 and SR-18 freeways that can be used as part of the southern California goods movement network.

Lead Agency: Town of Apple Valley SCH No. 2025100104

Overview of the Project
The Project Applicant, Covington Development Partners Inc., is seeking approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2024-001, Zone Change (ZC) 2024-007, Development Code Amendment (DCA) 2024-001, Development Permit – Major Project 2025-013, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 21034, and Development Agreement for the construction and operation of one industrial building totaling approximately 1,381,412 square feet (sf), including 15,000 sf of office space and 15,000 sf of mezzanine space (the “Project”). Refer to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR for a detailed description of the Project.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
This MMRP delegates responsibilities for monitoring the implementation of the Apple Valley 84 Project mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements and allows responsible Town entities flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure or regulatory requirement. The timing for monitoring and reporting is described in the monitoring and reporting summary table, below.

Adequate monitoring requires demonstration of monitoring procedures and implementation of mitigation measures and regulatory requirements.

In order to enhance the effectiveness of the monitoring program, the Town will utilize existing systems where appropriate. These inspectors are familiar with a broad range of regulatory issues and will provide first line oversight for much of the monitoring program during construction activities.

Program Changes
If changes are required to this MMRP, they will be made in accordance with CEQA and applicable provisions of the Town’s Municipal Code. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities and/or modifications to mitigation measures that achieve the same or better end results. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6.

Lead Agency: Town of Apple Valley SCH No. 2025100104

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

4.1 Aesthetics
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project
conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? Would the Project have
a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Threshold b: Would the Project
substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold c: 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 point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Threshold d: Would the Project create
a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact

4.2 Air Quality
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project
conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
MM 4.2-1 During construction, the construction contractor shall, at the minimum, use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits put forth by Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1113.

Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10 grams per liter of VOC or less for all interior and exterior building coatings. Alternatively, the applicant may utilize tilt-up a concrete building that does not require the use of architectural coatings. This mitigation measure shall be noted on construction drawings verified Project Applicant Town of Apple
Valley Planning
Division
During construction Less than Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Lead Agency: Town of Apple Valley SCH No. 2025100104

THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
by the Town of Apple Valley prior to issuance of any construction permits and during coating activities.

Threshold b: Would the Project result
in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1 would apply. Refer to MM 4.2-1 above
Refer to MM 4.2-1
above
Refer to MM 4.2-1 above Less-than-Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Threshold c: Would the Project
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Threshold d: Would the Project result
in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of people?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact

4.3 Biological Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: 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?
MM 4.3-1 A 30-day pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owl in compliance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012 (or most recent version), shall be conducted prior to initial ground-disturbing activities (including vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.) to safeguard that no owls have colonized the Project site.

If Burrowing Owls have colonized the Project site prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall immediately inform the Town of Apple Valley to determine if “take” would occur and coordinate with CDFW if impacts to burrowing owl cannot be fully avoided to obtain an incidental take permit.

If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the Project site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, another pre-construction survey shall be conducted no less than fourteen (14) days prior to resuming ground-disturbing activities to safeguard that Burrowing Owl has not colonized the Project since it was last disturbed. If Burrowing Owls are found, the same coordination with CDFW in conjunction with the Town of Apple Valley described above shall be required.

Qualified biologist Town of Apple
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to initial grounddisturbing activitiesLess-than-Significant Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Lead Agency: Town of Apple Valley SCH No. 2025100104

THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
MM 4.3-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall obtain authorization from CDFW under the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (WJTCA) and a native plant removal permit from the Town of Apple Valley for removal of any native desert plant that is protected by the Town of Apple Valley Plant Protection and Management Policy (Chapter 9.76), the County of San Bernardino’s Desert Native Plant Protection, the State Desert Native Plants Act (i.e., Food and Agricultural Code 80001 et seq.), and the WJTCA. The Project Applicant shall transplant impacted trees where feasible with priority given to smaller individuals, and provide compensatory mitigation as required (e.g., payment of WJTCA in-lieu fees into the state WJT Conservation Fund and/or purchase of conservation bank credits) at agency-approved ratios.

Additionally, the Project Applicant shall avoid impacting clusters of cacti (e.g., silver cholla) where practicable by flagging/fencing them for avoidance. Where avoidance is not feasible, salvage whole cactus plants and/or pads prior to grading, and transplant them into protected open-space areas on the Project site or to an agencyapproved off-site receiver location.

Project Applicant CDFW and Town of
Apple Valley
Planning Department
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
MM 4.3-3 Prior to construction activities, a qualified Biologist shall develop and implement a worker environmental awareness program
(WEAP) to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to Burrowing Owl and Western Joshua Tree
protection. The training shall occur prior to construction activities and educate workers on sensitive wildlife and native plants that could occur on site, clarify that collection or harm of such resources is strictly prohibited, review all relevant permit conditions (including any issued under the WJTCA), and outline stop-work and notification procedures in the event any protected species (or other unanticipated biological resource) is encountered during work.

Qualified biologist Town of Apple
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to construction
activities
MM 4.3-4 In order to ensure that construction activities are limited to the Project site boundaries, prior to the issuance of grading permits, a note shall be placed on the grading plan verified by the Town Engineer, which requires delineation of the limits of disturbance.

Limits of grading and construction activities shall be clearly delineated with temporary construction staking, flagging, or similar materials. All workers and equipment shall confine activities within these defined limits to avoid inadvertent disturbance outside the approved impact area.

Project Applicant Town of Apple
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits

Lead Agency: Town of Apple Valley SCH No. 2025100104

THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
MM 4.3-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a note shall be placed on the grading plan verified by the Town Engineer that the limits of disturbance are clear of debris, trash, and food waste that could attract wildlife. Trash shall be secured in containers and removed from the site regularly. To prevent the introduction or spread of invasive weeds, ensure all construction equipment arrives clean (free of mud or plant debris) and, where feasible, use only weed-free materials (e.g. mulch, fill). Promptly stabilize or re-vegetate any temporarily disturbed soils with native seed or plants per agencyapproved plans.

Project Applicant Town of Apple
Valley Engineering
Department
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
MM 4.3-8 Prior to commencement of ground disturbing Project activities, a focused visual encounter pre- construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within suitable habitat for MGS .

The survey shall be conducted on the Project site’s limits of disturbance within suitable habitat for Mohave ground squirrel during daylight hours by the qualified biologist who holds a CDFW Memorandum of Understanding for MGS and other species. If the survey or monitoring confirms presence, the Project Proponent shall contact CDFW immediately (within 24 hours) and fully avoid all impacts to Mohave ground squirrel or obtain an incidental take permit.

Project Applicant Town of Apple
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to ground-disturbing
activities
MM 4.3-9 Prior to initial ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused pre-activity clearance survey for desert tortoise and desert tortoise sign within the Project site, prior to Project activities and adjacent accessible areas where Project activities could affect the species. The pre-construction clearance survey methods will be consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2019 desert tortoise survey guidance (USFWS, 2019). The survey shall utilize survey routes that provide 100-percent visual coverage for desert tortoise and their sign. If desert tortoise is observed, or if project activities may affect desert tortoise and complete avoidance is not feasible, work in the affected area shall stop and the Project Proponent shall coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine and obtain any required approvals or authorizations before activities resume. Project activities shall fully avoid impacts to desert tortoise to the maximum extent practicable or obtain a ESA/CESA
authiroizations if impacts are unavoidable.

Project Applicant Town of Apple
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to ground-disturbing
activities