Apple Valley City Council
August 25, 2026

APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA

Tuesday, August 25, 2026, 6:30 p.m.

Council Chamber
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES UPON ENTERING THE CHAMBER. THIS MEETING IS BROADCAST LIVE ON FRONTIER CHANNEL 29, CHARTER SPECTRUM CHANNEL 186, AND STREAMED AT HTTPS://APPLEVALLEY.TV.

THIS MEETING IS CONDUCTED AS A HYBRID MEETING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (SB 707). THE PUBLIC MAY ATTEND IN PERSON OR JOIN REMOTELY VIA

MICROSOFT TEAMS WEBINAR USING THE LINK OR DIAL-IN INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS AGENDA. THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

FUNCTIONALITY OF ANY PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICE USED TO ACCESS THIS MEETING.

TEAMS LINK: HTTPS://AV.TOWN/JOINCOUNCIL
DIAL IN: +1 831-753-3249 PHONE CONFERENCE ID: 879 093 323# TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT REMOTELY, USE THE "RAISE HAND" FUNCTION IN TEAMS WHEN THE PRESIDING OFFICER CALLS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. YOU MAY ALSO EMAIL [email protected] BY 12:00 P.M. ON THE MEETING DATE TO HAVE YOUR COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.

The meeting is held in the Council Chamber at 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, CA. This agenda is posted at least 72 hours in advance per the Brown Act. The agenda, supporting documents, and meeting videos are available at www.applevalley.org. Late-submitted materials are available for inspection in the Town Clerk's Office during normal business hours.

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be acted upon together unless the Town Council directs otherwise.

Members of the public may address the Town Council on any agenda item or matter within its jurisdiction. In person: submit the yellow Request to Speak card. Remotely: use the "Raise Hand" function in Teams when called upon. All speakers are limited to three (3) minutes and must direct comments through the Presiding Officer.

No action or discussion may be taken on items not appearing on the posted agenda per Government Code Section 54954.3.

Disruptive conduct is a misdemeanor under PC403 and may result in removal from the chamber, disconnection from the remote platform, or arrest.

For disability accommodations, contact the Town Clerk's Office at (760) 240-7000 at least two working days before the meeting.

Pages

1. Call to Order

2. Opening Ceremonies

2.1 Invocation
Pastor Johnny Lewis, Grace Christian Community Church, Apple Valley

2.2 Pledge of Allegiance

2.3 Presentations
Silvia Urenda, Assistant Director of Economic Development and Housing, presentation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Recipients.

Brett Morgan, Streets Supervisor, Presentation on Street Signs

3. Public Comments

4. Councilmember Committee/Commission/Community Participation 7 Councilmembers to make brief reports on their participation on committees, boards, and commissions on the Town’s behalf since the last meeting.

Councilmembers may also make brief reports on their community participation.

No formal action will be taken.

5. Town Council Announcements

5.1 Suggested items for next Agenda

5.2 Time, Date & Place for Next Town Council Regular or Special Meeting A. Regular Meeting – September 8, 2026 - Council Chambers Regular Session at 6:30 p.m.

6. Town Council Consent Agenda
Recommended Motion:

To approve the Consent Calendar items numbered 6.1 to 6.4 as recommended.

6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9
That the Town Council approve the subject minutes as part of the consent agenda.

6.2 APPROVE FINAL PARCEL MAP 20294 15
Move to accept the final map for Parcel Map No. 20294.

6.3 EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH EAGLE REAL

ESTATE INVESTMENT GROUP LLC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

SENIOR HOUSING ON TOWN OWNED PROPERTY
25 That the Town Council conduct a Public Hearing; and
A. Approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the Town and Eagle Real Estate Investment Group LLC.

B. Authorize the Town Manager to execute the Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement (ENA).

6.4 RE-ADOPTION OF AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTIONS NOS 2026-23, 2026-24, AND 2026-25 ASSESSMENT AND LIEN

PROCEEDINGS
44 That the Town Council adopt the following Amended and Restated Resolutions:

A. Amended and Restated Resolution No. 2026-23, approving the levy and collection of Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessments within the Apple Valley Village Property and Business Improvement District (PBID);
B. Amended and Restated Resolution No. 2026-24, confirming delinquent animal control, utility, and code enforcement fees and costs against real property and directing that the charges constitute liens and be collected on the County property tax roll; and
C. Amended and Restated Resolution No. 2026-25, confirming the diagram and assessment and levying the Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessment for Assessment District No. 1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

7. Public Hearings

7.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 2024-001, ZONE CHANGE (ZC) 2024-007, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2024-001,
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (DP) 2025-013, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
(TPM) NO. 21034, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2026-003,
55 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH#2025100104 FOR
APPLE VALLEY 84 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INCLUDING 1.38

MILLION SQ FT E-COMMERCE FACILITY AND RELATED SITE

IMPROVEMENTS
That the Town Council hold a public hearing and;
A. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-27 certifying EIR report (SCH #2025100104) and adopting CEQA findings for the Apple Valley 84 Development Project and direct Staff to file a Notice of Determination;
B. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-28 adopting the General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2024-001;
C. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-29 adopting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 21034 and Development Permit (DP) 2025-013, effective upon the Zone Change-Development Code Amendment
ordinance and the Development Agreement ordinance going into effect;
D. Move to Introduce Ordinance No. 577 adopting Zone Change (ZC) 2024-007, changing zoning from Office Professional (O-P) to Regional Commercial (C-R) and Industrial Ecommerce
Overlay (I-N);
E. Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 577 in its entirety and read by title only;
F. Move to Introduce Ordinance No. 578 approving Development Agreement2026-003 between the Town of Apple Valley and
Apple 84 LLC;
G. Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 578 in its entirety and read by title only.

H. Direct the Town Clerk to schedule both Ordinances 577 and Ordinance 578 for a second reading and adoption at the next regularly scheduled Town Council meeting.

7.2 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 579 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN

COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2026-002 BETWEEN THE

TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY AND COV APPLE VALLEY, LLC IN
CONNECTION WITH THE APPLE VALLEY 143
373

PROJECT (2.52 MILLION SQ FT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSING AND

RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE)
That the Town Council conduct a public hearing and;
A. Find that the environmental impacts of this Project were previously reviewed in conjunction with the Apple Valley 143 Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2022070019) which was certified by the Planning Commission on November 15, 2023. This Development Agreement is
consistent with the previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (the “Certified EIR”) and introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and

1. The previous Certified EIR contains a complete and
accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and

2. The previous Certified EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder;
and

3. The previous Certified EIR reflects the independent
judgment of the Planning Commission; and

4. The proposed Development Agreement for the Project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the previous Certified EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted with the Certified EIR, are incorporated herein by this reference.

B. Find that the provisions of Development Agreement 2026-002 are:

1. Consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan;

2. Compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located; and

3. Not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.

C. Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 579 in its entirety and read by title only.

D. Move to introduce Ordinance No. 579 approving Development Agreement 2026-002 between the Town of Apple Valley and COV Apple Valley, LLC.

E. Direct Staff to file a Notice of Determination.

8. Business of the Council

9. Reports, Requests and Communications

10. Town Manager’s Comments & Legislative Update

11. Closed Session
Recommended Motion:

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

11.1 CLOSED SESSION 417
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (120
DAY)
Title: Town Manager

12. Adjournment
Recommended Motion:

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

TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY

TOWN COUNCIL SERVING ON BOARDS, COMMITTEES & COMMISSIONS

CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES

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

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

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

Town Council Chambers

TOWN PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
Mayor Nassif
Council Member Bishop
Meets as needed

PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mayor Nassif
Council Member Emick

AD HOC COMMITTEES

APPLE VALLEY ROAD AD HOC COMMITTEE
Mayor Nassif

VILLAGE MERCHANTS AD HOC COMMITTEE
Council Member Emick

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CRITERIA

AD-HOC COMMITTEE
Council Member Bishop
Mayor Pro-Tem Leon

AGENCY - BOARDS/COMMITTEES &

COMMISSIONS

CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE

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

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

MOJAVE DESERT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

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

MOJAVE DESERT AND MOUNTAIN RECYCLING

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

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION

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

San Bernardino

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

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

VICTOR VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

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

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

VICTOR VALLEY WASTEWATER RECLAMATION

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

VVWRA Offices

GREATER HIGH DESERT CHAMBERS

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

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 25, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: APPROVAL OF MINUTES

From: Guy Eisenbrey, Town Manager
Submitted by: Kiel Mangerino, Acting Town Clerk
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

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

SUMMARY:

A. Special Meeting, August 13, 2026

Apple Valley Special Council

MINUTES
August 13, 2026, 3:00 p.m.

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

1. Call To Order

2. Opening Ceremonies

1. Invocation

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Public Comments
David Dencker
Kathlene Bohanon
Jennifer White
Matthew Rutledge
Mario Maunu

4. Councilmember Committee/Commission/Community Participation Council Member Emick commented on meetings and events he attended.

Council Member Bishop commented on meetings and events he attended.

Council Member Cusack commented on meetings and events he attended.

Mayor Pro-Tem Leon commented on meetings and events she attended.

Mayor Nassif commented on meetings and events he attended.

TC Minutes Special Meeting August 13, 2026
2 5. Town Council Announcements

1. Suggested items for next Agenda
Council Member Bishop, asked for staff to place an item concerning an update on the Bear Valley Rd Bridge; electric scooters and bikes; zone zero information.

2. Time, Date & Place for Next Town Council Regular or Special Meeting A. Regular Meeting - August 25, 2026 - Council Chambers Regular Session at 6:30p.m.

6. Town Council Consent Agenda

PUBLIC COMMENTS
David Dencker spoke on item 6.2
Motion by: Mayor Pro Tem Leon
Seconded by: Council Member Cusack
To approve the Consent Calendar items numbered 6.1 to 6.4 as recommended.

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

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

2. JULY 2026 COMMERCIAL WARRANTS AND WIRE TRANSFER

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

3. JULY 2026 PAYROLL/BENEFITS WARRANTS SCHEDULE
That the Town Council receive, ratify and file the payroll/benefits warrants as presented.

TC Minutes Special Meeting August 13, 2026
3 4. APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2026-26 AMENDING THE PERSONNEL

POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR THE TOWN OF APPLE
VALLEY
Approve Resolution No. 2026-26, A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley, California, amending the Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual for the Town of Apple Valley.

7. Public Hearings

8. Business of the Council

1. ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDING AND APPROVAL OF SAN BERNARDINO

COUNTY CONTRACT AND USE OF QUIMBY FUND MATCH FOR THE

CIVIC CENTER PARK PICKLEBALL COURTS PROJECT
That the Town Council:

A. Accept funding and approve the contract with the County of San Bernardino in the amount of $675,000 towards the construction of the Civic Center Park Pickleball Courts Project.

B. Authorize the Town Manager to execute the County contract and any associated non-substantive documents necessary to administer the agreement.

C. Approve the use of Quimby Act Funds to satisfy the Town's required 25 percent local match for the project.

D. Authorize staff to advertise the project for competitive bids and return to the Town Council for award of a construction contract in accordance with the Town's Purchasing Policy.

Debbie Rivera, Parks and Recreation Director, presented the staff report as filed with the Town Clerk.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Thurston Smith
Patrick Doran
Romy Obrique
David Dencker

TC Minutes Special Meeting August 13, 2026
4 Mario Maunu
Steven Taylor
Matthew Rutledge
Alex Byron
Motion by: Council Member Bishop
Seconded by: Council Member Cusack
A. Accept funding and approve the contract with the County of San Bernardino in the amount of $675,000 towards the construction of the Civic Center Park Pickleball Courts Project.

B. Authorize the Town Manager to execute the County contract and any associated non-substantive documents necessary to
administer the agreement.

C. Approve the use of Quimby Act Funds to satisfy the Town's required 25 percent local match for the project.

D. Authorize staff to advertise the project for competitive bids and return to the Town Council for award of a construction contract in accordance with the Town's Purchasing Policy.

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

9. Reports, Requests and Communications

10. Town Manager's Comments
Guy Eisenbrey, Town Manager, commented on legislative issues and events happening in the Town of Apple Valley.

11. Closed Session

PUBLIC COMMENT
David Dencker spoke on 11.1(B)
Motion by: Council Member Emick
Seconded by: Council Member Bishop

TC Minutes Special Meeting August 13, 2026
5 To Adjourn the special meeting to move into Closed Session at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the following:

Carried

1. CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (120 DAY)
Title: Town Manager
B.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property:……………… 21777 US Highway 18, Apple Valley, CA
Agency Negotiator:…...Town Manager
Negotiating Parties:…..Bank of America
Under Negotiation:……Price and Terms of Payment
Upon returning from Closed Session, Town Attorney Albert Maldonado reported that, due to time constraints, the Town Council did not discuss Closed Session Item A, Public Employee Performance Evaluation. Mr.

Maldonado further reported that, with respect to Closed Session Item B, Conference with Real Property Negotiators, Council Member Cusack and Mayor Nassif recused themselves from participating due to a potential conflict of interest. There was no reportable action taken on this item.

12. Adjournment
Motion by: Council Member Cusack
Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Leon
To adjourn the meeting of the Apple Valley Town Council at 5:46 p.m.

Carried
__________________________
Scott Nassif, Mayor
_______________________________
Kiel E. Mangerino, Acting Town Clerk

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 25, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: APPROVE FINAL PARCEL MAP 20294
From: Guy Eisenbrey, Town Manager
Submitted by: Richard Pedersen, Town Engineer
Engineering Department
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Move to accept the final map for Parcel Map No. 20294.

BACKGROUND
The Town of Apple Valley received a request from the applicant to subdivide approximately 4.8 acres into two (2) parcels and one (1) remainder parcel. The proposed lots are located 330’ north of Cayman Rd on the west side of Mesquite Road. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the Tentative Parcel Map on May 5th, 2024.

ANALYSIS
The applicant, Nathan A. Aguirre, has complied with all conditions of approval placed on Tentative Parcel Map No. 20294. The Final Map is consistent with Tentative Map. Under state law, if the final map is consistent with the tentative map and all conditions of the tentative map have been fulfilled, the final map must be accepted.

FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant has paid all required application and plan check fees.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Parcel Map 20294
C. Conditions of Approval

LOCATION MAP

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 25, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH EAGLE REAL

ESTATE INVESTMENT GROUP LLC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

SENIOR HOUSING ON TOWN OWNED PROPERTY
From: Guy Eisenbrey, Town Manager
Submitted by: Silvia Urenda, Assistant Director of Economic Development and Housing
Economic and Community Development Department
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council conduct a Public Hearing; and
A. Approve the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the Town and Eagle Real Estate Investment Group LLC.

B. Authorize the Town Manager to execute the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA).

BACKGROUND
The Town owns approximately 4.6 acres located at the corner of Dale Evans Parkway and Thunderbird Road, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 0441-133-01. Eagle Real Estate Investment Group LLC (Developer) has expressed interest in developing the property as an affordable senior housing community consisting of approximately 120 units, inclusive of community amenities.

Prior to considering the potential development of the property, the Town completed the applicable requirements under the Surplus Land Act. In April 2021, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-09 declaring the property surplus pursuant to Government Code Section 54220 et seq. The Town subsequently issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) on July 1, 2021. In October 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a letter determining that the Town had satisfied the applicable requirements of the Surplus Land Act for purposes of disposing of the property.

With these requirements completed, Town staff and Eagle Real Estate Investment Group LLC are working together to evaluate preliminary development concepts and determine whether continued negotiations regarding the potential development of the property are appropriate. The proposed ENA would establish a defined period during which the Town and Developer would negotiate exclusively and in good faith regarding the potential development of the property.

ANALYSIS
The purpose of the ENA is to provide the Town and Developer with a period of five hundred fifty (550) days commencing on the effective date to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed development and negotiate the terms of a potential future agreement governing development and disposition or use of the Property.

During the ENA period, the parties may evaluate and negotiate matters including:
 Project design, density and unit mix;
 Affordable housing requirements and agreements;
 Proposed property disposition;
 Project financing and funding sources;
 Infrastructure and public improvement requirements;
 Development schedule;
 Residual Receipts Loan (RRL)
 Entitlement and environmental review requirements; and  Other terms necessary to determine the feasibility of the proposed project.

The ENA does not constitute approval of the proposed development or commit the Town to sell, lease, convey, or otherwise dispose of the Property. Any future agreement involving development or disposition of the Property would be brought back to the Town Council for consideration and approval.

The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies). Approval of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) will allow the Town and Eagle Real Estate Investment Group LLC to continue evaluating and negotiating the feasibility and terms of potential senior housing development on the property. The ENA does not constitute approval of the proposed development, authorize any physical development of the property, or commit the Town to the disposition of the property or approval of any future development agreement.

Any future development proposal resulting from the ENA will be subject to the appropriate environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to consideration or approval by the Town.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the ENA does not obligate the Town to provide financial assistance to the proposed project. Any future Town financial contribution, property conveyance, ground

lease, or other financial commitment would be subject to separate Town Council consideration and approval.

VISION ALIGNMENT
The proposed ENA supports the Town of Apple Valley’s Vision and its commitment to maintaining “A Better Way of Life” by encouraging responsible development, expanding housing opportunities, and planning for the long-term needs of the community.

The proposed senior housing development is consistent with this vision by creating an opportunity to expand the Town’s housing supply and provide additional housing choices for Apple Valley’s aging population. The project also represents the potential productive use of Town-owned property to support community needs and encourage investment within the Town.

Entering into the ENA would allow the Town and Developer to further evaluate the proposed project, including its design, affordability, financing, community benefits, and overall feasibility, before any final development or property disposition agreement is considered by the Town Council.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
B. HCD Surplus Land Disposition

1 EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
AND

EAGLE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT GROUP LLC
THIS EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is dated as of August 11, 2026, for reference purposes only, and is entered into by and between the TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, a California municipal corporation (“Town”) and EAGLE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Developer”). Town and Developer are sometimes referred in this Agreement individually, as a “Party” and, collectively, as the “Parties.” This Agreement is entered into by the Parties with reference to the following recited facts (each, a “Recital”):

RECITALS
A. Town is the fee owner of that certain real property located at 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, for Surplus Land Act (the “Act”) disposal purposes, (APN: 0441-133-01), in the Town of Apple Valley and State of California more specifically described in Exhibit A ("Property"); and
B. On April 27, 2021, the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley adopted Resolution No. 2021-09, which declared the Property surplus, pursuant to Government Code Section 54220 of the Act and issued Notices of Availability (“NOA”) on July 1, 2021; and
C. On or about October 23, 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) issued a letter to the Town determining that the Town had met all the requirements under the Act for the purposes of disposing of the Property; and
D. On August 25, 2026 Town selected the Developer, to partner with Town to develop approximately 4.60 acres of the Property for an affordable senior housing (“Project”); and
E. Town and Developer wish to negotiate to reach agreement on the terms and conditions for the sale of the Property by Town, the design, construction, and development of the Project, continued maintenance and security for the Property, as well as the operation of the Property to fulfill requirements of the Project and the intent to provide affordable housing. The negotiated agreement(s) would provide the terms and conditions for the design, financing, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Project; and
F. The intent of both Town and Developer in entering into this Agreement is to establish a specific period of time to negotiate regarding a future agreement between

2 them governing the potential acquisition of the Property and development of the Project on the Property, all subject to mutually agreeable terms, conditions, covenants, restrictions and agreements to be negotiated and documented in a future disposition and development agreement (“DDA”).

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS

AND PROMISES SET FORTH HEREIN, DEVELOPER AND TOWN HEREBY AGREE, AS FOLLOWS:

AGREEMENT

1. Agreement to Negotiate in Good Faith. Town and Developer agree that for the term of the “Negotiating Period” (as defined in Section 2 hereof) each Party shall diligently and in good faith attempt to negotiate the terms of the DDA for consideration by the Apple Valley Town Council (the “Town Council”). During the Negotiating Period, Town agrees to negotiate exclusively with Developer, and not to negotiate with any other person or entity, with regard to the sale or other disposition of the Property.

1.1 Without limitation, among the issues to be addressed in the negotiations for the DDA are: (1) the transfer of the Property by the Town to Developer; (2) the proposed design for the Project, architectural drawings detailing the Project, including, but not limited, to the design and type of required structures to be constructed; (3) the development schedule for the proposed Project; (4) a budget that sets forth the costs and fees to design, build, operate, and maintain the Project (including a sources and uses budget) (“Project Budget”); (5) the operational procedures for selecting tenants and managing the Project as affordable housing; (6) terms and conditions for the continued maintenance of the Property and operation of the Project; (7) terms and conditions for Developer seeking outside funding; (8) a regulatory agreement, or other similar agreement, that provides for a eligibility for occupancy based on income, affordability, and any other special need restrictions; (9) design or architectural requirements; (10) a schedule of performance; (11) the Town residual receipts loan (“RRL”) and (12) terms and conditions for regulatory compliance, including, but not limited to, the requisite environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

2. Negotiating Period. The rights and duties of the Parties established by this Agreement shall commence on the date that the Parties each execute this Agreement (the “Effective Date”). The negotiating period (the “Negotiating Period”) shall be for a period of five hundred and fifty (550) days, commencing on the Effective Date. The Town Manager of Town, or his or her designee, shall have the right, in his or her sole discretion, to extend the Negotiating Period for up to an additional one hundred twenty (120) days, resulting in a total potential Negotiating Period of up to six hundred and seventy (670) days. Upon the expiration of the Negotiating Period, or upon the Parties’ signing the DDA for the Property, this Agreement shall automatically terminate, without further written notice or action by either Party. Upon such automatic termination, the Parties acknowledge and agree that neither Party shall have any further rights or remedies as to the other, except as specifically set forth herein.

3 3. Developer Acknowledgments. The Developer hereby acknowledges and agrees that no provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be an offer by the Town (or an acceptance by the Town of any offer or proposal from the Developer to convey any interest in the Property to the Developer). The Developer further agrees and understands that any sale of the Property is contingent upon final approval of such sale by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley, in its sole and absolute discretion, and that by entering into this Agreement the Town cannot and does not guarantee such approval by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley. Any studies relating to the Property that may hereafter be undertaken by the Developer, in its sole discretion, shall be the sole responsibility of the Developer and shall not be deemed to be undertaken for the benefit of the Town.

3.1 The qualifications of Developer are of particular interest to Town.

Consequently, with the exception of an “Affiliate” (as defined below) or a limited partnership in which Developer or an Affiliate of Developer is the general partner, no person or entity, whether a voluntary or involuntary successor of Developer, shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement, nor shall Developer assign all or any part of this Agreement, without the prior written approval of Town. Any such approval by Town may be granted, withheld or denied at Town’s sole and absolute discretion. Any other purported transfer, voluntarily or by operation of law, shall be absolutely null and void and shall confer no rights whatsoever upon any purported assignee or transferee. As used in this Agreement, the term “Affiliate” means any person or entity directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by or under common control with Developer. The term “control” as used in the immediately preceding sentence, means, with respect to a person or entity that is a corporation, the right to the exercise, directly or indirectly, of more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting rights attributable to the shares of the controlled corporation, and, with respect to a person or entity that is not a corporation, the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of the controlled person or entity.

3.2 The Developer shall promptly notify the Town in writing of any proposed assignment of Developer’s interest in the Agreement. Upon the occurrence of any material change in interest or control, whether voluntary or involuntary, in membership, ownership, management or control of the Developer (other than such changes occasioned by the death or incapacity of any individual) unless approved in writing, in advance, by the Town Manager, the Town may terminate this Agreement by serving written notice of such termination on the Developer referencing this Section.

3.3 In carrying out its tasks and obligations under this Agreement, the Developer shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

4. REQUIRED ACTIONS AND NEGOTIATION TASKS. Within ninety (90) calendar days after the Effective Date, Developer shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide the Town with a detailed financial analysis for the Project containing, among other matters, the development costs of the proposed Project, a detailed development budget, an operations budget, including but not limited to costs for maintenance, property management, and supportive services, and other costs that will be associated with the

4 Project (“Financing Proposal”). The Financing Proposal shall be refined by the Parties during the Negotiating Period, as appropriate, and will be used to evaluate the financial feasibility of the proposed Project, to assist in the negotiation of terms, and assist with finalizing a Project Budget. The Financing Proposal shall also include the terms, scope, and limits to annual financing from Town, as well as a schedule of financing for the proposed Project.

4.1 The DDA will provide that Developer will be solely responsible for all development (including site development), continual maintenance of the site (following Developer’s acquisition thereof), and operational costs of the proposed Project, except insofar as Developer receives funding from other sources as set forth in a Project Budget.

Developer acknowledges that the construction and future maintenance of the proposed Project may be subject to the State of California’s prevailing wage requirements and/or federal prevailing wage requirements. The DDA will include a provision that establishes Developer is solely responsible for compliance with all local, state, and federal laws.

4.2 The negotiations for the DDA will address, among other items, the terms; the form, amount, and financing considerations for the proposed Project; the scope and schedule of development; the affordable housing regulatory agreement or covenant; maintenance and operation of the Property; the selection process for individuals referred to or eligible for occupancy of the units in the Project; the funding obligations from any sources of funding for the Project; and any other requirements for Developer and operation of the Project. The affordability restrictions set forth in the regulatory agreement by the Town for use of the Property will be senior in priority to any construction and permanent financing or other monetary liens; provided, however, that the regulatory agreement will include language setting forth a process by which Developer may request certain rent and income limits to increase to specified levels in order to achieve a specified debt service coverage ratio in the event of a foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure or similar event, or in the event that due to no fault of Developer any rental subsidy provided to the Project is reduced, terminated, or not renewed; provided, further, however, that no such increases may exceed the maximum levels allowable under applicable regulations.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town may agree to subordinate its regulatory agreement to other governmental regulatory agreements, in accordance with an intercreditor and/or subordination agreement to be mutually negotiated by the Parties.

4.3 The DDA will be subject to the Town’s insurance requirements (set forth below) and all other applicable and customary Town policies. The DDA may require appropriate performance and payment bonds (consistent with industry standards involving public-private projects) with regard to the construction of the proposed Project or another form of assurance that is acceptable to the Town.

4.4 The DDA may include such other provisions as the Town and Developer determine to be necessary or appropriate to implement the proposed Project.

5. Development Documents. The DDA must include a scope of development, site plan, design and planning drawings, grading documents, utility connections, parking locations and other documents that identify the development of the

5 Property for the purpose of operating the Project, however the Developer will expend up to $300,000 ($300,000) on pre-development studies, testing, planning and other documentation prior to an approved DDA.

5.1 If this ENA is terminated for any reason other than a default by the Town, Developer shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide the Town, without any representation or warranty with true and correct copies of all final, reports, studies, analyses, and similar documents prepared or commissioned by Developer with respect to this Agreement and the proposed Project, excluding any confidential financial information prepared by Developer.

5.2 Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date, the Town will, without any representation or warranty, provide Developer with all documents relating to the Property (including, but not limited to, environmental, property physical condition, geological studies, engineering and structural analyses, and geotechnical reports and soil tests and analyses) to the extent reasonably known to be in Town’s possession or control.

5.3 The Town reserves the right, during the Term of this Agreement, to request reasonable additional information and data from Developer that it considers necessary for review and evaluation of the Property and the proposed Project, which Developer will provide in a timely manner provided that such information has been obtained by Developer pursuant to this Agreement or is otherwise in Developer’s possession and control.

6. Due Diligence. During the Negotiating Period, Developer and its employees, contractors, agents, representatives, architects, engineers and consultants (collectively, the “Developer Entities”), at Developer’s sole cost and expense, shall have the right to enter and inspect the Property, make surveys and conduct such soils, engineering, hazardous or toxic material, pollution, seismic or other tests, studies and investigation as Developer may require (collectively, the “Inspections”), pursuant to the terms of this Section 6.

6.1 Developer shall conduct Inspections during regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM ) upon no less than twenty-four (24) hours’ prior written notice to Town. Town may have a representative present at any Inspections of the Property.

6.2 In conducting its Inspections at the Property, Developer and the Developer Entities shall: (i) not damage any part of the Property (other than invasive testing conducted in accordance with Sections 6.3 and 6.4 below) or any personal property owned or held by any third party; (ii) promptly repair any damage to the Property resulting from the entry by Developer or the Developer Entities or from any such Inspections; provided that Developer shall not be obligated to repair conditions merely discovered by Developer or the Developer Entities in conducting their inspections; (iii) comply with all applicable laws; and (iv) not permit any liens to attach to the Property by reason of the exercise of Developer’s rights hereunder.

6 6.3 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 6, Developer shall not undertake any invasive testing, including, without limitation, taking samples of any kind or type from the Property, without Town’s prior written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

6.4 Promptly upon the completion of each Inspection, Developer shall cause the portion of the Property subject to such Inspection to be restored to the condition existing immediately prior to such Inspection, to the extent reasonably practicable; provided that Developer shall not be obligated to repair conditions merely discovered by Developer or the Developer Entities in conducting their inspections or caused by the Town or the Town Personnel. If this ENA is terminated for any reason other than a default by the Town, Developer shall provide Town, at no additional charge and without representation or warranty of any kind, with copies of non-proprietary reports prepared by third parties for Developer in connection with the Inspections within ten (10) business days of the termination of the ENA.

6.5 Developer hereby indemnifies, defends, and holds harmless Town and Town’s officers, officials, members, employees, agents, and representatives (collectively, the “Town and Town Personnel”), and the Property, free and harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, demands, injury, actions, liens, stop notices, losses, costs and expenses (including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs) arising from or as a result of conducting Inspections, except to the extent caused by an indemnified party’s active negligence, recklessness or intentional misconduct or merely discovered by Developer or the Developer Entities in conducting their inspections.

6.6 Developer’s obligations under this Section 6 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

7. Environmental Review. Developer will be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq., in connection with the proposed use of the Property and the development of the proposed Project.

Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to compel the Town to approve or make any particular findings with respect to such CEQA documentation. Developer shall provide such information about the proposed Project as may be required to enable the Town to consider any CEQA-required document and shall otherwise generally cooperate with the Town to complete this task.

7.1 If the Town, in its sole discretion, determines that the future approval of the DDA requires non-feasible mitigation measures, or fails to yield benefits that outweigh significant unavoidable impacts, or the Town otherwise determines, in its sole discretion, that it is unable to make any finding required by CEQA as a prerequisite to approval of the DDA, the Town may terminate this Agreement, without penalty. Upon such termination, neither Party shall have any further duties, obligations, rights, or liabilities under this Agreement, except for those rights and obligations that expressly survive termination of this Agreement.

7 7.2 The Parties intend this Agreement to reflect the basic understanding between them, but agree that the DDA contemplated herein shall be subject to, and contingent on, the Town’s approval, in its sole discretion, of a final CEQA determination. This Agreement does not constitute a legally binding commitment to a specific project, to the proposed Project, to any transfer of the Property, or to the DDA.

8. Progress Reports. From time to time as reasonably requested by the Town, the Developer agrees to make oral and written progress reports advising the Town on all matters related to the proposed Project, including financial feasibility analyses, construction cost estimates, marketing studies, and similar due diligence matters

9. Community Engagement. The Town and Developer shall confer and seek agreement on an appropriate strategy to obtain input from community members regarding the proposed Project.

10. Insurance. Without limiting Developer’s indemnification obligations under this Agreement, Developer shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and for the duration of this Agreement, insurance coverage as provided below, against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Developer and/or the Developer Entities, including without limitation conducting Inspections. In the event that Developer subcontracts any portion of the work, the contract between Developer and such subcontractor shall require the subcontractor to maintain the same types (with the same endorsements) and amounts of insurance that Developer is required to maintain pursuant to this Section.

10.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance which affords coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office “occurrence” form CG 00 01 including completed operations and contractual liability, with limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 annual aggregate for liability arising out of Developer’s performance of this Agreement, including without limitation conducting Inspections. Such insurance shall be endorsed to:
(1) Name the Town and Town Personnel as additional insureds for claims arising out of Developer’s performance of this Agreement, including without limitation Developer’s conducting of the Inspections.
(2) Provide that the insurance is primary and non-contributing with any other valid and collectible insurance or self-insurance available to Town.

10.2 Automobile Liability Insurance with a limit of liability of not less than $1,000,000 per each occurrence and $1,000,000 annual aggregate. Such insurance shall include coverage for all “owned,” “hired” and “non-owned” vehicles, or coverage for “any auto.” Such insurance shall be endorsed to:
(1) Name the Town and Town Personnel as additional insureds for claims arising out of Developer’s performance of this

8 Agreement, including without limitation Developer’s conducting of the Inspections.
(2) Provide that the insurance is primary and non-contributing with any other valid and collectible insurance or self-insurance available to Town.

10.3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance in accordance with the Labor Code of California and covering all employees of Developer providing any service in the performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that Developer shall not be required to obtain workers’ compensation insurance because Developer does not have any employees, so long as Developer executes a Workers’ Compensation Waiver in the substantially the form set forth in Exhibit “B” to this Agreement. Such insurance shall be endorsed to waive the insurer’s right of subrogation against the Town and Town Personnel.

10.4 Evidence of Insurance: Developer shall provide Town a Certificate(s) of Insurance evidencing such coverage, together with copies of the required policy endorsements, no later than five (5) business days prior to commencement of any inspections and prior to the expiration of any policy. Statements on an insurance certificate will not be accepted in lieu of the actual endorsements required.

Coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, reduced in coverage or in limits, non-renewed, or materially changed for any reason, without thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof given by the insurer to Town by U.S. mail, or by personal delivery, except for nonpayment of premiums, in which case ten (10) days prior notice shall be provided.

10.5 Acceptability of Insurers. Each policy shall be from a company with current A.M. Best’s rating of A- VII or higher and authorized to do business in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus lines brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law. Any other rating must be approved in writing by Town.

11. No Predetermination of Town Discretion. The Parties acknowledge and agree that nothing in this Agreement in any respect does or shall be construed to affect or prejudge the exercise of Town’s discretion concerning the consideration of the DDA.

The Parties do not intend for this Agreement to be a DDA or lease or conveyance, of the Property. The Parties acknowledge and agree that they have not agreed upon the essential terms of the subject matter of the transaction, and that such essential terms will be the subject matter of further negotiations. The Parties acknowledge and agree that any final agreement, if an agreement is reached, would be in the form of a DDA, and any such Agreement would not be effective until it has been considered and formally approved by the Town Council and Developer, and thereafter has been executed by authorized representatives of each Party. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, Town does not intend this Agreement to commit to a definite course of action with respect to the Property, and Town retains full discretion with respect to (i) the Property, (ii) the DDA, (iii) any determination under the California Environmental Quality

9 Act of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) with respect to the consideration of a DDA and/or any proposed development of the Property.

12. Costs and Expenses. Each Party shall be responsible for its own costs and expenses in connection with any activities and negotiations in connection with the performance of its obligations under this Agreement.

13. Lead Negotiators. The Town Manager, or his or her designee, shall be the lead negotiator for the Town with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. Randy Friend, Founder of Developer, or their designee, shall be the lead negotiator for Developer with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement.

14. Address for Notices. Any notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered (i) in person, (ii) by reputable overnight delivery service that provides a receipt with the time and date of delivery, such as Federal Express, or (iii) by United States Mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following addresses:

To Town: Town of Apple Valley
14995 Dale Evans Parkway
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Attn.: Guy Eisenbrey, Town Manager
With a copy to: Best Best & Krieger, LLP
2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 400
Ontario, CA 91761
Attn.: Thomas Rice, Town Attorney
To Developer: Eagle Real Estate Investment Group LLC
1500 Quail Street, Suite 120, Newport Beach, CA
92660
Attn: Randall J. Friend
Any Party may designate a different address for itself by notice. Any notice, demand, or document so given, delivered, or made by United States mail, shall be deemed to have been given seventy-two (72) hours after the same is deposited in the United States mail as registered or certified mail, addressed to addresses above, with postage thereon fully prepaid. Any notice, demand, or document delivered by overnight delivery service shall be deemed complete upon actual delivery or attempted delivery, provided such attempted delivery is made on a business day. Any such notice, demand, or document not given by registered or certified mail or by overnight delivery service as aforesaid shall be deemed to be given, delivered, or made upon receipt of the same by the Party to whom the same is to be given or delivered.

10 15. Default. Failure by either Party to negotiate in good faith or to perform any of its obligations as provided in this Agreement shall constitute a default under this Agreement. The non-defaulting Party shall give written notice of a default to the defaulting Party, specifying the nature of the default and the action required to cure the default. If the default remains uncured thirty (30) days after the date of such notice or such longer period of time as is reasonably necessary to cure the default, provided that the defaulting party commences to cure the default within said thirty (30) day period and, thereafter, reasonably diligently prosecutes the cure to completion, the non-defaulting Party may exercise the remedies set forth in Section 16 of this Agreement.

16. Remedies for Breach of Agreement. In the event of an uncured default under this Agreement, the sole remedies of the non-defaulting Party shall be to (a) terminate this Agreement, (b) institute an action for specific performance of this Agreement, or (c) institute legal action to recover actual damages for the default (limited to actual, documented out-of-pocket costs incurred by the non-defaulting Party as a result of such default) . Following the termination of this Agreement, neither Party shall have any further rights, remedies, or obligations under this Agreement, except as specifically set forth herein. Neither Party shall have any liability to the other for monetary damages for failure to reach agreement on the DDA, and each Party hereby waives and releases any such rights or claims it may otherwise have at law or at equity. The Parties’ rights and obligations under this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

17. Termination. This Agreement shall: (i) automatically terminate at the time(s) set forth in Section 2 above, and (ii) shall terminate upon a default and failure to cure the default as provided in Section 15 above.

18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties, integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.

19. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of every portion of this Agreement in which time is a material part.

20. Agreement Does Not Constitute Development Approval. Town reserves final discretion and approval as to any proposed development of the Property and any DDA and all proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. This Agreement shall not be construed as a grant of development rights or land use entitlements to construct the Project or any other development on the Property. All design, architectural, and building plans for any proposed development shall be subject to the review and approval of Town and any other Federal, State or local entity with jurisdiction over the Property and/or proposed development. By its execution of this Agreement, Town is not committing itself to or agreeing to undertake any disposition of the Property to Developer, or any other acts or activities requiring the subsequent independent exercise of discretion by Town or any agency or department thereof.

11 21. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and venue for any action initiated by a Party to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall lie exclusively in the state and federal courts in the County of San Bernardino.

22. Attorneys’ Fees. Each Party shall be responsible for payment of its own attorneys’ fees and expenses with respect to negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. In the event any action is brought to enforce or interpret any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such action or proceeding, shall be entitled to have and recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses.

23. Amendments. This Agreement may not be altered, amended, changed, waived, terminated or modified in any respect or particular unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the Parties.

24. Implementation of Agreement. Town shall maintain authority to implement this Agreement through the Town Manager (or his or her designee). The Town Manager shall have the authority to make approvals, waive provisions and/or enter into certain amendments of or implementing agreements for this Agreement on behalf of Town so long as such actions do not materially or substantially change the substantive business terms of this Agreement, or add to the costs incurred or to be incurred by Town as specified herein. All other material and/or substantive approvals, waivers, or amendments shall require the consideration, action and written consent of the Town Council.

25. Real Estate Commissions. Each of the Parties represents and warrants to the other Party that no real estate commission, broker’s fees, or finder’s fees which may accrue by means of the acquisition of the Property is due to any person, firm or entity.

Town shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless Developer from any loss, liability, damage, cost, claim or expense (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) incurred by reason of any broker fee, commission or finder’s fee that is payable or alleged to be payable to any broker or finder which results from any act or agreement of Town.

Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless Town from any loss, liability, damage, cost, claim or expense (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) incurred by reason of any broker fee, commission or finder’s fee that is payable or alleged to be payable to any broker or finder which results from any act or agreement of Developer.

26. Conflict of Interest. No member, official or employee of Town having any conflict of interest, direct or indirect, related to this Agreement shall participate in any decision relating to this Agreement. The Parties represent and warrant that they do not have knowledge of any such conflict of interest.

27. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement may be executed by electronic transmission (in pdf form) or by electronic signature (such as DocuSign.) .

12 [End of Agreement- Signature page follows]

13 NOW THEREFORE, Town and Developer have executed this Exclusive Negotiating Agreement as of the date first set forth above.

TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, a California municipal corporation By: __________________________
Scott Nassif, Mayor
Date: _______________
ATTEST:

Kiel Mangerino, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Thomas Rice, Town Attorney
Best Best & Krieger, LLP
DEVELOPER:

Eagle Real Estate Investment Group, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
By: Eagle Real Estate Investment Manager,
LLC
Its: Manager
By:

Randall J. Friend, Manager

EXHIBIT “A”

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

APN: 0441-133-01:

LOT 21, TRACT NO. 3320, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 55 OF MAP PAGE(S) 37 AND 38, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

EXHIBIT “B”
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAIVER
I, ____________________________________, on behalf of Developer, hereby, certify and acknowledge that Developer is aware of the workers’ compensation laws of the State of California and that Developer currently has no employees who would be subject to the protection of the Workers Compensation Act. Furthermore, Developer agrees that, if at any time during the term of the Agreement, any employees are hired by Developer, that Developer will comply with the requirement of the workers’ compensation laws. At that time, Developer will provide evidence of such coverage to the Town of Apple Valley.

By: ___________________________ Date: ________________
Title: __________________________
Company: ______________________

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
October 23, 2021
Orlando Acevedo
Director, Business Development and Communications
City of Apple Valley
14975 Dale Evans Parkway
Apple Valley, California 92307
Dear Orlando Acevedo:

RE: Written Comments Regarding the City of Apple Valley’s Surplus Land Disposition Documentation for the Property at 14955 Dale Evans Parkway (APNs 0439-073-03, 0437-212-10, 0437-212-05, 0440-085-06, 0440-096-17, 0441-133-01, 0440-096-18, 3087-361-04, 3112-251-13)
Thank you for submitting your surplus land documentation, on behalf of the City of Apple Valley (City), for review by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD received your documentation on September 24, 2021. This letter constitutes HCD’s initial written comments pursuant to Government Code section 54230.5(b)(2)(C) of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), for the property located at 14955 Dale Evans Parkway in the City, including permission to proceed with the sale.

The letter and documents that you provided establish that a Resolution declaring the property to be surplus was issued on April 27, 2021 and a Notice of Availability (NOA) was sent to all the required entities on July 1, 2021. After the required 60-day period, no affordable housing entity expressed interest in purchasing the property. You have also enclosed a draft affordability covenant to be recorded against the property.

HCD determines that you have met all the requirements under the SLA for the purposes of disposing of the surplus land located 14955 Dale Evans Parkway. The City is permitted to proceed with the sale of the property.

The City or its representatives may send any questions to [email protected].

Sincerely,
Data & Research Unit Chief
Housing Policy Development

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 25, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: RE-ADOPTION OF AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTIONS NOS 2026-23, 2026-24, AND 2026-25 ASSESSMENT AND LIEN

PROCEEDINGS
From: Guy Eisenbrey, Town Manager
Submitted by: Kiel Mangerino, Acting Town Clerk
Government Services Department
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council adopt the following Amended and Restated Resolutions:

A. Amended and Restated Resolution No. 2026-23, approving the levy and collection of Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessments within the Apple Valley Village Property and Business Improvement District (PBID);
B. Amended and Restated Resolution No. 2026-24, confirming delinquent animal control, utility, and code enforcement fees and costs against real property and directing that the charges constitute liens and be collected on the County property tax roll; and
C. Amended and Restated Resolution No. 2026-25, confirming the diagram and assessment and levying the Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessment for Assessment District No. 1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

BACKGROUND
The Town Council previously adopted Resolution Nos. 2026-23, 2026-24, and 2026-25 in connection with the Town’s Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessment and direct-charge proceedings. Resolution No. 2026-23 was adopted on July 14, 2026, for the Apple Valley Village PBID. Resolution No. 2026-24 was also adopted on July 14, 2026, confirming delinquent animal control, utility, and code enforcement charges. Resolution No. 2026-25 was adopted on July 28, 2026, following the required public hearing for Assessment District No. 1.

Following adoption and submission of the resolutions to the San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector, the County advised the Town that it had implemented changes to its procedures and administrative requirements for resolutions submitted by local jurisdictions for placement of direct charges on the County property tax roll. These changes were not specific to the Town of Apple Valley and affected multiple cities and other local jurisdictions submitting direct-charge resolutions to the County.

Specifically, the County requested that the resolutions expressly identify the Town’s authority to impose the charges, direct the County to place the charges on the property tax roll, and clarify that applicable County administrative and processing fees are included.

Staff has therefore prepared amended and restated versions of the three resolutions to incorporate the County’s requested administrative language. The amended resolutions do not change the underlying assessments, assessment rolls, Engineer’s Reports, or charges previously approved by the Town Council. The amendments are intended solely to address the County’s updated administrative requirements and facilitate the placement of the previously approved charges on the County property tax roll.

ANALYSIS
Resolution No. 2026-23 – Village PBID Assessments
Resolution No. 2026-23 authorizes the levy and collection of Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessments within the Apple Valley Village Property and Business Improvement District.

The total estimated assessments are $250,477.46, consisting of $230,780.90 in assessments against 269 private parcels to be collected through the County property tax roll and $19,696.56 in assessments to be billed separately.

The amended resolution clarifies which assessments are being submitted to the County for collection and confirms that applicable County administrative and processing fees are included. It specifically states that the Management District Plan, Engineer’s Report, assessment roll, and amount of any assessment previously approved by the Council are not being modified.

Resolution No. 2026-24 – Delinquent Charges and Liens
Resolution No. 2026-24 confirms delinquent animal control, utility, and code enforcement fees and costs applicable to affected properties and authorizes their collection through the County property tax roll. The amended resolution expressly confirms the Town’s statutory authority for each category of charge and directs the County to place the confirmed charges on the Fiscal Year 2026-27 property tax roll.

The amended resolution does not modify the report previously confirmed by the Council, increase or otherwise change any charge applicable to an individual parcel, or alter any substantive action previously taken by the Council. The amendments are solely administrative clarifications requested by the County.

Resolution No. 2026-25 – Assessment District No. 1

Resolution No. 2026-25 confirms the Engineer’s Report and levies the Fiscal Year 2026- 27 annual assessment for Assessment District No. 1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The amended resolution confirms the Town’s authority to levy the assessments and directs the County to place the charges on the Fiscal Year 2026-27 property tax roll, including applicable County administrative and processing fees.

As with the other resolutions, the amended resolution does not modify the Engineer’s Report or change the assessment applicable to any parcel.

Re-adoption of the three resolutions will allow the Town to resubmit the documents to the County in the format required under its updated procedures and complete the Fiscal Year 2026-27 property tax roll process.

VISION ALIGNMENT
The recommended action aligns with the Town’s vision of managed growth and fiscal responsibility by ensuring that established assessment districts and direct-charge programs are administered accurately and efficiently. Re-adoption of the amended resolutions will allow the Town to complete the collection of previously approved assessments and charges through the County property tax roll, supporting the continued funding of authorized services and improvements without increasing the assessments or charges previously approved by the Town Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no new fiscal impact to the Town resulting from the recommended action. The amended and restated resolutions do not increase or otherwise change the assessments, direct charges, or amounts previously approved by the Town Council. The revisions are administrative in nature and are necessary to facilitate placement and collection of the previously approved charges on the County property tax roll. Applicable County administrative and processing fees are addressed in the amended resolutions as requested by the County.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Amended and Restated Resolution 2026-23
B. Amended and Restated Resolution 2026-24
C. Amended and Restated Resolution 2026-25

AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION NO. 2026-23

AN AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION OF

THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF APPLE

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE LEVY AND

COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2026-27 WITHIN THE APPLE VALLEY

VILLAGE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (Part 7 of Division 18 of the California Streets and Highways Code, commencing with section 36600), the Town Council conducted all proceedings required to levy assessments within the Apple Valley Village Property and Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2026-2027, including the preparation of the Engineer's Report, adoption of a Resolution of Intention, notice of a public hearing, and conduct of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing held on July 14, 2026, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-23 confirming the Engineer's Report and approving the levy and collection of the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 assessments; and WHEREAS, after adoption of Resolution No. 2026-23, the San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector advised the Town that governing body resolutions submitted for placement of direct charges on the County property tax roll should expressly state that the total authorized assessments include any applicable County administrative or processing fees; and
WHEREAS, of the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 assessments approved by Resolution No. 2026-23, certain assessments are to be collected through the San Bernardino County property tax roll and the remaining assessments are to be billed separately; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend and restate Resolution No. 2026-23 to clearly distinguish the assessments authorized for placement on the County property tax roll from those to be billed separately, and to incorporate the County's requested clarification regarding applicable administrative and processing fees, without modifying the Management District Plan, Engineer's Report, assessment roll, or the amount of any assessment previously approved by the Town Council.

The Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley resolves:

Section 1. The levy and collection of assessments against lots and parcels of real property within the Village PBID for FY2026-27 is ordered as described in the Management District Plan and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. The purpose of this Village PBID is to provide and manage

Resolution No. 2026-23
supplemental services and improvements for this important business center, including improvement projects along Highway 18 and other streets within the PBID, facade and beautification enhancement projects, supplemental public safety services and other activities which benefit businesses and real property in the Village PBID.

Section 3. The estimated total Fiscal Year 2026-2027 assessments are $250,477.46, consisting of:
(a) $230,780.90 in assessments against 269 private parcels to be submitted to the San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector for collection on the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 secured property tax roll; and (b) $19,696.56 in assessments to be billed separately and not placed on the County property tax roll, including an estimated $14,428.62 to be billed directly to the Town.

Section 4. The Town of Apple Valley Finance Department is hereby authorized and directed to request that the San Bernardino County AuditorController/Treasurer/Tax Collector collect $230,780.90 in assessments for the District on the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 secured property tax roll.

Section 5. The Town Council hereby authorizes the total amount of the assessments to be placed on the San Bernardino County property tax roll, in the amount of $230,780.90, including all applicable San Bernardino County administrative and processing fees, to be placed on the San Bernardino County AuditorController/Treasurer/Tax Collector annual property tax roll and collected in the same manner as property taxes. The remaining $19,696.56 in assessments shall be billed separately and shall not be placed on the County property tax roll.

Section 6. The Town Clerk’s Office is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this Amended and Restated Resolution and the Report to the San Bernardino County Auditor, as may be required to place said assessment on the secured property tax roll for FY2026-27.

Section 7. This Amended and Restated Resolution does not modify the Management District Plan, the Engineer's Report, the assessment roll, or the amount of any assessment previously approved by the Town Council. The amendments contained herein are intended solely to clarify that the total direct charges authorized by the Town Council include all applicable County administrative and processing fees.

Section 8. Except as expressly amended and restated herein, Resolution No. 2026-23 shall remain in full force and effect.

Resolution No. 2026-23
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley this 25th day of August, 2026.

Kari Leon, Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kiel E. Mangerino, Acting Town Clerk

AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION NO. 2026-24

AN AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION OF THE

TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY,

CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING DELINQUENT ANIMAL

CONTROL, UTILITY AND CODE ENFORCEMENT FEES

AND COSTS AGAINST REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN

THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY AND DIRECTING THAT

SAID ASSESSMENTS CONSTITUTE A LIEN UPON SAID

PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 38771 and 38773.5 and the applicable provisions of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, the Town is authorized to recover nuisance abatement costs as special assessments against the affected property and to collect those assessments on the San Bernardino County property tax roll; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 40059, Government Code sections 38790.1 and 25831, and the applicable provisions of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, the Town is authorized to collect delinquent solid waste collection charges through placement on the San Bernardino County property tax roll; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 38773.5 and sections

15.01.175 and 15.01.180 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, together with the applicable provisions of Chapter 6.30 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, the Town is authorized to make final and unpaid animal-control costs and fines a special assessment and lien against the real property where the animal was maintained and to collect such assessments on the San Bernardino County property tax roll; and; and WHEREAS, the Town has prepared a report identifying the delinquent animal control fees, utility charges, and nuisance abatement fees and costs applicable to each affected parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has received and considered the report after providing the required notice and opportunity for affected property owners to be heard.

WHEREAS, on July 14, 2026, following the required notice and opportunity for affected property owners to be heard, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-24 confirming the report and authorizing the collection of the delinquent charges identified therein; and
WHEREAS, the report approved by the Town Council identified the total direct charge applicable to each affected parcel; and
WHEREAS, following adoption of Resolution No. 2026-24, the San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector advised the Town that governing body resolutions submitted for placement of direct charges on the property tax roll should

Resolution 2026-24
expressly confirm the Town's statutory authority, direct the AuditorController/Treasurer/Tax Collector to place the direct charges on the tax roll, and clarify whether the approved charges include applicable County administrative and processing fees; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend and restate Resolution No. 2026- 24 solely to incorporate the County's requested clarifications, without modifying the report approved by the Town Council or changing the charge applicable to any parcel.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND

ORDERED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. The report setting forth the costs of delinquent animal control fees, utility fees and code enforcement fees and a description of each property upon which an assessment is made, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is confirmed.

3. The Town Council finds and determines that the Town possesses authority under applicable state law and the Apple Valley Municipal Code to impose and collect each category of direct charge identified in the confirmed report through placement on the San Bernardino County property tax roll, as follows:
a. Delinquent Utility Charges. To the extent consisting of delinquent solid waste collection charges, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 40059, Government Code sections 38790.1 and 25831, and section 6.20.280 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code.
b. Delinquent Nuisance-Abatement Charges. Pursuant to Government Code sections 38771, 38773.5 and sections 6.30.210 and 6.30.220 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code.
c. Delinquent Animal-Control Charges. To the extent consisting of final and unpaid costs and fines eligible for assessment under Title 15 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, pursuant to Government Code sections 38771, 38773.5, sections 15.01.175 and 15.01.180 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code, and the applicable provisions of Chapter 6.30 of the Apple Valley Municipal Code.

4. The Town Council hereby authorizes the total amount of the direct charges identified in the confirmed report, including all applicable San Bernardino County administrative and processing fees, to be placed on the San Bernardino

Resolution 2026-24
County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector annual property tax roll and collected in the same manner as property taxes.

5. The Town Council hereby directs the San Bernardino County AuditorController/Treasurer/Tax Collector to place the confirmed direct charges on the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 property tax roll. The Town Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this Amended and Restated Resolution and the confirmed report to the San Bernardino County AuditorController/Treasurer/Tax Collector and to record this Resolution to the extent required or authorized by applicable law. A certified copy of the confirmed report shall be filed with the Town Clerk.

6. This Amended and Restated Resolution does not modify the report previously confirmed by the Town Council, increase or otherwise change any direct charge applicable to any parcel, or alter any substantive action previously taken by the Town Council through Resolution No. 2026-24. The amendments are intended solely to incorporate the County's requested administrative clarifications.

7. Except as expressly amended and restated herein, Resolution No. 2026-24 shall remain in full force and effect.

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley this 25th day of August 2026
__________________________
Scott Nassif, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kiel E. Mangerino, Acting Town Clerk

AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION NO. 2026-25

AN AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION OF THE

TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY

CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND
LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, following a duly noticed public hearing conducted pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-25 confirming the Engineer's Report and levying the annual assessment for Fiscal Year 2026-2027; and
WHEREAS, following adoption of Resolution No. 2026-25, the San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector advised the Town that governing body resolutions submitted for placement of direct charges on the County tax roll should expressly confirm the Town's statutory authority, direct the AuditorController/Treasurer/Tax Collector to place the direct charges on the tax roll, and clarify whether the approved charges include applicable County administrative and processing fees; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend and restate Resolution No. 2026-25 solely to incorporate the County's requested administrative language, without modifying the Engineer's Report, changing the assessment applicable to any parcel, or otherwise altering the substantive action previously taken by the Town Council.

The Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley hereby resolves as follows:

Section 1: Pursuant to Chapter 3 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Town Council directed the Town Engineer, Engineer of Work for Assessment District No. 1, to prepare and file an annual report for fiscal year 2026-2027.

Section 2: The Engineer of Work filed his annual report with the Town Clerk, and the Town Council adopted its resolution of intention to levy and collect assessments within the assessment district for fiscal year 2026-2027 and set a public hearing to be held on July 28, 2026, at the Council Chamber of the Town Council located at 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Town of Apple Valley, California. Notice of the hearing was given in the time and manner required by law.

Section 3: At the public hearing, the Town Council afforded to every interested person an opportunity to make a protest to the annual report either in writing or orally, and the Town Council has considered each protest.

Section 4: The Town Council further finds that it possesses authority under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.) to levy the assessments identified in the Engineer's Report and to have such assessments collected on the San Bernardino County property tax roll. The Town Council hereby confirms the diagram and assessment as set forth in the annual report of the Engineer of Work and hereby levies the assessment set forth therein for fiscal year 2026- 2027.

Section 5: The Town Council hereby authorizes the total amount of the direct charges identified in the confirmed Engineer's Report, including all applicable San Bernardino County administrative and processing fees, to be placed on the San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector annual property tax roll and collected in the same manner as property taxes.

Section 6: The Town Council hereby directs the San Bernardino County AuditorController/Treasurer/Tax Collector to place the confirmed direct charges on the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 property tax roll and authorizes the Town Clerk and other appropriate Town officials to transmit a certified copy of this Amended and Restated Resolution and any supporting documentation required by the County.

Section 7: This Amended and Restated Resolution does not modify the Engineer's Report, increase or otherwise change the assessment applicable to any parcel, or alter the substantive action previously taken by the Town Council through Resolution No. 2026-25. The amendments are intended solely to incorporate the County's requested administrative clarifications.

Section 8: Except as expressly amended and restated herein, Resolution No. 2026-25 shall remain in full force and effect.

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley this 25th day of August 2026.
_________________________________
Scott Nassif, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Kiel E. Mangerino, Acting Town Clerk

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 25, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 2024-001, ZONE CHANGE (ZC) 2024-007, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2024-
001, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (DP) 2025-013, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM) NO. 21034, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2026-
003, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH#2025100104
FOR APPLE VALLEY 84 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, INCLUDING

1.38 MILLION SQ FT E-COMMERCE FACILITY AND RELATED SITE

IMPROVEMENTS
From: Guy Eisenbrey, Town Manager
Submitted by: David Contreras, Director of Planning
Planning Department
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council hold a public hearing and;
A. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-27 certifying EIR report (SCH #2025100104) and adopting CEQA findings for the Apple Valley 84 Development Project and direct Staff to file a Notice of Determination;
B. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-28 adopting the General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2024-001;
C. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-29 adopting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 21034 and Development Permit (DP) 2025-013, effective upon the Zone ChangeDevelopment Code Amendment ordinance and the Development Agreement ordinance going into effect;
D. Move to Introduce Ordinance No. 577 adopting Zone Change (ZC) 2024-007, changing zoning from Office Professional (O-P) to Regional Commercial (C-R) and Industrial Ecommerce Overlay (I-N);
E. Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 577 in its entirety and read by title only;

F. Move to Introduce Ordinance No. 578 approving Development Agreement2026- 003 between the Town of Apple Valley and Apple 84 LLC;
G. Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 578 in its entirety and read by title only.

H. Direct the Town Clerk to schedule both Ordinances 577 and Ordinance 578 for a second reading and adoption at the next regularly scheduled Town Council meeting.

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Apple 84 LLC, submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change in September 2024. A Development Code Amendment and Tentative Parcel Map applications were submitted in September 2025 and a Development Permit application was submitted in December 2025. The developer and Town have also negotiated a Development Agreement. A similar project by the same developer, consisting of three buildings totaling approximately 2.5 million square feet was approved on the 143-acre property immediately to the west of the subject site in November 2023.

That project is currently in process for a grading permit.

The project proposes an e-Commerce warehouse facility. The building would be approximately 1.38 million square feet, with 15,000 square feet of office space and 231 loading dock doors lining the east and west walls. Other site improvements include 528 vehicle parking spaces and 901 truck trailer stalls. The building would have an open warehouse layout with the offices providing administrative functions. Interior clerestory height would be 42 feet.

REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
General Plan Amendment: The project requests a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation from “Office Professional” to “Regional Commercial” to accommodate the intended e-commerce warehousing and logistics use (see Attachment E, Exhibit A). The Planning Commission is authorized to make a recommendation to the Town Council per Development Code Section 9.02.050.F.

Zone Change: The project requests a Zone Change from the existing “O-P” Office Professional zone to the “C-R” Regional Commercial zone as well as application of the IN Industrial / e-commerce overlay (see Attachment G, Exhibit A). The Planning Commission is authorized to make a recommendation to the Town Council per Development Code Section 9.06.040B.

Development Code Amendment: E-commerce warehousing and distribution centers are allowed as a “Permitted Use” per Development Code Table 9.35.030.A. Footnote 7 of that table states “in the C-R District, new eCommerce fulfillment and distribution centers shall only be allowed within the 978 acres bounded by the I-15 freeway to the west, Dante Road to the south, “Caplet Street” (now Cordova Road) to the north and the C-R District’s

boundary to the east”. The proposed DCA would change Code Section 9.35.020.D and Table 9.35.030-A, Footnote 7, by expanding the overlay boundary eastward to include the project site and revising the overlay’s acreage from 978 to 1,071 acres to encompass the proposed project area (see Attachment G, Exhibit B). Planning Commission is authorized to make a recommendation to the Town Council per Development Code Section 9.06.040B.

Tentative Parcel Map: The project requires a Tentative Parcel Map and Final Map to consolidate its twelve (12) parcels into a single parcel to accommodate a single large warehouse building. The Tentative Parcel Map would also vacate three street segments across the site. Tentative Parcel Map’s are typically approved by the Planning Commission, however, due to the GPA, Zone Change and DCA, the Commission will provide a recommendation to The Town Council, which has final review authority over the project (see Attachment C).

Development Permit: Industrial sites greater than 100,000 square feet require Planning Commission approval of a development permit. The Commission will provide a recommendation to the Town Council, which has final review authority over the project, per Development Code Section 9.17.020.B.2.

Development Agreement: A development agreement has been prepared between the Town and Project Applicant pursuant to Section 9.04 of the Municipal Code. Development Agreements establish the mechanism to provide needed stability for project development by memorializing development standards and extending applicable vesting periods for project entitlements. The proposed development agreement does not contemplate any additional physical improvements beyond those that are already identified in the project description, analysis, and proposed conditions and design features; and no land use standards and/or criteria are being changed or waived by this agreement. As specified in Subsection C of Section 9.04.020, "Applications and Processing", the Commission, in its review of the proposed Development Agreement, is tasked with recommending approval to the Town Council, which has final review authority over the agreement.

TOAV Development Code Table 9.11.020-A lists the reviewing authorities for various permit types. Development Code Section 9.12.100 states that where a project seeks multiple permit approvals, with some requiring Planning Commission approval and others requiring Town Council approval, the final project decision on all requested entitlements is made by the highest level of review authority. The final decision on this project is to be made by the Town Council due to the requests for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Code Amendment and Development Agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Town determined that the project requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, a “Notice of Preparation” (NOP) was sent to the Land Use and Climate Innovation State Clearinghouse and published for public review and comment between October 2nd and October 31, 2025, during which three comments were received. Based on technical studies, comments received, an initial study, and a duly noticed Scoping

Meeting held on October 8, 2025, a Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared providing detailed information regarding the project’s potential adverse environmental effects. The DEIR demonstrated that the following environmental impacts can be reduced to less-thansignificant levels with adoption of mitigation measures: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils and Tribal Cultural Resources. The DEIR further concluded that, despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled).

A “Notice of Availability” (NOA) and the DEIR were circulated and posted pursuant to Town and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a) for 45 days from January 13th through February 27, 2026. The DEIR and NOA were filed with the State Clearinghouse and County Clerk’s Office and published on the Town website. The NOA and a link to the Town website were sent by email to all interested parties and public agencies. Printed copies of the DEIR and its technical appendices were placed at Town Hall, the Development Services Building and at the San Bernardino County Library. During the public review period, the Town received a total of nine timely letters.

Based on the analysis and comments, the Town prepared a Final EIR (FEIR) following the DEIR review period, containing Responses to Comments, clarifications and changes to the DEIR. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was also prepared, along with CEQA Findings of Fact providing the legal record documenting the Town's reasoning for approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared addressing the project’s “significant and unavoidable” impacts and providing written justification for the Town to approve the project based on benefits that would be expected from the project, including economic, fiscal and community benefits, that would outweigh adverse environmental impacts. The Town posted the FEIR on the Town website and sent direct notification to commenting public agencies and other parties requesting to be notified. The FEIR was released to the public, published on the Town website and print copies were distributed on June 25, 2026. Direct notification of the FEIR’s availability was sent to all commenting public agencies and other interested parties that had requested to be notified on July 2, 2026.

The project's environmental documentation may be viewed on the Town’s environmental web page here: https://applevalley.org/ceqa-docs/apple-valley-84/

PLANNING COMMISSION
On July 15, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the project and the FEIR. Public Notice was posted, published and mailed pursuant to Town and State Law on July 2, 2026. The Town received one written comment during the public notice period. Three members of the public spoke in favor of the project. One resident expressed concern about increased traffic congestion on Interstate 15 resulting from all of the new development in north Apple Valley and mentioned that he felt a traffic study was needed. Town staff and commissioners responded that a comprehensive Traffic Impact Study had been prepared for the project and its conclusions and suggested mitigations were incorporated into the project Environmental Impact Report.

Following the public hearing, and based on information contained in the EIR, the Agenda Report and other supporting exhibits, the Planning Commission recommended that the Town Council certify the FEIR and approve the project by a vote of five votes in favor and no votes in opposition.

VISION ALIGNMENT
This item supports the Town Council's vision by developing modern industrial uses in the Town of Apple Valley in close proximity to the State highway system in order to increase employment opportunities and improve the Town’s economic competitiveness. The addition of this project would 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. Furthermore, this project will attract new businesses to the Town of Apple Valley and thereby provide a more balanced jobs-to-housing ratio in the Inland Empire area that will reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

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

Fee category Rate Project square
footage
Total fees to be
collected
Transportation Impact Fees
(“fulfillment centers”) $2.31
1,381,412
$3,191,062
Law Enforcement Facilities $0.001 $1,381
Storm Drainage Facilities $0.114 $157,481
General Government Facilities $0.034 $46,968
Park Development Impact Fee $0.0062 $8,565
Sanitary Sewer Facilities $0.684 $944,886
Fire District Impact Fees $0.263 $363,311
School Fees $0.87 $1,201,828

TOTAL ESTIMATED
Development Impact Fees: $5,915,482
In addition to the fees noted above, the project’s Traffic Analysis calculated “Fair Share” pro rata contributions that would be required to finance future area transportation network improvements, as follows:

Anticipated improvement Total Cost
(estimate)
Project “Fair
Share” %
Fair Share
Fees (estimate)
Quarry Rd & I-15 SB Ramps $83,700 8.9% $7,449
Quarry Rd & Stoddard Wells Rd $83,700 8.6% $7,198

I-15 NB Ramps & Stoddard Wells Rd. $1,621,140 7.7% $124,828 TOTAL ESTIMATED FAIR SHARE FEES $139,475
“Fair Share” contributions are collected and retained by the Town on behalf of the County and Caltrans until such time as sufficient funds are available to complete the listed improvements. The “Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis” provides further detail (Attachment I).

It should be noted that impact fees and fair share fees are estimates at the time of entitlement. The final approved traffic impact fees and fair share contributions will be based on actual uses, square footages, and utilizing current construction cost estimates at the time of building permit issuance.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the project is consistent and in full conformance with the General Plan and the TOAV Municipal Code, pursuant to approval of the requested General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Development Code Amendment. Staff believes that the EIR thoroughly analyzes the project’s potential adverse impacts and provides feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts, where feasible and to the extent possible.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity map
B. Project drawings
C. Tentative Parcel Map
D. Resolution No. 2026-027 Certifying the project EIR (with Exhibits A, B) E. Resolution No. 2026-028 Approving GPA 2024-001 (with Exhibits A, B) F. Resolution No. 2026-029 Approving TPM No. 21034 and DP No. 2025-013 (with Exhibits A, B)
G. Ordinance No. 577 adopting Zone Change No. ZC 2024-007 and Development Code Amendment No. DCA 2024-001 (with Exhibits A, B)
H. Ordinance No. 578 adopting Development Agreement 2026-003 (with Exhibit A) I. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
J. Planning Commission Agenda report
Final Environmental Impact Report may be found here: https://applevalley.org/ceqadocs/apple-valley-84/

BUILDING 1,366,412 SF (BUILDING FOOTPRINTS) +15,000 SF MEZZANINE MAIN OFFICE SECONDARY OFFICE 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 12 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 66 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 99 10 11 10 11 11 104'-10" 40'
TYP.
31' 55' 75'
TYP.
120' 75' 120' 75'
TYP.
120' 130'
TYP.
680' 130' 120' 52'-7" 44' 75' 50' 10' 1977'-2" 12'-10" 19' 36' 80'-4" 18'-9" 126'-11" 185' 185' 36' 9'
9' 19'
TYP. TYP.
55'
TYP. 12' TYP. W R A N G L E R R O A D

J O H N S O N R O A D S T O D D A R D W E L L S R O A D 48' 680' 8 110 OH DOCK DOORS 121 OH DOCK DOORS
50'
TYP. 36' TYP.
45'
DRIVEWAY 36' DRIVEWAY 45' DRIVEWAY
43'-11"
40'

DRIVEWAY
24'
TYP. 26' TYP.
60'
TYP. 47' TYP. 36' WIDE FIRE ACCESS LANE 36' WIDE FIRE ACCESS LANE 36' WIDE FIRE ACCESS LANE
36' WIDE FIRE ACCESS LANE 151' 66' TYP. 108' 13 ELECTRICAL ROOM SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 24' 64' PROPERTY LINE 40' 40' PROPOSED R.O.W. EXISTING R.O.W. 18' 189'
12' 242'276 TRAILER STALLS 544 TRAILER STALLS 78 TRAILER STALLS 60' 66'-2" 26' TYP. 36' TYP. 12' TYP. 55'
TYP.
10'
TYP. 9' TYP.
19'
TYP. 8 104'-2" 948' 27' 28' 22' 19' 40'-5" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE 45' BUILDING SETBACK
45' BUILDING SETBACK 30' BUILDING SETBACK 30' BUILDING SETBACK 30' BUILDING SETBACK
45' BUILDING SETBACK 3 SHEET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: RGA PROJECT NO: 23002.00 PREPARED BY: DEVELOPER / OWNER / APPLICANT: COVINGTON APPLE VALLEY 84 PROJECT APPLE VALLEY , CA CAD FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: CCCC COV APPLE VALLEY, LLC 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, STE. 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONTACT: RONALD RAKUNAS TEL: 760.672.3040 SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 0' 25' 50' 100' 200' PROJECT CONTACTS OWNER: COV APPLE VALLEY, LLC 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, STE. 230 IRVINE, CA 92660 CONTACT: RONALD RAKUNAS PHONE: 760.672.3040 EMAIL: [email protected] ARCHITECT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 210 PROGRESS, STE 220 IRVINE, CA 92618 CONTACT: CELIO COSIO PHONE: 714.643.0820 EMAIL: [email protected] CIVIL: HUITT-ZOLLARS, INC. 2603 MAIN STREET STE 600 IRVINE, CA 92614 CONTACT: DAVID WHITE PHONE: 909.941.7799 X 11420 EMAIL: [email protected] SITE PLAN KEYNOTES ## 1. SITE PAVEMENT, SEE CIVIL PLANS. 2. PUMP HOUSE, SEE DETAIL A/A1-1P. 3. TRASH ENCLOSURES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CITY STANDARDS CHAPTER 9.46.080 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. SEE DETAIL 3/A1-1P. 4. 8' HIGH STEEL GATES WITH KNOX BOX PER FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS, SEE DETAIL 2/A1-1P AND FENCE/WALL PLAN ON SHEET A1-2P. 5. DECORATIVE DRIVEWAY CONCRETE PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. 6. EMPLOYEE OUTDOOR SEATING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS AND DETAIL 7/A1-1P. 7. DRIVE-THRU RAMP WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. 8. 8' HIGH STEEL FENCE WITH PILASTERS AT 50' SPACING, SEE DETAIL 2/A1-1P. 9. ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL. 10. 14-CAPACITY BICYCLE RACKS - LONG/SHORT TERM, SEE DETAIL 2/A1-1P. 11. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GUARD BOOTH, SEE DETAIL D/A1-1P. 12. APPROXIMATE LOCATION FOR FIRE TANK. 13. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. 14. LANDSCAPE AREA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS. 15. 30 FT WIDE FIRE ACCESS LANE. VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE PROJECT DATA: BARSTOW I-15 FWY

JOHNSON ROAD STODDARD WELLS ROAD
PAUMA STREET 08/11/25 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN OWNER REPRESENTATIVE: T&B PLANNING 3200 EL CAMINO REAL, STE 100 IRVINE, CA 92602 CONTACT: NICOLE MORSE EMAIL: [email protected] LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HUNTER LANDSCAPE CONTACT: TOM HAYES PHONE: 714.986.2400 EMAIL: [email protected] A1-0P23002-A1-0P 10/21/25 2ND PLANNING SUBMITTAL 04/29/26 3RD PLANNING SUBMITTAL Attachment B: Drawings Page 61 of 416 4" SQ. POSTS @ 8'-0" O.C. 2" SQ. HORIZ. @ TOP & BOT. MIN. 3/4" SQ. PICKETS 4" BETWEEN PICKETS CORRUGATED STEEL GATE - PAINT TO MATCH BUILDING CONCRETE TILT-UP WALL PAINTED TO MATCH BUILDING SOLID ROOF-PAINT TO MATCH BUILDING 6" X 6" CONC. CURB 3" WIDE WHITE TRAFFIC PAINT STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION (TYP) 19'
TYP. 1' TYP. 9' TYP. 9' TYP. 3" 3" 12" WIDE STEP-OFF CURB AT LANDSCAPE FINGERS / END STALLS 1 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" TYPICAL STANDARD PARKING STALLS 3 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" TYPICAL TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS 2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" DECORATIVE STEEL FENCE & GATE ELEVATIONS 8'
6' 2' FLOOR PLAN CONCRETE TILT-UP WALL PAINTED TO MATCH BUILDING CORRUGATED STEEL GATE - PAINT TO MATCH BUILDING 25' 16' CONCRETE CURBS STANDARD TRASH BINS 19'-6" CLEAR
11'-6"
CLEAR 9'-9" 9'-9"
8'
2' 6'
8'
2' 6' CONCRETE TILT-UP WALL PAINTED TO MATCH BUILDING SOLID ROOF-PAINT TO MATCH BUILDING LANDSCAPE 6" CONCRETE CURB 8'
8'-2 1/4"
4" 12" 9' TYP. 4 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" TYP. RETAINING WALL SECTION & ELEVATION KEYSTONE CAP UNIT KEYSTONE STANDARD III UNIT UNIT DRAINAGE FILL (3/4" CRUSHED ROCK OR STONE) GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT FINISH GRADE UNREINFORCED CONCRETE OR CRUSHED STONE LEVELING PAD 8" MIN LOW PERMEABLE SOIL APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF EXCAVATION RETAINED SOIL 4" PERFORATED PVC DRAINAGE TILE NOTE: WHEN SITE CONDITIONS REQUIRE, WRAP DRAINAGE TILE IN 3/4" AGGREATE AND FILTER FABRIC WITH DRAINAGE COMPOSITE OR AGGREGATE BACK DRAIN SYSTEM, AS DIRECTED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FOUNDATION SOIL EXCAVATION 1/8" - 1/4" DESIGN HEIGHT 8" REINFORCED SOIL 24" GRID DEPTH CONC. CURB/WALL 55'
N.T.S. 12' N.T.S. 5 SCALE: N.T.S. TYPICAL TRAILER PARKING DETAIL 6" WIDE YELLOW TRAFFIC PAINT STRIPING 4' CLEAR 4'
CLEAR
3' NOTE: TIMBERFORM CYCLOOPS MANUFACTURED BY COLOMBIA CASCADE CO., PORTLAND, OREGAN. (800) 547-1940, (503) 223-1157 MODEL NUMBER: ORIGINAL CYCLOOPS 2170-15 MOUNTING AND INSTALLATION PER MANUFACUTRER'S SPECS. 6 SCALE: N.T.S. BICYCLE RACK STEEL TUBE FRAME AND HORIZONTAL SUPPORT HORIZONTAL FRAME SUPPORT VERTICAL FRAMES 5'-0" 8'-0" MIN. GATE WARNING SIGN PER PLAN 7 SCALE: NTS 38" ROUND - CONCRETE BENCH/TABLE MANUFACTURER: BARCO PRODUCTS (OR EQUAL) MATERIAL: CONCRETE SEATING CAPACITY: 8 SEAT DIMENSIONS: 36"LX12"WX18.87"H TABLETOP DIMENSIONS: 38" DIA. X 30.75"H OVERALL DIMENSIONS: 66" DIA X 30.75" H 6' 21'-3" 20'-9" 7'-7" 7'-7" APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FLOOR DRAIN B- C- 6 5 14' 20'-9" F.F.
14'
14'
1'-1"F.F. F.F.
4'-11" 2" 7'-8" 2"
14'
1'-1"F.F.
4'-11"
2" 7'-8" 2" 20'-9" 3 2 1 2 4 3 1 5 2 2 4 4 J 8'
6' 36" x 80" SLIDING DOOR WINDOW TRANSACTION WINDOW 36" x 80" SLIDING DOOR WINDOW WINDOW E1 E2 E4 E3 1'-11" 3' 3'-1" 9" 2'-2" 3'-1" DRAIN SCUPPER LOAD CENTER A/C UNIT
7'-2" 9"
7'-2" 9" 7'-11"
7'-2" 9" 7'-11" 7'-11"
7'-2" 9" 7'-11" E1 E2 E3 E4 LEFT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW 36" x 80" SLIDING DOOR 36" x 80" SLIDING DOOR WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW SHEET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: RGA PROJECT NO: 23002.00 PREPARED BY: DEVELOPER / OWNER / APPLICANT: COVINGTON APPLE VALLEY 84 PROJECT APPLE VALLEY , CA CAD FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: CCCC COV APPLE VALLEY, LLC 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, STE. 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONTACT: RONALD RAKUNAS TEL: 760.672.3040 08/15/25 TYPICAL DETAILS TYPICAL DETAILS A1-1P PUMP HOUSE KEYNOTES ## 1. CONCRETE TILT-UP SCREEN WALL AT 14' HIGH MIN., PAINTED ON BOTH SIDE. 2. ROOF LINE BEYOND. 3. PANEL REVEAL PAINTED TO MATCH BUILDING FINISH. 4. OVERFLOW SCUPPER AND DOWNSPOUT. 5. 3'X7' PAIR OF HOLLOW METAL DOORS WITH LOUVERS. A SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" PUMP HOUSE FLOOR PLAN B SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATION (TYP.) C SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATION P-2 SW 7071 - GRAY SCREEN P-4 SW 7074 - SOFTWARE FINISH / MATERIALS LEGEND 24 10/21/25 2ND PLANNING SUBMITTAL 23002-A1-1P D SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" GUARD BOOTH FLOOR PLAN E SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" GUARD BOOTH ELEVATIONS Page 62 of 416

BUILDING MAIN OFFICE SECONDARY OFFICE W R A N G L E R R O A D

J O H N S O N R O A D S T O D D A R D W E L L S R O A D 36' WIDE FIRE ACCESS LANE
36' WIDE FIRE ACCESS LANE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED R.O.W. EXISTING R.O.W. PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE 45' BUILDING SETBACK
45' BUILDING SETBACK 30' BUILDING SETBACK 30' BUILDING SETBACK 30' BUILDING SETBACK
45' BUILDING SETBACK SHEET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: RGA PROJECT NO: 23002.00 PREPARED BY: DEVELOPER / OWNER / APPLICANT: COVINGTON APPLE VALLEY 84 PROJECT APPLE VALLEY , CA CAD FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: CCCC COV APPLE VALLEY, LLC 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, STE. 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONTACT: RONALD RAKUNAS TEL: 760.672.3040 SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" 0' 25' 50' 100' 200' 08/11/25 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SITE FENCE/GATE PLAN A1-2P FENCE AND SCREEN WALL LEGEND 8' HIGH STEEL FENCE WITH PILASTERS AT EVERY 50 FT O.C. - SEE TYPICAL ELEVATION ON SHEET 2/A1-1P 8' HIGH STEEL GATES WITH KNOX BOX PER FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS 23002-A1-2P 10/21/25 2ND PLANNING SUBMITTAL Page 63 of 416 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO BCDEFGHIJKLMNN.8 110 OH DOCK DOORS 121 OH DOCK DOORS MAIN OFFICE SECONDARY OFFICE 1978' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 16' 3' 5'
52' 60' 50' 50' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 50' 50' 60' 58' 790'
60' 50' 50' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 50' 50' 60' 48'-10" 728'-10"
3' 16' 10' 47'-8" 58' 1978' 58'-10" 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 63'-2" 60'
TYP.
50'
TYP.
50' 58' TYP.60'
TYP.
50'
TYP.
50' 151 TYP. 1 TYP. 1TYP. 1TYP. 1 TYP. 1 TYP. 2 TYP. 2 TYP. 33 4 TYP. 4 TYP. 4TYP. 55 6 6 6 7 TYP. 7TYP. 8 TYP. 8 TYP. 8TYP. TYP. 9 TYP. 9 TYP. 8 4 TYP. 9 TYP. 7 TYP. 7 TYP. 2'
5' 58' 58' 63'-2"
2'
5' 64'-4" 58' 10'
10' 47'-8" 58' 58'-10" 1010 47'-8"
120'-3"
TYP.
10'-4"
TYP.
40'-8"
TYP.
47'-8"
TYP. SHEET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: RGA PROJECT NO: 23002.00 PREPARED BY: DEVELOPER / OWNER / APPLICANT: COVINGTON APPLE VALLEY 84 PROJECT APPLE VALLEY , CA CAD FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: CCCC COV APPLE VALLEY, LLC 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, STE. 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONTACT: RONALD RAKUNAS TEL: 760.672.3040 SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" 0' 15' 30' 60' 120' SCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN 08/11/25 CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN A2-1P FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES ## 1. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP EXTERIOR WALL, TYP. 2. STRUCTURAL COLUMNS, TYP. 3. ACCESSIBLE MAIN ENTRY. 4. EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOORS, TYP. 5. 9'X10' OVERHEAD DOCK DOORS. 6. 12'X14' OVERHEAD DRIVE-THRU DOORS. 7. STOREFRONT SYSTEM WITH CLEAR ANODIZED MULLIONS, TYP. 8. EXTERIOR CONCRETE STAIRS WITH HANDRAILS/GUARDRAILS. 9. AIR INTAKE LOUVERS, TYP. 10. PAINTED STEEL TUBE CANOPY WITH PANEL COVER ABOVE THE ROOF DOORS. 10/21/25 2ND PLANNING SUBMITTAL 23002-A2-1P Page 64 of 416 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO BCDEFGHIJKLMNN.8 1978' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 52' 60' 50' 50' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 50' 50' 60' 58' 790'
60' 50' 50' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 50' 50' 60' 48'-10" 728'-10" 1978' 58'-10" 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 58' 63'-2" 58'-10" 58' 58' 63'-2" ROOF SLOPE 1/4"/FT RIDGE RIDGEROOF SLOPE 1/4"/FT
ROOF SLOPE 1/4"/FT ROOF SLOPE 1/4"/FT
ROOF SLOPE 1/4"/FT ROOF SLOPE 1/4"/FT
4'
5'
10'-4" 5' 47'-8" 29' 10'-4" 54' 58' 47'-8" 10'
4'
TYP. 4' TYP. 35'-4" 29' 47'-8" 10'
58' 47'-8" 29' 5' TYP.
5'
TYP. 4' TYP. 4' TYP. 30' 27'-6"
40'-8" 38'-3" 30' 22'-6"
40'-8" 38'-1" TYP. 1 TYP. 1 1 TYP. 1 TYP. 1 TYP. TYP. 2 TYP. 2 TYP. 33 TYP. 44 SHEET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: RGA PROJECT NO: 23002.00 PREPARED BY: DEVELOPER / OWNER / APPLICANT: COVINGTON APPLE VALLEY 84 PROJECT APPLE VALLEY , CA CAD FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: CCCC COV APPLE VALLEY, LLC 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, STE. 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONTACT: RONALD RAKUNAS TEL: 760.672.3040 SCHEMATIC ROOF PLAN 08/15/25 SCHEMATIC ROOF PLAN A2-2P SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" 0' 15' 30' 60' 120' ROOF PLAN KEYNOTES ## 1. CONCRETE TILT-UP PARAPET AND RETURNS AT HEIGHT TO FULLY CONCEAL THE ROOF TOP UNITS FROM GROUND-LEVEL AND ADJACENT VIEWPOINTS FROM THE PUBLIC VIEW. 2. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROOF TOP UNITS. 3. LOW ROOF SOFFIT, SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. 4. PAINTED STEEL TUBE CANOPY WITH PANEL COVER ABOVE THE ROOF DOORS. 10/21/25 2ND PLANNING SUBMITTAL 23002-A2-2P SOLAR READY AREA: 15% OF ROOF AREA REQUIRED TO BE SOLAR READY ZONE ROOF AREA: 1,366,412 S.F. SKYLIGHTS AREA: 27,328 S.F. (2% OF TOTAL ROOF AREA) "SOLAR READY" AREA REQUIRED: 1,366,412 S.F. - 27,328 S.F. = 1,339,084 S.F. 1,339,084 S.F. X 15% = 200,862.6 S.F. "SOLAR READY" AREA PROVIDED: 200,870 S.F. FUTURE SOLAR ZONE REQUIREMENTS 04/29/26 3RD PLANNING SUBMITTAL Page 65 of 416 45'
50'-6"
3'-6"
53'
55'
3'-6"
45'
50'-6"
53' 6 TYP. 1 1 6 TYP. 4 TYP. 6 TYP. 14 10 TYP. 0000 3 1 2 12 6 2 6 TYP. TYP. 6 1 TYP. 4 TYP. 2 3 TYP. 6 TYP. 10 TYP. 1 6 TYP. 4 TYP. 6 4 TYP. 10 TYP. 6 TYP. TYP. 14 13 14 3 TYP. 6 TYP. 10 TYP. 4 TYP. 52'
40'
35'
50'-6"
45'
53'
55' F.F.L.
7'
40'
52'
45'
47' 3 1 2 2 6 6 6 4 3 TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. 1 7 TYP. 8 9 TYP. 10 TYP. 4 11 TYP. 6 TYP. 4 TYP. 14 13 14 F.F.L. 10' 10' 5'
7' 6 TYP. 4 3 TYP. TYP. 9 TYP. 10 TYP. 11 6 TYP. F.F.L. 4 3 TYP. TYP. 9 TYP. 10 TYP. 11 47' 4' 6 TYP. 0000 6 2 6 12 2 1 3 TYP. TYP. 1 6 TYP. 4 TYP. 3 2 TYP. 6 TYP. 6 1 TYP. 4 TYP. 14 13 14 52'
40'
35'
50'-6"
45'
53' F.F.L.
7' SHEET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: RGA PROJECT NO: 23002.00 PREPARED BY: DEVELOPER / OWNER / APPLICANT: COVINGTON APPLE VALLEY 84 PROJECT APPLE VALLEY , CA CAD FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: CCCC COV APPLE VALLEY, LLC 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, STE. 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONTACT: RONALD RAKUNAS TEL: 760.672.3040 08/11/25 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS A3-1P NORTH ELEVATION (ALONG JOHNSON ROAD) SCHEMATIC EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1" = 20' MATCH LINE "A"
MATCH LINE "B"
MATCH LINE "A"
MATCH LINE "B"
MATCH LINE "B"
MATCH LINE "C"
MATCH LINE "C"
MATCH LINE "D"
MATCH LINE "A"
MATCH LINE "B"
MATCH LINE "A"
MATCH LINE "B" EAST ELEVATION - MATCH LINE "A" SCALE: 1" = 20' EAST ELEVATION - MATCH LINE "B" SCALE: 1" = 20' EAST ELEVATION - MATCH LINE "C" SCALE: 1" = 20' SOUTH ELEVATION - MATCH LINE "A" (ALONG STODDARD WELLS ROAD) SCALE: 1" = 20' SOUTH ELEVATION - MATCH LINE "B" (ALONG STODDARD WELLS ROAD) SCALE: 1" = 20' GL-1 VISTACOOL PACIFICA REFLECTIVE GLAZING WITH CLEAR ANODIZED ALUM. MULLIONS ACM-1 ALUCOBOND SILVER METALLIC P-1 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7005 - PURE WHITE P-2 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7071 - GRAY SCREEN P-3 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7073 - NETWORK GRAY P-4 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7074 - SOFTWARE P-5 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 6803 - DANUBE P-6 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 6797 - JAY BLUE P-7 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 6967 - FRANK BLUE FINISH / MATERIALS LEGEND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS KEYNOTES 1. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP PARAPET AND RETURNS AT HEIGHT TO FULLY CONCEAL THE ROOF TOP UNITS FROM GROUND-LEVEL AND ADJACENT VIEWPOINTS FROM THE PUBLIC VIEW. 2. STOREFRONT SYSTEM & DOORS WITH ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAMES/MULLIONS. 3. PAINTED STEEL TUBE CANOPY WITH PANEL COVER ABOVE THE ROOF DOORS. 4. WAREHOUSE CLERESTORY WINDOWS WITH CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAMES. 5. CONCRETE TILT-UP PANEL JOINTS - PAINTED. 6. CONCRETE TILT-UP REVEALS - PAINTED. 7. 9'X10' OVERHEAD DOCK DOORS, TYP. 8. 12'X14' OVERHEAD DRIVE-THRU DOORS, TYP. 9. 4'X8' AIR INTAKE LOUVERS, TYP. 10. EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOORS. 11. CONCRETE STAIRS WITH GUARDRAILS/HANDRAILS. 12. BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS PER FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. 13. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROOF TOP UNITS. 14. PRELIMINARY TOP OF ROOF FINISH. ## Page 66 of 416 6 TYP. 1 1 6 TYP. 4 TYP. 6 TYP. 4 3 TYP. TYP. 9 TYP. 10 TYP. 11 6 TYP. 6 TYP. 6 TYP. 6 TYP. 14 8 TYP. 4 TYP. 45'
5'-6" 6 TYP.
49' 4' 9 TYP. 10 TYP. 11 7 TYP. 6 2 1 3 TYP. 6 TYP. 14 1 13 14 2 52'
40' F.F.L.
7'
10' 5' 10' 6 TYP. 10 TYP. 4 TYP.
45'
47'
50'-6" 8 SHEET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: RGA PROJECT NO: 23002.00 PREPARED BY: DEVELOPER / OWNER / APPLICANT: COVINGTON APPLE VALLEY 84 PROJECT APPLE VALLEY , CA CAD FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: CCCC COV APPLE VALLEY, LLC 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, STE. 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONTACT: RONALD RAKUNAS TEL: 760.672.3040 SCHEMATIC EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 08/15/25 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS A3-2P MATCH LINE "A"
MATCH LINE "B" WEST ELEVATION - MATCH LINE "A" (ALONG WRANGLER ROAD) SCALE: 1" = 20' MATCH LINE "A"
MATCH LINE "B" WEST ELEVATION - MATCH LINE "B" (ALONG WRANGLER ROAD) SCALE: 1" = 20' MATCH LINE "B"
MATCH LINE "C" WEST ELEVATION - MATCH LINE "C" (ALONG WRANGLER ROAD) MATCH LINE "C"
MATCH LINE "D" SCALE: 1" = 20' GL-1 VISTACOOL PACIFICA REFLECTIVE GLAZING WITH CLEAR ANODIZED ALUM. MULLIONS ACM-1 ALUCOBOND SILVER METALLIC P-1 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7005 - PURE WHITE P-2 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7071 - GRAY SCREEN P-3 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7073 - NETWORK GRAY P-4 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7074 - SOFTWARE P-5 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 6803 - DANUBE P-6 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 6797 - JAY BLUE P-7 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 6967 - FRANK BLUE FINISH / MATERIALS LEGEND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS KEYNOTES 1. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP PARAPET AND RETURNS AT HEIGHT TO FULLY CONCEAL THE ROOF TOP UNITS FROM GROUND-LEVEL AND ADJACENT VIEWPOINTS FROM THE PUBLIC VIEW. 2. STOREFRONT SYSTEM & DOORS WITH ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAMES/MULLIONS. 3. PAINTED STEEL TUBE CANOPY WITH PANEL COVER ABOVE THE ROOF DOORS. 4. WAREHOUSE CLERESTORY WINDOWS WITH CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAMES. 5. CONCRETE TILT-UP PANEL JOINTS - PAINTED. 6. CONCRETE TILT-UP REVEALS - PAINTED. 7. 9'X10' OVERHEAD DOCK DOORS, TYP. 8. 12'X14' OVERHEAD DRIVE-THRU DOORS, TYP. 9. 4'X8' AIR INTAKE LOUVERS, TYP. 10. EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOORS. 11. CONCRETE STAIRS WITH GUARDRAILS/HANDRAILS. 12. BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS PER FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. 13. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROOF TOP UNITS. 14. PRELIMINARY TOP OF ROOF FINISH. ## Page 67 of 416 0000 0000 F.F.L. P-1 P-5 P-2 P-6 GL-1 P-4 P-7 P-5 P-6 P-4 P-1 P-2 P-7 GL-1 P-5 P-6 P-4 P-5 P-7 P-6 P-2 0000 GL-1 P-6 P-5 P-7 GL-1 P-4 ACM-1 P-1 P-5 P-4 P-3 P-2 P-7 P-1 P-6 GL-1 P-2 P-5 P-6 P-7 SHEET TITLE MARK DATE DESCRIPTION COPYRIGHT: RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DRAWN BY: RGA PROJECT NO: 23002.00 PREPARED BY: DEVELOPER / OWNER / APPLICANT: COVINGTON APPLE VALLEY 84 PROJECT APPLE VALLEY , CA CAD FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: CCCC COV APPLE VALLEY, LLC 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, STE. 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONTACT: RONALD RAKUNAS TEL: 760.672.3040 MATERIAL FINISH BOARD 10/21/25 MATERIAL BOARD A3-3P SOUTH ELEVATION (ALONG STODDARD WELLS ROAD) SCALE: 1" = 20' ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION (ALONG STODDARD WELLS ROAD) SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" ACM-1 ALUCOBOND COLOR: SILVER METALLIC PAINT TYPE: PVDF-3 FINISH: METALLIC GLOSS: 25 - 35 SRI VALUE: 58 LRV: 50 DIRECTIONAL: YES SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7071 - GRAY SCREEN LRV: 59 RGB: 198 / 202 / 202 HEX VALUE: #C6CACA SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7073 - NETWORK GRAY LRV: 37 RGB: 160 / 165 / 167 HEX VALUE: #A0A5A7 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7074 - SOFTWARE LRV: 23 RGB: 127 / 132 / 134 HEX VALUE: #7F8486 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 6803 - DANUBE LRV: 16 RGB: 35 / 119 / 162 HEX VALUE: #2377A2 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 6797 - JAY BLUE LRV: 9 RGB: 1 / 93 / 135 HEX VALUE: #015D87 SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 6967 - FRANK BLUE LRV: 8 RGB: 34 / 82 / 136 HEX VALUE: #225288 FINISH / MATERIALS LEGEND SHERWIN WILLIAMS: SW 7005 - PURE WHITE LRV: 84 RGB: 237 / 236 / 230 HEX VALUE: #EDECE6 VISTACOOL PACIFICA REFLECTIVE GLAZING WITH CLEAR ANODIZED ALUM. MULLIONS OUTSIDE LITE: 1/4" PPG SOLARCOOL PACIFICA, REFLECTIVE #2 INSIDE LITE: 1/4" PPG SOLARBAN 60 LOW-E #3 SHADING COEFFICIENT: 0.17 / SHGC: 0.15 / VLT: 13% U-FACTOR WINTER NIGHTTIME: 0.29 / U-FACTOR SUMMER DAYTIME: 0.27 P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 GL-1 ACM-1 23002-A3-3P SEE ENLARGED ELEVATION Page 68 of 416

C OF EASEMENT 7 NO WIDTH DEFINED L APN: 0472-301-07 OWNER: MONTEBELLO HOUSING DEV CORP APN: 0472-211-01 OWNER: SONG 1985 TRUST APN: 0472-211-06 OWNER: COV APPLE VALLEY LLC APN: 0472-211-15 OWNER: COV APPLE VALLEY LLC APN: 0472-212-07 OWNER: CHEN JENG-HONG / LEE FANG-KONG APN: 0472-212-05 OWNER: COV APPLE VALLEY LLC 677.85' (671.10' R1) 677.85' (671.10 R1)
N89°37'01"E 1339.48' (1339.53' R1 & R2) 334.87' (334.88' R1)(334.85' R3) 669.74' (669.77' R1) N00°26'47"W 1355.70' (1342.20' R1 & R2)
N00°25'14"W 2718.12'
1359.06'
N89°45'39"E 1338.87' (1338.11' R1& R2)

C STODDARD WELLS ROAD L C COBBLER STREET L (PUBLIC STREET) C JOHNSON ROAD L (PUBLIC STREET)

C WRANGLER ROAD L
(PUBLIC STREET)
C GRASSHOPPER ROAD L (PUBLIC STREET) S13 S24 NS18 S19 T 6 1 9 6 0 S O . . C . B S R YO V E UR R4W R3W S24 NS19 T 6 1 9 6 0 S O . . C . B S R YO V E UR R4W R3W 1/4 N00°15'53"W 666.90' (M & R3) N89°36'45"E 333.44' (334.18' R3) N00°23'15"W 666.92' (M & R3) 628.88'
N00°37'38"W 1356.44' 633.78'
1018.03'
N75°19'26"E 1057.92'
Δ=5°05'48" R=1960.00' L=174.35' 144.09'
N00°32'03"W 1329.53' PARCEL 2 PARCEL A PARCEL 2 PARCEL B PARCEL 2 PARCEL C PARCEL 2 PARCEL F PARCEL 2 PARCEL 2 PARCEL E PARCEL D PARCEL 2 PARCEL H PARCEL 2 PARCEL K PARCEL 2 PARCEL G PARCEL 2 PARCEL J PARCEL 2 PARCEL I PARCEL 1 PARCEL A1 633.78' 628.88' N89°22'57"E 1267.56' APN: 0469-162-25 OWNER: SEASONS LAND CORPORATION APN: 0469-162-26 OWNER: CORTES FRED R / TAYGON EDWIN L APN: 0469-162-10 OWNER: SISON FAMILY TRUST 0/98 APN: 0472-301-03 OWNER: KELLY MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION APN: 0469-162-01 OWNER: GOVERNMENT LAND PARCEL A2 PARCEL A2 N89°37'13"E 1257.76' (610.06' R4) 1336.66' 1336.69' N88°58'22"W 2673.35' 103 102 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 119 118 120 121 123 122 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 N75°19'26"E 1112.69' Δ = 5°20'45" R = 1936.00' L = 180.65' T = 90.39' 52.06' N52°36'18"W N00°32'03"W 1291.33'
N00°25'14"W 992.57'
N00°26'47"W 1288.78' 32.54' N44°35'07"E N89°37'01"E 1272.41' N89°37'13"E 627.07' N00°37'38"W 1312.44' N89°45'39"E 1294.87' PARCEL 1 NET AREA: 92.731 AC GROSS AREA: 98.118 AC 5 18 5 18 7 C OF EASEMENT NO WIDTH DEFINED L 141520 1415 18 18 18 14 15 20 18 14 15 20 13 14 13 14 13 14 13 14 5 5 18 18 1314 1314 EX. RW 334.87' (334.88' R1)(334.86' R3) EX. RW PROP. RW EX. RW PROP. RW PL PROP. RW EX. RW PL PL PL 16 PL PL EX. RW RW PROP. RW EX. RW PROP. RW RWRW RWRW RW PL PROP. RW PROP. RW EX. RW EX. RW EX. 21" SEWER
EX. FIBER OPTIC
PROP. 16" WATER
EX. 21" SEWER
EX. FIBER OPTIC
PROP. 16" WATER PROP. 16" WATER PER DP22-16 PLAN PROP. 8" SEWER PER DP22-16 PLAN PROP. 16" WATER PER DP22-16 PLAN PROP. 16" WATER PER DP22-16 PLAN PROP. 8" SEWER PER DP22-16 PLAN (TO BE VACATED)

C UNNAMED STREET L (TO BE VACATED)
(TO BE VACATED) APN: 0469-162-27 OWNER: APPLE 84 LLC APN: 0469-162-24 OWNER: APPLE 84 LLC 101 100 SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1" = 150' 0 150 300 450 SEE SHEET 2 FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EASEMENTS MONUMENT NOTES FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING AT ALL PROPERTY CORNERS UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. (R1) PARCEL MAP NO. 1663, P.M.B. 15/26 (R2) PARCEL MAP NO. 31, P.M.B. 1/17 (R3) PARCEL MAP NO. 2580, P.M.B. 22/95 (R4) PARCEL MAP NO. 1772, P.M.B. 14/89 SHEET 1 OF 2 HZ PROJECT NO.: R317215.01 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: DWMAY M JULY 3, 2025 3990 CONCOURS, SUITE 330, ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764 Phone (909) 941-7799, www.huitt-zollars.com JULY 2025 100 FOUND IRON PIPE & PLASTIC CAP WITH PLUG, "LS 558 DC GOMES", NO REFERENCE, UP .20' 101 FOUND 2" IRON PIPE WITH PLUG, "RCE 13191", FLUSH PER PARCEL MAP NO. 7955, P.M.B. 144/78-80 102 SFN, ESTABLISHED AT MIDPOINT 103 FOUND GEAR SPIKE & WASHER, "LS 8231",NO REFERENCE, FLUSH 104 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE & 3" BRASS CAP, STAMPED AS SHOWN, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 1663, P.M.B. 15/26, UP 0.2' 105 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE "LS 8231, FLUSH' 106 FOUND GEAR SPIKE & WASHER "LS 8231, FLUSH' 107 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE, NO REFERENCE, UP .20" 108 FOUND SPIKE & WASHER, NO REFERENCE, FLUSH 109 SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING, ESTABLISHED AT MIDPOINT 110 SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING, ESTABLISHED AT MIDPOINT 111 SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING, ESTABLISHED AT MIDPOINT 112 SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING, ESTABLISHED AT MIDPOINT 113 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE "LS 2722", UP 0.4' , NO REFERENCE, ACCEPTED AS THE NE CORNER NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SECTION 19 114 SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING, ESTABLISHED AT MIDPOINT 115 SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING, ESTABLISHED AT MIDPOINT 116 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE "LS 3980", PER PARCEL MAP NO. 2580, P.M.B. 22/95, FLUSH 117 SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING, ESTABLISHED AT MIDPOINT 118 FOUND 2 X 2 REDWOOD HUB "LS 3980", PER PARCEL MAP NO. 2580, P.M.B. 22/95, UP 0.4' 119 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE "LS 3980", PER PARCEL MAP NO. 2580, P.M.B. 22/95, FLUSH 120 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE "LS 7562", FLUSH 121 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE & 3" BRASS CAP, STAMPED AS SHOWN, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 1663, P.M.B. 15/26, DOWN 0.3' 122 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE "RCE 14382", FLUSH, PER R4 123 SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING, ESTABLISHED AT MIDPOINT 124 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE "LS 2722", UP 0.2' , NO REFERENCE, (HELD FOR LINE) 125 FOUND 2 X 2 REDWOOD HUB "LS 3980", PER PARCEL MAP NO. 2580, P.M.B. 22/95, UP 0.5' 126 FOUND 2 X 2 REDWOOD HUB "LS 3980", PER PARCEL MAP NO. 2580, P.M.B. 22/95 127 FOUND 1" IRON PIPE "LS 3980", PER PARCEL MAP NO. 2580, P.M.B. 22/95, FLUSH 128 FOUND 2 X 2 REDWOOD HUB "LS 3980", PER PARCEL MAP NO. 2580, P.M.B. 22/95, NO TAG, UP 0.4' 129 FOUND 2 X 2 REDWOOD HUB "LS 3980", UP 0.3' 130 SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING, ESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARINGS OF THE FIELD SURVEY REFERENCED HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING BETWEEN CORS "P589" AND CORS "P582" BEING NORTH 88°14'08" WEST PER PUBLISHED VALUES BY SOPAC. FLOOD ZONE: THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON IS LOCATED WITHIN FLOOD ZONE D. FLOOD ZONE D IS DEFINED AS "AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN" ON FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FIRM (FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP) MAP NO. 06071C5830H, EFFECTIVE DATE AUGUST 28, 2008. ZONING INFORMATION SHOWN WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING DEPARTMENT WEBSITE: THE FOLLOWING AFFECTS APN NO. 0469-162-27 AND 0469-162-24 ZONING INFORMATION: (CR) REGIONAL COMMERCIAL THE FOLLOWING AFFECTS ALL OTHER APN'S ZONING INFORMATION: (O-P) OFFICE PROFESSIONAL Attachment C

SHEET 1 OF 2 HZ PROJECT NO.: R317215.01 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: DWMAY M JULY 3, 2025 3990 CONCOURS, SUITE 330, ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764 Phone (909) 941-7799, www.huitt-zollars.com

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: PARCEL A1: THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TOWNSHIP PLAT APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1919. PARCEL A2: AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTHERLY 30 FEET AND OVER AND ACROSS THE SOUTHERLY 30 FEET OF THAT PORTION LYING WEST OF STODDARD WELLS ROAD OF THE EAST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ AND THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SANBERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TOWNSHIPPLAT APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1919. PARCEL 2: PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF SOUTH ½ OF THE SOUTH ½ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN,

IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF

THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF STODDARD WELLS ROAD, AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2316, PAGE 297 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, THENCE WEST 1046.77 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF STODDARD WELLS ROAD AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE NORTH 334.49 FEET; THENCE EAST 389.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 226.93 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF STODDARD WELLS ROAD; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF STODDARD WELLS ROAD, 404.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 6NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, THENCE WEST 1046.77 FEET TO THE CENTER OF STODDARD WELLS ROAD AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 334.49 FEET; THENCE EAST 389.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 226.93 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF STODDARD WELLS ROAD; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF STODDARD WELLS ROAD 404.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN STODDARD WELLS ROAD AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2316, PAGE 297 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE

AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF STODDARD WELLS ROAD AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1948 IN BOOK 2316, PAGE 297, OFFICIAL RECORDS AND WESTERLY OF THE EAST 1046.77 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL D: PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 31, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 17 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL E: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 31, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 17 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL F: THE NORTH ½ OF THE SOUTH ½ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE. PARCEL G: THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEY OF THE SAID LAND. PARCEL H: THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, COUNTY OF SANBERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. PARCEL I: THE EAST ½ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 6NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT SURVEY. PARCEL J: PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 1663, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 15, PAGE 26 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL K: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 1663, IN THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, COUNTY OF SANBERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 15 PAGE 26 OFPARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. 5 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES RECORDED MARCH 27, 1969, RECORDING NO. 187, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 13 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 13, 1969, IN BOOK 7180, PAGE 801, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 14 AN IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO DEDICATE AN EASEMENT OVER A PORTION OF SAID LAND FOR HIGHWAY AND ROAD PURPOSES RECORDED SEPTEMBER 17, 1973, RECORDING NO. 395, BOOK 8268, PAGE 570, OFFICIAL RECORDS. SAID OFFER WAS ACCEPTED BY RESOLUTION, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED AUGUST 1, 1990, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90-305001, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 7 AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES AND CONDUITS PURPOSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 18, 1928, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 111, IN BOOK 334, PAGE 93, OFFICIAL RECORDS (DOCUMENT DOES NOT DESCRIBE A WIDTH OF THE EASEMENT, CENTERLINE IS SHOWN HEREON). 15 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 13, 1969, IN BOOK 7180, PAGE 801, OFFICIAL RECORDS (EASEMENT ITEM IS IDENTICAL TO ITEM 13). 16 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 24, 1970, IN BOOK 7393, PAGE 217, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 17 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 13, 1969, IN BOOK 7180, PAGE 801, OFFICIAL RECORDS (EASEMENT ITEM IS IDENTICAL TO ITEM 13). 18 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES RECORDED NOVEMBER 20, 1970, IN BOOK 7558, PAGE 604, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 19 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 13, 1969, IN BOOK 7180, PAGE 801, OFFICIAL RECORDS (EASEMENT ITEM IS IDENTICAL TO ITEM 13). 20 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES RECORDED NOVEMBER 5, 1970, IN BOOK 7549, PAGE 350, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 21 AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES RECORDED SEPTEMBER 17, 1973, IN BOOK 8268, PAGE 570, OFFICIAL RECORDS (EASEMENT ITEM IS IDENTICAL TO ITEM 14). 24 AN IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO DEDICATE AN EASEMENT OVER A PORTION OF SAID LAND FOR HIGHWAY AND ROAD PURPOSES RECORDED SEPTEMBER 17, 1973, RECORDING NO. 395, BOOK 8268, PAGE 570, OFFICIAL RECORDS (EASEMENT ITEM IS IDENTICAL TO ITEM 14). 25 AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES, WATER, ALLEYS AND STREETS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 13, 1979, IN BOOK 7180, PAGE 801, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 2 Page 71 of 416 28314.00323\45269682.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-27

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF

APPLE VALLEY CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (SCH #2025100104) AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT,

A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND

A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT

TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE
APPLE VALLEY 84 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LOCATED NORTH

OF STODDARD WELLS ROAD (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS
0472-211-01, -02, -03, -09, -10, -11, -17, -18, -19, -20, -21 and 0472- 301-01) IN THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.

WHEREAS, the Apple Valley 84 Logistics Center Project (“Project”) has been proposed by Apple 84 LLC to construct a 1.38 million square foot eCommerce warehouse and distribution center on approximately 93 acres of land bounded by future Wrangler Road to the west, vacant lands and future Johnson Road to the north, Stoddard Wells Road to the south and by vacant lands to the east in the northwest part of the Town (Assessor Parcel Numbers 0472-211-01, -02, -03, -09, -10, -11, -17, -18, -19, -20, -21 and 0472-301- 01); and
WHEREAS, the Project requests a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation from Professional Office to Regional Commercial; and WHEREAS, the Project requests a Zone Change to change the site’s zoning from “O-P” Office Professional to “C-R” Regional Commercial with “I-N” Industrial overlay; and WHEREAS, the Project requests a Development Code Amendment to change Town of Apple Valley Code Table 9.35.030.A, Footnote 7, to expand the e-Commerce/I-N overlay boundary eastward to include the project site and revise the overlay’s acreage from 978 to 1,071 acres to encompass the project site; and
WHEREAS, the Project includes a Tentative Parcel Map, subject to all requirements as identified in Chapter 9.71, Subdivision Regulations, of Title 9 of the Town Municipal Code, to combine (12) separate legal parcels into one parcel to accommodate the proposed facility and associated on and off-site improvements and to formally vacate three street segments on the site; and
WHEREAS, the Project requests a Development Permit pursuant to Town Development Code Chapter 9.17.020.B; and
WHEREAS, the Project also includes a Development Agreement pursuant to Town Development Code Chapter 9.04; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section

RESOLUTION 2026-27
28314.00323\45269682.1
15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the Town of Apple Valley is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, on October 2nd, 2025, the Town sent to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation State Clearinghouse and publicly circulated and posted a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2025100104) would be prepared; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a 30-day NOP comment period was held, ending on October 31, 2025, during which the NOP and Initial Study were circulated to the public; local, state, and federal agencies; potentially affected Native American tribes; and other interested parties, resulting in receipt of three comments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(c) and 15083, the Town held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on October 8th, 2025; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21067 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR” or “DEIR”) was prepared, incorporating and addressing comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures are required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils and Tribal Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that, despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation; and WHEREAS, the EIR analyzes a range of potentially feasible alternatives capable of reducing environmental effects to a lesser level of significance; and WHEREAS, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), the Town published a Notice of Availability and circulated the DEIR for a 45-day public review and comment period from January 13, 2026 through February 27, 2026; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, physical copies of the DEIR and technical appendices were made available for public review at Apple Valley Town Hall, on the Town environmental web page and at San Bernardino County Public Library; and WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the Town consulted with and requested comments from all Responsible and Trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and other parties pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and WHEREAS, the Town received a total of nine written comment letters during the DEIR comment period; and

RESOLUTION 2026-27
28314.00323\45269682.1
WHEREAS, the Town prepared a Final EIR (“FEIR”), consisting of comments received, written responses to those comments and clarifications and revisions to the DEIR.

For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, including all of the technical studies and appendices to the Draft EIR, as revised by the FEIR clarifications and revisions section, together with the other sections of the Final EIR, including all of the technical studies and appendices to the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2026, the Town made publicly available on its website the FEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact; and
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2026, the Town sent notifications to all commenting agencies providing access to the electronic version of the FEIR and CEQA-related documents; and WHEREAS, the Town prepared certain Findings of Fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based on oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entire administrative record; and WHEREAS, the Town finds that environmental impacts identified in the FEIR as less than significant and not requiring mitigation are described in Section 3 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Town finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the FEIR as less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section 4 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Town finds that, even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, environmental impacts identified in the FEIR that are significant and unavoidable are described in Section 5 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section 7 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations discussing the reasons why the Project benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts is included as Section 9 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce potentially significant project impacts to less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as Exhibit B to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, all requirements of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied in connection with the preparation of the FEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been evaluated; and

RESOLUTION 2026-27
28314.00323\45269682.1
WHEREAS, the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Town, is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project, and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the merits of the Project were fully considered and recommended that the Town Council certify the FEIR and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations by a vote of five votes in favor and no votes against; and WHEREAS, a notice of Town Council public hearing was duly published and posted in the manner and for the time prescribed by law, and was also direct certified mailed to all property owners within a 700-foot radius of the Project site boundaries; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Town Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the FEIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, no comments made during the Town Council public hearing review period or in the public hearing, and no additional information submitted to the Town have produced substantial new information that would warrant preparation of a new EIR, recirculation of the previously prepared EIR, or any other additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the Town has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

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

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

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

RESOLUTION 2026-27
28314.00323\45269682.1
Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines. The Town finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town and declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received after circulation of the EIR that would require recirculation.

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

SECTION 4. After considering all evidence presented at the public hearing held on August 25, 2026, both oral and documentary, and after being fully informed, the Town Council hereby adopts CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which were prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

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

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

SECTION 7. The documents and materials associated with the Project and the FEIR that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings are based are located at Apple Valley Town Hall, 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, CA 92307.

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

SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Resolution shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution is effective immediately. All resolutions, parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby amended to be consistent herewith.

RESOLUTION 2026-27
28314.00323\45269682.1
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley this 25 th day of August, 2026.

Scott Nassif, Mayor
ATTEST:

Kiel E. Mangerino, Acting Town Clerk

RESOLUTION 2026-27
28314.00323\45269682.1

EXHIBIT A

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

RESOLUTION 2026-27
28314.00323\45269682.1

EXHIBIT B

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Planning Commission Hearing Draft
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for:

Apple Valley 84
State Clearinghouse No. 2025100104
Lead Agency
Town of Apple Valley, Planning Department
14955 Dale Evans Parkway
Apple Valley, CA 92307
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
General Plan Amendment
Zone Change
Development Code Amendment
Development Permit-Major Project
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 21034
Development Agreement
June 2026

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction and Purpose ............................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Findings Required Under CEQA...........................................................................................4

1.2 Project Summary....................................................................................................................5

1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation ...................................................................7

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings........................................................................................... 11

3.0 Environmental Impacts not Requiring Mitigation ....................................................................... 12

3.1 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................................12

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.....................................................................................15

3.3 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................17

3.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................................23

3.5 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................25

3.6 Energy..................................................................................................................................27

3.7 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................33

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................................38

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................................................43

3.10 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................51

3.11 Mineral Resources................................................................................................................53

3.12 Noise ....................................................................................................................................54

3.13 Population and Housing.......................................................................................................61

3.14 Public Services.....................................................................................................................63

3.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................................67

3.16 Transportation ......................................................................................................................68

3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources....................................................................................................73

3.18 Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................................................73

3.19 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................80

4.0 Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less-than-Significant ....................................... 82

4.2 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................82

4.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................................86

4.5 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................95

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3

4.6 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................99

4.7 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................101

5.0 Environmental Impacts That Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation............... 104

5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................104

5.2 Transportation ....................................................................................................................117

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations......................................................................................................122

6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes...............................................................122

6.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts..................................................................................................123

7.0 Alternatives................................................................................................................................ 127

8.0 General CEQA Findings............................................................................................................ 134

9.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations.................................................................................... 136

10.0 Additional Facts on Record........................................................................................................ 143

10.1 Custodian of Record...........................................................................................................143

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The 92.73-acre Project site, as described under Section 1.2.1 below, is in the Town of Apple Valley, San Bernardino County, California. The Town of Apple Valley (the “Town”) in approving the Apple Valley 84 Project (the “Project”) makes the Findings described below. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the Town, as described in Section 1.3, below, including but not limited to the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project with the Town acting as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”), Notice of Availability (“NOA”), Draft EIR (“Draft EIR”), Technical Studies, and Final EIR (“Final EIR”) (containing responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and textual revisions to the Draft EIR, will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified.

1.1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The statute also provides that the procedures required by CEQA are “intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Finally, Section 21002 indicates that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate described in Public Resources Code Section 21002 is implemented, in part, through the requirement that for projects with one or more significant environmental effects, agencies must adopt written findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is 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 final EIR. The second finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. The third finding is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a), “[i]f the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered `acceptable.”

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 5

1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY

1.2.1 SITE LOCATION
The approximately 92.73-acre site is located in the Town of Apple Valley which is within the Victor Valley Area of San Bernardino County, California. The Town of Apple Valley is situated northeast of the City of Hesperia, east of the City of Victorville, and west and south of unincorporated San Bernardino County. The Project site is located approximately 0.55 miles east of Interstate 15 (I-15) and approximately 4.0 miles north of State Route 18 (SR-18).

At the local scale, the Project site is primarily bounded by Johnson Road to the north, Stoddard Wells Road to the south, and vacant land to the east and west. The Project site is comprised of twelve parcels that total approximately 92.73 gross acres in size (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN]: 0472-211-01, -02, -03, -09, -10, -11, 17, -18, -19, -20, -21, and 0472-301-01).

Under existing conditions, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped. The concrete foundation of a removed structure is located on the southerly part of the site, approximately 75 feet north of Stoddard Wells Road. The site topography slopes from north to south and the desert terrain has numerous significant undulations creating multiple paths for stormwater over the entire site. All runoff is tributary to the Bell Mountain Wash on the south side of Stoddard Wells Road. Two vegetation communities and land cover types are located on the site: Creosote Bush Scrub and Developed/Disturbed lands. The Project site has been subjected to disturbance as a result of illegal dumping and trespassing.

1.2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project proposes the construction and operation of one industrial building totaling approximately 1,381,412 square feet (sf). Due to the speculative nature of the Project and to account for potential future tenant needs, the Project mix assumes 10% general light industrial, 15% high-cube cold storage warehouse use, and 75% high-cube fulfillment (non-sort) center warehousing use. The primary components of the Project are described below.
• Parcels 0472-211-01, -02, -03, -09, -10, -11, 17, -18, -19, -20, -21, and 0472-301-01 (approximately 92.73gross acres) would be merged to form one new legal parcel to facilitate the implementation of the proposed Site Plan. measuring 76.36 net acres. The Project would demolish the existing concrete foundation to allow for the construction and operation of one industrial building encompassing approximately 1,381,412 square feet (sf), including 15,000 sf of office space and 15,000 sf of mezzanine space. for a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.34. The Project would provide 901 truck trailer parking spaces, a total of 528 automobile parking spaces, and 231 dock doors on the north and south building elevations.

1.2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The underlying purpose and goal of Apple Valley 84 is to develop modern industrial uses in the Town of Apple Valley in close proximity to the State highway system in order to increase employment

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 6 opportunities and improve the Town’s economic competitiveness. The Project would achieve its underlying purpose and goal through 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 Class A speculative industrial buildings 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 industrial buildings in close proximity to the I-15 and SR-18 freeways that can be used as part of the southern California goods movement network.

1.2.4 TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY ACTIONS COVERED BY THE EIR
The following discretionary and administrative actions are required of the Town, as Lead Agency, to implement the Project. The EIR prepared for the Project covers all discretionary and administrative approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed. They include:
• 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 Parcel Map (VTPM) No. 21034
• Development Agreement

1.2.5 APPROVALS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
The California Public Resource Code (Section 21104) requires that all EIRs be reviewed by responsible and trustee agencies (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and Section 15086(a)). As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, “the term ‘Responsible Agency’ includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project.” A “Trustee Agency”

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 7 is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 as “a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California.” The anticipated agencies expected to use the EIR are described below. However, the EIR can be used by any Responsible or Trustee Agency, whether identified in the EIR or not, as part of their decisionmaking processes in relation to the Project.

Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
Proposed Project – Town of Apple Valley Discretionary Approvals Town of Apple Valley
Town Council
• Certify the EIR along with appropriate CEQA Findings. • Approval of the GPA 2024-001, ZC 2024-007, DCA
2024-001, Development Permit – Major Project 2025-
013, VTPM 21034, and Development Agreement.

Subsequent Town of Apple Valley Ministerial Approvals
Town of Apple Valley Departments and
Divisions
• Approval of precise site plan(s) and
landscaping/irrigation plan(s), as may be appropriate.
• Issuance of Grading Permits.
• Issuance of Building Permits.
• Approval of Road Improvement Plans.
• Issuance Encroachment Permits.
• Approval of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP).
• Approval of sewer infrastructure improvements and
connections
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
• Issuance of a Construction Activity General
Construction Permit.
• Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

San Bernardino County Flood Control District
(SBCFCD)
• Approval of the Project’s proposed drainage
improvements.

Town of Apple Valley Fire Protection District • Approval of fire hydrant locations and fire protection features for the proposed building.

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
District (Mojave Desert AQMD)
• Issuance construction-related permits.

Liberty Utilities • Approval of proposed water infrastructure improvements and connections.

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Town conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the Town’s decision makers and the public are fully informed about the potential significant environmental effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; and to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project using mitigation measures which have been found to be feasible.

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 8 To do this, the Town, acting as Lead Agency under CEQA, undertook the following:
• Circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (the “State Clearinghouse”), Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on October 2, 2025, for a 30-day review period between October 2, 2025 through October 31, 2025;
• The NOP was posted on the Town’s website and Town of Apple Valley Planning Department on October 2, 2025;
• The NOP was posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk’s office on October 2, 2025; • Held a publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting via virtual meeting participation on Microsoft Zooms which was open to public attendance on October 8, 2025, to solicit comments from the public on the environmental issue areas that should be analyzed in the EIR; • Sent a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) and electronic copies of the Draft EIR to the California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, State Clearinghouse, on January 12, 2026;
• Mailed via certified mail a copy of the NOA to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties and organizations to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on January 13, 2026, and ending on February 27, 2026;
• The NOA was posted on the Town’s website and at the San Bernardino County Clerk’s office on January 13, 2026;
• The Draft EIR was posted on the Town’s website at
https://applevalley.org/government/california-environmental-quality-act/ during the public review period for the Draft EIR;
• Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR; • Provided the Final EIR, including individual responses to agencies that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certifying the EIR; • Held a Planning Commission hearing on July 15, 2026; and • Held a Town Council hearing
The Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of those items listed in CEQA Section 21167.6(e), along with other items contained within the Town’s files that are relevant to the consideration of the

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 9 Project. The Record of Proceedings for the Town’s decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum and without limitation, which are herein incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Findings:
• The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the Town in conjunction with the Project;
• The Draft EIR for the Project and all technical appendices and documents cited, relied upon or incorporated by reference;
• All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR and the Town’s responses to those comments;
• The Draft EIR for the Project and all technical appendices and documents cited, relied upon or incorporated by reference;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the Town or consultants to the Town with respect to the Town’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the Town’s action on the Project;
• All documents submitted to the Town by public agencies, organizations or members of the public in connection with the Draft EIR;
• Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the Town in connection with the Project; • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the Town at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
• All findings and resolutions adopted by the Town regarding the Project, all documents, cited or referred to therein and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;
• Matters of common knowledge to the Town, including, but not limited to federal, State, and local laws and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above; and any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA Section 21167.6(e).

All the documents identified above and all the documents which constitute the Record of Proceedings for the Town’s actions related to the Project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) are

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 10 located at the Town of Apple Valley, Planning Department, 14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, CA 92307. Questions should be directed to David Contreras, Planning Director.

Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 11

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., a professional consulting firm. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by Town staff and its peer review consultants, the thorough and independent peer review of the EIR, including comments and responses by Town staff and its consultants, and the review and careful consideration of the EIR by the Town, including comments and responses; all demonstrate that the EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town as the Lead Agency.

Based on the NOP, Technical Appendix A to the Draft EIR, and the responses to the NOP, the EIR analyzed fifteen (15) potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result from implementation of the Project. These environmental topics were analyzed in the EIR and include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems.

Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the Draft EIR, as well as any and all other information in the record, the Town hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with CEQA Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 12

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The Town hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project are less-than-significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Project impacts for Aesthetics do not result in significant impacts, and related findings are discussed below.

3.1.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 4.1.5 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
Scenic vistas are generally described in two ways: (1) panoramic views (visual access to a large geographic area, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance); and (2) focal views (visual access to a particular object, scene, or feature of interest). Development projects have the potential to impact scenic vistas in two ways: 1) physically alter a designated scenic resource (e.g., disturb or develop upon a ridgeline, hillside, peak or shoreline) and 2) block or substantially obscure the public views of a scenic vista (e.g., designated scenic views from public roads, trails, parks, landmarks, etc.). (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-8)
The Apple Valley General Plan identifies the Mojave River, surrounding knolls, hillsides, mountains, and the natural desert environment as local scenic resources. As shown in General Plan Exhibit III-3, the Project site is not located within an area identified for scenic preservation. There are no scenic vistas within the Project site, nor would the Project otherwise adversely affect a designated scenic vista because existing scenic resources are over 2 miles away from the Project site and the surrounding knolls, hillsides, mountains, and the natural desert environment would remain visible from public rightof-way. Accordingly, the potential for development of the Project site to result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-8)

3.1.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 13  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.1.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts with respect to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
There are no officially designated scenic roads or highways within the Town. There is one officially designated state scenic highway in the County and 11 eligible scenic highways . Route 38, the County’s only designated scenic highway, is located approximately 27 miles southeast of the Project site in the San Bernardino National Forest. There are no eligible scenic highways located within Town limits.

Route 247 is the nearest eligible scenic highway, located approximately 17 miles east of the Project site, near the Sidewinder Mountains. None of the County’s officially designated or eligible scenic highways are visible from the Project site, nor is the Project site visible from the highways. Therefore, no impacts associated with scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-8 through 4.1-9)

3.1.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not, in a non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. The Project would not, in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.1.5 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 Project site is located in an area that meets the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of an “urbanized area” and is planned for urban uses by the Town General Plan; therefore, the following discussion analyzes the Project’s potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9)
Construction
During construction, the Project would result in a temporary change to the visual character of the Project site from a predominantly undeveloped site to an active construction site with construction equipment, staging areas, construction machinery, and temporary fencing. Following the completion of the construction activities, all construction equipment would be removed from the Project site. The Town’s Municipal Code Chapter 8.20 – Construction Site Maintenance and Trash Containment, establishes minimum standards for construction site maintenance including the collection, storage containment and removal of construction site trash, rubbish or debris. The temporary presence of

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 14 construction equipment within a property under construction is common and Project construction activities would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.20 which would routinely keep the Project site clean of any trash, rubbish, or debris. Project-related changes to local visual character and quality during Project construction would be less than significant due to construction site maintenance in accordance with the Town’s Municipal Code Chapter 8.20 and removal of construction equipment after completion. Therefore, Project construction activities would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9) Operation
Project-applicable goals and policies and a discussion of the Project’s potential to conflict with applicable General Plan policies with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect related to aesthetics are discussed in Table 4.1-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, of the Draft EIR.

As shown, the Project would not conflict with General Plan policies governing scenic quality. The Project’s design, including the site layout, architecture, and landscaping is discussed and illustrated in detail in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. As shown in Table 4.1-1, Zoning Development Standards Consistency Analysis, of the Draft EIR the Project would be consistent with the development standards under the Town’s Municipal Code which includes design standards related to building size, height, floor area ratio, and setbacks, as well as landscaping, signage, and other visual considerations.

These design standards help adjacent land uses to be visually consistent with one another and their surroundings and reduce the potential for conflicting visual elements. Compliance with the Town’s General Plan and Development Code would preclude significant impacts in this regard. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-9 through 4.1-11; Final EIR, p. 3-4)

3.1.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 4.1.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Implementation of the Project would introduce new sources of lighting on building and along streets, parking areas, and pedestrian walkways. The Project would be required to comply with Title 9, Development Code, of the Town’s Municipal Code, which contains general performance standards related to light and glare. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-12)
Nighttime concrete pouring activities would occur periodically as a part of Project building construction activities. The building construction phase would occur over approximately 390 days (Draft EIR Table 3-1, Estimated Construction Schedule). Nighttime concrete pouring activities are

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 15 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. Nighttime lighting would be focused directly on work activity areas as required by the Town’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.74.090 – Lighting which requires lighting to be used only for the functional requirements of safety, security, and identification. Unnecessary lighting is prohibited in the interest of energy efficiency and preservation of the night sky views. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13) Conformance with existing regulations would minimize the potential for substantial adverse light and glare impacts. Per the Town’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.37.090, Lighting, Project lighting would be used only for the functional requirements of safety, security, and identification. Unnecessary lighting would be prohibited in the interest of energy. All glare would be directed onto the Project site and away from adjacent properties. All lighting used in parking lots for security purposes or safety-related uses would be scheduled so light rays emitted by the fixture are projected below the imaginary horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the fixture and in such a manner that the light is directed away from streets and adjoining properties. Additionally, the Project includes various architectural elements that are intended to effectively avoid monotony and repetition in building elevations and further minimize glare. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to create a new source of substantial light or glare is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-13)

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Project impacts for Agriculture and Forestry Resources do not result in significant impacts. Findings are discussed below.

3.2.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 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
According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the Project site is designated as “grazing land”. The Project site is not located within lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 16

3.2.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 5.4.1 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 existing zoning for the Project site is Office Professional (O-P). The Project’s implementation would not result in a loss of land zoned for agriculture. There are no farming activities occurring at the site. The Project site is not located within any agricultural preserves, nor is the Project site subject to any Williamson Act Contracts. As a result, the Project would not result in conflict with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. No impacts would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7)

3.2.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 5.4.1 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 Project site does not contain any forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The existing zoning for the Project site is Office Professional (O-P). Accordingly, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7)

3.2.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 17  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 5.4.1 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project site and surrounding areas do not consist of forest land. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7)

3.2.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
As stated previously, the Project site is not located within lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. There are no farming activities occurring on the Project site. As such, the Project would not result in changes in the environment which, due to their location and nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agriculture use or forest land to nonforest use. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 5-8)

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Project impacts for threshold c and d do not result in significant impacts. Findings are discussed below.

3.3.1 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c during construction; therefore, no mitigation is required.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 18  Substantial Evidence
During both construction and operation, the Project has the potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The following provides an analysis of the Project’s potential to result in or contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) “hot spots,” and an analysis of the Project’s potential to result in cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-36) CO Hot Spot Impact Analysis
A CO hotspot is defined as a localized concentration of CO exceeding the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. At the time the most recent CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) was published by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air basin was designated as non-attainment, requiring projects to perform hotspot analyses to ensure they did not worsen the existing conditions. Over the last two decades, background CO concentrations have been significantly reduced due to regulatory controls on tailpipe emissions, which have culminated in the air basin achieving attainment status for CO. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-37) The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan’s (AQMP) findings underscore that CO hotspots are highly unlikely due to the reduced background concentrations and the effectiveness of California's air quality management strategies. The substantial reduction in CO levels from the vehicle fleet and the State’s attainment status for CO further diminish the need for detailed microscale hotspot analyses, reinforcing that existing monitoring and regulatory frameworks adequately address potential air quality concerns. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-37)
In 2003, the SCAQMD as part of its AQMP development process, prepared modeling to determine the potential for CO Hotspots at the four busiest intersections in the air basin. As summarized in the 2003 AQMP, even at one of the busiest intersections at that time, only 0.7 ppm of CO is attributable to vehicular traffic and the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to ambient background conditions. As shown on Draft EIR Table 4.2-2, the background 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations are well below the applicable ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The 2003 AQMP’s findings underscore that CO hotspots are highly unlikely due to the reduced background concentrations and the effectiveness of California's air quality management strategies. The substantial reduction in CO levels from the vehicle fleet and the state’s attainment status for CO further diminish the need for detailed microscale hotspot analyses, reinforcing that existing monitoring and regulatory frameworks adequately address potential air quality concerns. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-37)
As such, Project-related traffic at any intersections within the Project area would not cause or contribute to a CO hotspot since the background concentrations are low and any contribution from Project traffic would be negligible. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-37) Toxic Air Contaminants Impact Analysis
A Project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the Project based on Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) guidelines to produce conservative estimates of risk posed by exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter (DPM)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 19 as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks and equipment associated with on-site and off-site construction and operational activity. The Project’s HRA is included as Technical Appendix B2 to the Draft EIR.

Refer to Section 2 of the Project’s HRA for a discussion of the recommended methodology, emissions estimation, exposure quantification, carcinogenic chemical risk, and non-carcinogenic exposure used as inputs to the analysis. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-37)
Construction Impacts
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction DPM source emissions is Location R4 which represents the existing residence at 19277 Stoddard Wells Road, approximately 388 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R4 is placed at the building façade. At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR) the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction TAC emissions is estimated at 0.93 in one million which is less than the MDAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. The MEIR would experience the highest concentrations of DPM during Project construction due to its location and meteorological conditions at the site. Because all other modeled receptors would experience lower concentrations of DPM during Project construction, all other receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity. All other receptors during construction activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-38) Operational Impacts
Residential Exposure Scenario
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational DPM source emissions is Location R3 which represents the existing residence at 19823 Johnson Road, approximately 2,658 feet east of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R3 is placed at the building façade. At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR) the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction TAC emissions is estimated at 4.20 in one million which is less than the MDAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. All other modeled receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-38)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 20 Worker Exposure Scenario
The worker land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM emissions is Location R6 which represents the Walmart Distribution Center at 21101 Johnson Road, approximately 11,607 feet east of the Project site. Receptor R6 is placed at the building façade. At the Maximally Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM emissions is estimated at 0.08 in one million, which is less than the MDAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other modeled receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby workers, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-38 through 4.2-39)
School Exposure Scenario
Proximity to sources of toxics is critical to determining the impact. In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer health risk attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70-percent (%) drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD emissions and modeling analyses, an 80% drop-off in pollutant concentrations is expected at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center. The 1,000-foot evaluation distance is supported by research-based findings concerning TAC emission dispersion rates from roadways and large sources showing that emissions diminish substantially between 500 and 1,000 feet from emission sources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-39)
A one-quarter mile radius, or 1,320 feet, is commonly utilized for identifying sensitive receptors, such as schools, that may be impacted by a proposed project. This radius is more robust and therefore provides a more health protective scenario for evaluation than the 1,000-foot impact radius identified above. There are no schools within a one-quarter mile radius, or 1,320 feet of the Project site. The nearest school is the Apple Valley Early Education, which is located over 3.50 miles feet southwest of the Project site. Because there is no reasonable potential that TAC emissions would cause significant health impacts at distances of more than one-quarter mile from the air pollution source, there would be no significant impacts that would occur to any schools in the vicinity of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2- 39)
Construction and Operational Impacts
At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source and operational-source DPM emissions is estimated at 2.33 in one million, which is less than the MDAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction and operational activity. All other receptors during construction and operational activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-39)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 21

3.3.2 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5 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
Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not propose or require land uses that would use substantive sources of objectionable odors. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-39) Potential temporary and intermittent construction-related odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities. Temporary and intermittent construction-source emissions are controlled through existing requirements and industry Best Management Practices (BMPs) addressing proper storage of and application construction materials. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-40) Over the life of the Project, odors may result from storage of municipal solid waste pending its transport to area landfills. Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the Town of Apple Valley’s solid waste regulations. The Project would also be required to comply with MDAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 provides that “[a] person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” (Draft EIR, p.

4.2-40)
Based on the preceding analysis, the potential for the Project to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-40)

3.3.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to air quality.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 22  Finding
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to air quality are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.9 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to air quality; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The MDAQMD relies on the SCAQMD guidance for determining cumulative impacts. The SCAQMD has recognized that there is typically insufficient information to quantitatively evaluate the cumulative contributions of multiple projects because each project applicant has no control over nearby projects. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-40)
The SCAQMD published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3): (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-40) “…the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-40 through 4.2-41)
Consistent with the above SCAQMD guidance, individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the MDAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for projectspecific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Conversely, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed MDAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-41)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 23 Construction Impacts
Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would result in exceedances of regional thresholds for Reactive Organic Gasses/ Volatile Organic Compounds (ROGs/VOCs) emissions during construction activities. Therefore, Project construction-source emissions would be significant on a Project-specific and cumulative basis. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-41) Operational Impacts
Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds in MDAQMD and other surrounding air districts. Therefore, Project operational-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-41)
Health Risk Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of health risk impacts presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that Project emissions would not cause or contribute to a CO “Hot Spot.” Additionally, the maximum incremental non-cancer and cancer risks attributable to Project construction and operational DPM source emissions would be less than applicable thresholds. Therefore, Project health risk impacts would be considered less than significant on a Project-specific and cumulative basis. (Draft EIR, p.

4.2-41)

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for Biological Resources Thresholds b and f do not result in significant impacts.

Findings are discussed below.

3.4.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.3.5 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
Two vegetation communities and land cover types were observed within the study area: approximately 233.17 acres of Creosote Bush Scrub and approximately 4.42 acres of Developed/Disturbed lands.

There are no riparian trees, sedges/rushes, cattails, hydrophilic grasses, or wetland herbaceous species present. The signatures detected within the Project site are ephemeral features that drain into

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 24 intermittent channels or alluvial fans, where water quickly disperses, infiltrates or evaporates before making their way to any noteworthy watercourse. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-13)

3.4.2 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.5 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold f; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project site is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. It is noted that the Project site is located within the proposed Town of Apple Valley Multiple-Species Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), which is in the early stages of development. There is no draft document available for review at this time, as the Town is 2-3 years away from completing the NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14 through 4.3-15)

3.4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The temporary direct and/or indirect impacts of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources.  Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to biological resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.9 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the Project site as well as full General Plan buildout in the Town of Apple Valley and surrounding areas. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-15)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 25 Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through 4.3-7 would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to levels that would be less than significant. Mitigation of Project-specific biological resources impacts would also reduce the Project’s potential incremental contributions to cumulative biological resources impacts within the region. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-15) To the extent that each development proposal within the cumulative impact area(s) provides appropriate mitigation, cumulative impacts to biological resources are reduced below significance thresholds. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, each development project within the cumulative impact area that requires discretionary action by a public agency will be assessed for its potential impacts on biological resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-15) Appropriate biological resources mitigation would also be required of other projects within the cumulative impact area. 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. Based on the preceding, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts in regard to biological resources is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-15)

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for Cultural Resources Threshold c does not result in significant impacts and related findings are discussed below.

3.5.1 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not have the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.5 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
The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. Field surveys conducted on the Project site did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the Project site. Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project construction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-13) If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 26 Human Remains.” According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or their authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code § 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-13 through 4.4-14)

3.5.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to cultural resources for Thresholds a through c.
 Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to cultural resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to cultural resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The cumulative impact area for prehistoric, historic, and archaeological resources generally includes the Project site and immediately surrounding area. Impacts to cultural resources within this area are generally site-specific. In the event that potentially significant cultural resources are encountered at any development sites within the cumulative impact area, specific mitigation measures would be applied before construction activities could proceed. Potential impacts to cultural resources are determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation proposed for the Project is typical of, and consistent with, mitigation required for construction within urban and suburban areas within the Town and surrounding region. There are no known or probable related projects that would interact with the effects of the Project and thereby result in cumulatively significant impacts. Related projects in the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize cultural resources impacts consistent with State and local policies and regulations, thereby minimizing cumulative impacts. Mitigation would be

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 27 implemented, if applicable. The Project’s cumulative cultural resources impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-14)

3.6 ENERGY
Project impacts for Energy Thresholds a and b do not result in significant impacts. Findings are discussed below.

3.6.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.5 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
Energy Use During Project Construction
Overview of Construction-Related Energy Consumption
Project Construction Power Cost
The total Project construction power costs is the summation of the products of the area (sf) by the construction duration and the typical power cost. As previously discussed in EIR subsection 3.4.1, construction is expected to commence in December 2026 and would last through November 2028. The 2025 National Construction Estimator identifies a typical power cost per 1,000 sf of construction per month of $2.85, which was used to calculate the Project’s total construction power cost. As shown in Draft EIR, Table 4.5-2, Construction Power Cost, the total power cost of on-site electricity usage during the building construction of the Project is estimated to be approximately $90,551.56. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-13)
Construction Electricity Usage
The total Project construction electricity usage is the summation of the products of the power cost (estimated in Draft EIR, Table 4.5-2) by the utility provider cost per kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity.

The Southern California Edison’s (SCE) general service rate schedule was used to determine the Project’s electrical usage. As of June 1, 2025, SCE’s general service rate is $0.17 per kWh of electricity for industrial uses. As shown in Draft EIR, Table 4.5-3, Construction Electricity Usage, the total electricity usage from on-site Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 532,656 kWh. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-14)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 28 Project Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption
Project construction activity timeline estimates, construction equipment schedules, equipment power ratings, load factors, and associated fuel consumption estimates are presented in Draft EIR, Table 4.5- 4, Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimate. The aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment is estimated at 18.5 horsepower hour per gallon (hp‐hr‐gal.), obtained from CARB 2018 Emissions Factors Tables and cited fuel consumption rate factors presented in Table D‐24 of the Moyer Guidelines. For the purposes of this analysis, the calculations are based on all construction equipment being diesel‐powered which is consistent with industry standards. Diesel fuel would be supplied by existing industrial fuel providers serving the Project area and region. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-14) Project construction activities would consume an estimated 113,402 gallons of diesel fuel. Project construction would represent a “single‐event” diesel fuel demand and would not require on‐going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-15) With respect to estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the Project, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 4,351,997 VMT during the 23 months of construction. Based on CalEEMod methodology, it is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from light-duty-auto vehicles (LDA), 25% are from light-duty-trucks (LDT13), and 25% are from light-duty-trucks (LDT24). Data regarding Project related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod defaults utilized within the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix B1 of the Draft EIR). The estimated fuel consumption by construction worker trips during construction of the Project is presented in Draft EIR Table 4.5-5, Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-16) It is estimated that 146,590 gallons of fuel will be consumed related to construction worker trips during full construction of the Project. It should be noted that construction worker trips would represent a “single‐event” gasoline fuel demand and would not require on‐going or permanent commitment of fuel resources for this purpose. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-17)
Construction vendor/hauling trips (vehicles that deliver materials to the site during construction) would generate an estimated 713,887 VMT along area roadways for the Project over the duration of construction activity. It is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT), 50% of vendor trips are from heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT), and 100% of hauling trips are from HHDTs. These assumptions are consistent with the CalEEMod defaults utilized within the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix B1 of the Draft EIR). Vehicle fuel efficiencies for MHDTs and HHDTs were estimated using information generated within EMissions FACtor model (EMFAC) 2021. EMFAC2021 was run for the MHDT and HHDT vehicle classes within the California sub-area for the 2026 through 2028 calendar years. The estimated fuel consumption by construction vendor trips during construction of the Project is presented in Draft EIR Table 4.5-6, Construction Vendor and Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-17 through 4.5- 18)
It is estimated that 99,063 gallons of fuel will be consumed related to construction vendor/hauling trips during full construction of the Project. It should be noted that Project construction vendor/hauling trips

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 29 would represent a “single‐event” diesel fuel demand and would not require on‐going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-18) Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Starting in 2014, CARB adopted the nation’s first regulation aimed at cleaning up off-road construction equipment such as bulldozers, graders, and backhoes. These requirements ensure fleets gradually turnover the oldest and dirtiest equipment to newer, cleaner models and prevent fleets from adding older, dirtier equipment. As such, the equipment used for Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards. It should also be noted that there are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in the construction of the Project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-19)
Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction equipment. Additionally, CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air Contaminants.

Compliance with anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-19) Additional construction‐source energy efficiencies would occur due to required California regulations and best available control measures (BACM). For example, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Section 2449(d)(3) requires that grading plans shall reference the requirement that a sign shall be posted on‐site stating that construction workers need to shut off engines at or before five minutes of idling.” In this manner, construction equipment operators are required to be informed that engines are to be turned off at or prior to five minutes of idling.

Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by Town building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20) A full analysis related to the energy needed to form construction materials is not included in this analysis due to a lack of detailed Project-specific information on construction materials. At this time, an analysis of the energy needed to create Project-related construction materials would be extremely speculative and thus has not been prepared. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20) In general, the construction processes promote conservation and efficient use of energy by reducing raw materials demands, with related reduction in energy demands associated with raw materials extraction, transportation, processing, and refinement. Use of materials in bulk reduces energy

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 30 demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as well as the transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5- 20)
Energy Use during Project Operation
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the Project site), fuel demands from operational equipment, and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities). (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20) Transportation Energy Demands
Energy that would be consumed by Project‐generated traffic is a function of total VMT and estimated vehicle fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site. The VMT per vehicle class can be determined by evaluating the vehicle fleet mix and the total VMT. As with worker and vendors trips, operational vehicle fuel efficiencies were estimated using information generated within EMFAC2021 developed by CARB EMFAC2021 was run for the San Bernardino (MD) area for the 2028 calendar year. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20)
The Project would result in 18,465,616 annual VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 1,492,571 gallons of fuel. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20)
On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Fuel Demands
It is common for industrial buildings to require the operation of exterior cargo handling equipment in the building’s truck court areas. For this particular Project, on-site modeled operational equipment includes up to five (5) 175 horsepower (hp), natural gas-powered cargo handling equipment – port tractor operating at 4 hours a day for 365 days of the year. Project operational activity estimates and associated fuel consumption estimates are based on the annual EMFAC 2021 offroad emissions for the 2028 operational year and were used to derive the total annual fuel consumption associated on-site equipment. Project on-site equipment would consume an estimated 23,209 gallons of diesel gas. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-21)
Facility Energy Demands
Project building operations activities would result in the consumption of electricity which would be supplied to the Project by SCE. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.5-7, Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary, the Project would result in 11,238,124 kWh/year of electricity demand.

Based on information provided by the Project Applicant, the Project would not use natural gas for the building envelope. As such, natural gas consumption has not been analyzed in this study.

Operational Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Energy efficiency/energy conservation attributes of the Project would be complemented by increasingly stringent state and federal regulatory actions addressing vehicle fuel economies and

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 31 vehicle emissions standards; and enhanced building/utilities energy efficiencies mandated under California building codes (e.g., Title 24, California Green Building Standards Code). Project annual fuel consumption estimates presented Table 4-9 in Technical Appendix E of the Draft EIR, represent likely potential maximums that would occur for the Project. Under subsequent future conditions, average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can be expected to improve as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are removed from circulation, and in response to fuel economy and emissions standards imposed on newer vehicles entering the circulation system. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-22)
Conclusion
Due to the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and contractors to use energy-consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase of the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the construction-related impacts related to electricity and fuel consumption would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-22)
The proposed Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Town’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency standards.

Title 24 standards are widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards and would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. The Project will also be providing parking and EV infrastructure that would further promote fuel-efficient vehicles. For these reasons, operational-related transportation fuel consumption would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, the operational impact related to vehicle fuel consumption would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-22) No aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-22)

3.6.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 32  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.5 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
Construction
As previously discussed, the proposed Project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings used during construction, lighting, and other sources. California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the CARB. The proposed Project would comply with these regulations. There are no policies at the local level applicable to energy conservation specific to the construction phase. Thus, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, construction-related energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-23)
Operation
California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) establishes a goal of renewable energy for local providers to be 44 percent by 2040. Similarly, the State is promoting renewable energy targets to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The Project would result in approximately 11,238,124 kWh/year of electricity Project annually. The proposed Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Town’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. Title 24 standards, widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-23) Compliance with the aforementioned mandatory measures would ensure that the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, operational energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-23)

3.6.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to energy.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 33  Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to energy are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to energy; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The geographic scope of cumulative energy impacts is generally limited to the energy provider service area(s). The preceding analysis substantiates that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. These plans and policies address developmentlevel and cumulative impacts to energy resources. Project consistency with State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency demonstrates that the Project cumulative energy impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and the Project cumulative energy impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-23)
There are no known or related projects that would interact with less than significant effects of the Project and thereby result in cumulatively significant impacts. As with the Project, other developments within the energy provider service areas would be required to demonstrate compliance with State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-24) Based on the preceding, energy impacts of the Project are not cumulatively considerable and the Project cumulative energy impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-24)

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Project impacts for Geology and Soils Thresholds a through e do not result in significant impacts.

Findings are discussed below.

3.7.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, and/or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other. ii. substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42).
iii. Strong seismic ground shaking.
iv. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. v. Landslides.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 34  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Sections 4.6.5 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
Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault
There are no active faults known within the Project site. The Project site is outside any Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-9) The Project does not propose actions or facilities that would otherwise exacerbate known or probable adverse earthquake fault conditions. Based on the preceding, there is no potential for the Project to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effect due to rupture of a known earthquake fault, and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-9) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The Project site is in a region known to be seismically active, and strong seismic ground-shaking could be anticipated during an earthquake event of sufficient magnitude. The California Building Code (CBC) requires construction methods that minimize the effects of earthquakes on structures. As part of the Town’s standard review and approval of development projects, a geotechnical study is required to be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer and comply with the recommendations of the approved geotechnical report and applicable CBC provisions. Pursuant to Town Municipal Code Section 8.12.010, recommendations in the geotechnical report and the engineering geology report shall be incorporated into the grading plans. The Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation (Technical Appendix F1) includes seismic design parameters and provides design/construction recommendations for geotechnical design, grading, construction, foundations, floor slabs, exterior flatwork, retaining walls, and pavement. Compliance with these requirements reduces potential seismic ground-shaking impacts to levels that are less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-9 through 4.6-10) Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
Liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement or ground failure are generally associated with strong seismic shaking in areas where ground water tables are at relatively shallow depths (within 50 feet of the ground surface) and/or when the area is underlain by loose, cohesionless deposits. During a strong ground shaking event, saturated, cohesionless soils may acquire a degree of mobility to the extent that the overlying ground surface distorts. In extreme cases, saturated soils become suspended in groundwater and become fluid-like. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10) The Geotechnical Investigation (Draft EIR Technical Appendix F1) determined that the Project site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility, based on review of the County of San Bernardino General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlay and the presence of dense to very dense soils, and the lack of a historic high ground water table within the upper 50± feet of the ground surface.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 35 The potential for the Project to result in exposure of people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10) Landslides
Slope failures in the form of landslides are common during strong seismic shaking in areas of steep hills. The Project site and surrounding area are generally flat with no significant slopes. The Project site is not located within a landslide zone. Accordingly, no impact related to landslide hazards would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10)

3.7.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.6.5 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
The Project site is vacant and undeveloped. Ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction may result in removal of topsoil or soil erosion, which would temporarily expose underlying soils resulting in potential erosion. The potential for Project construction activities involving soil disturbance, such as excavation and grading to result in increased erosion and sediment transport by storm water to surface waters would be minimized because the Project would be required to comply with a Construction General Permit, which is issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) and contains water quality standards and stormwater discharge requirements applying to construction projects of one acre or more. The General Construction Permit was issued pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations for implementing part of the federal Clean Water Act. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10) The General Construction Permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies the sources of pollution that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges and describes and ensures the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the pollutants, including silt and soil, in construction stormwater discharges. The Project site would be required to comply with the NPDES permit by preparing and implementing a SWPPP specifying BMPs for minimizing pollution of stormwater with soil and sediment during Project construction.

Additionally, the Project would be required to implement erosion and dust control measures pursuant Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to minimize water- and windborne erosion.

Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Rule 403 would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project-related grading and construction activities. Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities would be less than

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 36 significant with mandated compliance with a Town-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as well as compliance with MDAQMD Rules that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during high wind events. At Project completion, potential soil erosion impacts would not occur, as pavement, roads, building, and landscaping would cover previously exposed soils. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-11)

3.7.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not have the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.5 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 discussed under Threshold a, no impact related to landslide hazards would occur. The Geotechnical Investigation (Draft EIR Technical Appendix F1) determined that the potential for geologic hazards such as seismically induced settlement, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction is low. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-11)
As part of the Town’s standard review and approval of development projects, the Project is required to comply with the recommendations of the approved geotechnical report and applicable CBC provisions. To ensure compliance, pursuant to Town Municipal Code Section 8.12.010, recommendations in the geotechnical report and the engineering geology report shall be incorporated into the grading plans. The Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation (Draft EIR Technical Appendix F1) includes site preparation/remedial grading recommendations to ensure that the development is not located on unstable soil. Compliance with State and Town requirements ensures that the Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-11)

3.7.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not have the potential to be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) and would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.5 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.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 37  Substantial Evidence
Development on expansive soils may adversely affect concrete slabs-on-grade, building foundations, and roadway subgrades. In the event of a severe earthquake in the vicinity, structural foundations and floors may be damaged if constructed in, or over, expansive or unstable soils. The Geotechnical Investigation (Draft EIR Technical Appendix F1) classified the on-site soils as non-expansive and determined that further design recommendations were not warranted. As such, Project impacts related to expansive soils are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-11 through 4.6-12)

3.7.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in Section 4.6.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project would be served by municipal sewer services. No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed by the Project. There is no potential for the Project to affect or be affected by soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems, and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-12)

3.7.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to geology and soils.
 Findings
Potential cumulative geology and soils impacts of the Project related to risk of loss due to earthquakes, substantial loss of topsoil, unstable soil, expansive soil or septic tanks are discussed in detail in Section

4.6.6 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
As discussed in the preceding analysis, compliance with existing Town/CBC regulations and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation would ensure Project-related geology and soils impacts would be less than significant. The effects of geology and soils are primarily restricted to the areas proposed for development and would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with other existing, planned, or proposed development. For example, development of the Project would not have

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 38 the potential to alter geologic events or soil features/characteristics at an offsite property. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-12)
As with the Project, other development projects would be required to conduct site-specific geotechnical investigations to identify onsite characteristics and provide recommendations regarding engineering, design, and construction. Compliance of individual projects with the recommendations of the applicable geotechnical investigation, and adherence to Town/CBC regulations would prevent hazards associated with geologic issues. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-12) With respect to erosion, other development in the vicinity would be required to comply with the same regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial adverse erosion impacts. Because the Project and other cumulative projects would be subject to similar mandatory regulatory requirements to control erosion during construction and long-term operation, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution related to erosion. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13) Excavation of the Project site has the potential to yield significant paleontological resources. This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the Project site that have a potential for uncovering paleontological resources. Generally, impacts relating to paleontological resources are site-specific and addressed on a site-by-site basis. Therefore, while there is a potential for an impact on a specific site, the impact would not ordinarily extend beyond the site or immediately surrounding area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any paleontological resources that may be encountered during grounddisturbing activities, ensuring Project-specific and cumulative paleontological impacts are reduced to less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13)

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Project impacts for Hazards and Hazardous Materials Thresholds a through g do not result in significant impacts. Findings are discussed below.

3.8.1 THRESHOLD A AND B
Impact Statement: The Project would not have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Impact Statement: The Project would not have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 39  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a and Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section

4.8.5 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a and b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
On-Site Conditions
Based on a review of regulatory databases and a site reconnaissance, the Project site does not contain any hazards, nor is the Project site affected by any off-site hazards. No unusual or noxious odors, pools of liquid or potentially hazardous substances, hazardous materials storage structures, stained soil, aboveground storage tanks, pits, or ponds were observed. The Phase I ESA did not identify any environmental issues pertaining to past uses of the Project site during the course of the assessment.

Therefore, past and existing uses do not represent a significant environmental concern for the Project site. As a result, implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to on-site conditions. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-9)
Temporary Construction-Related Activities
During construction activities, the Project will require limited transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., paints, solvents, fertilizer, etc.) to and from the Project site. Handling of these materials is extensively regulated at the local, State and federal levels. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, including but not limited to the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and California Hazardous Waste Control law. It is not anticipated that the development of the Project would result in conditions that are not currently addressed by existing regulations. On this basis, potential impacts due to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-9) Long-Term Operation
The Project could involve the use, temporary storage and handling of potentially hazardous materials such as pesticides, fertilizers, or paint products that are pre-packaged for distribution and use. This type of storage, transfer, use and disposal of potentially hazardous materials is extensively regulated at the local, State and federal levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-9)
The precise materials that would be located onsite are not known, as the tenants of the Project are not yet defined. In the event that hazardous materials, other than those common materials described above, are associated with future warehouse operations, the business would be required to prepare and submit a Hazards Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP) in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses are also required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which require immediate reporting to San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-9 through 4.8-10)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 40 Project operations would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure the proper transport, use, and disposal of hazardous substances including potential transport of refrigerants. With mandatory regulatory compliance, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project are not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident operations which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-10)

3.8.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.8.5 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
No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The nearest existing school is Phoenix Academy, located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the Project site.

Accordingly, the Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

As such, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-10)

3.8.3 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.5 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the State Department of Health Services, State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to maintain a list of hazardous materials sites that fall within specific, defined categories. The Project site is not located on any list of hazardous materials sites

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 41 complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-10)

3.8.4 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project site is within two miles of an airport and the Project site is identified as within an airport influence area. The Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in Section 4.8.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
According to the Apple Valley Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, the Project site is not within the Airport Influence Area or Airport Overlay Districts. The Project site is located approximately 3.2 miles northwest of the Apple Valley Airport. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-11)

3.8.5 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in Section 4.8.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold f; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project would include improvements to adjacent roadways for access onto the Project site. All proposed roadway improvements would be constructed in accordance with the Town’s General Plan and Town’s development standards. The Town’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 Update identifies Interstates as major emergency response and evacuation routes. The Project does not propose or require permanent alteration of vehicle circulation routes nor does the Project propose or require facilities or operations that would interfere with any identified emergency response or emergency evacuation plan.

Construction of the Project would be generally confined to the Project site and would not physically impair access to the site or the Project area. In accordance with Town policies, coordination with the local fire and police departments during construction would ensure that potential interference with emergency response and evacuation efforts are avoided. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-11)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 42 Under operational conditions, the Project would maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles on-site. As part of the Town’s discretionary review process, the Town has reviewed the Project’s access driveways and circulation to ensure appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to Project site and determined that the Project would not substantially impede emergency response routes in the local area. The Project is not anticipated to interfere or impede with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation route during construction or operations. As such, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-11)

3.8.6 THRESHOLD G
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold g are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.5 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold g; 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 State Responsibility Area (SRA) and is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). The Project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) within a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-11)
Pre-construction coordination with the Apple Valley Fire Protection District and adherence to local fire regulations during construction and operation of the Project would be required. The Town and Apple Valley Fire Protection District would require that fire prevention/fire suppression measures are incorporated in the Project designs and that water delivery systems serving the Project site provide adequate fire flow. Creation and maintenance of firebreaks and fire-defensible spaces adjacent to building and roadways as required by the Town and Fire Protection District would further reduce the potential for exposure to wildland fires and the spread of wildland fires. The Town would also enforce weed abatement measures, minimizing potential fire fuel loads. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-11 through 4.8-12)

3.8.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.
 Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to hazards and hazardous materials are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.6 of the Draft EIR. The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 43 would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The cumulative impact area when considering potential hazards and hazardous materials issues includes the area to be developed within the Project site, as well as off-site locations that might be affected by or contribute to hazards or hazardous conditions resulting from the Project and its operations. The cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impact analysis evaluates the effects of Project construction and operations and reflects long-term buildout conditions within the cumulative impact area. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-12)
As discussed previously, the Project does not propose uses or activities that would require substantial handling or use of hazardous materials, hazardous substances, or hazardous waste that could result in potential adverse effects. To the extent that such materials or substances may be present during Project construction or operations they will be transported, stored, used and disposed of consistent with multiple and broad regulatory requirements. No other hazards, such as aircraft hazards, emergency services issues, or wildfire hazards have been identified. Project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-12) As with the Project, other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to comply with hazards/hazardous material regulatory requirements. Mitigation would be incorporated if necessary. 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 impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-12) Based on compliance with established policies and regulations, the Project’s potential contribution to hazards/hazardous materials cumulative impacts is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-12)

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Project impacts for Hydrology and Water Quality Thresholds a through e do not result in significant impacts and related findings are discussed below.

3.9.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.5 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.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 44  Substantial Evidence
Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts
Construction-related activities have the potential to result in impacts to water quality. The grading and construction phases would require the disturbance of surface soils and removal of existing vegetation cover. During the construction period, grading activities would result in exposure of soil to storm runoff, potentially causing erosion and sedimentation in runoff. Sediments also transport substances such as nutrients, hydrocarbons, and trace metals, which could be conveyed to nearby storm drain facilities and/or receiving waters. Substances such as fuels, oil and grease, solvents, paints and other building construction materials, wash water, and dust control water could also enter storm runoff and be transported to nearby waterways. This could potentially degrade the quality of the receiving waters and potentially result in the impairment of downstream water sources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-11) Construction of the Project would disturb more than 1 acre and therefore would be subject to NPDES permit requirements. The Town of Apple Valley is a co-permittee under the San Bernardino County Municipal NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase II Stormwater permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit requires the Town to implement a Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Program in accordance with the regional Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) for the Mojave River Watershed. To comply with the regulatory requirements of the SWMP, the Town requires the implementation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), which would ensure that appropriate BMPs are implemented to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, pollutants from leaving the site during all phases of construction. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydroseeding. The intent of the BMPs is to slow stormwater runoff and allow sediment to fall out of the stormwater and be captured on site rather than drain into the receiving waters. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-11)
Mandatory compliance with the SWMP and ESCP would ensure that implementation of the Project would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, short-term water quality impacts associated with temporary construction activities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-11) Post-Development Water Quality Impacts
The NPDES MS4 Phase II Stormwater Permit requires the Town to implement a Post-Construction Storm Water Management Program in accordance with the regional SWMP. This Program sets limits of pollutants being discharged into waterways and requires all new development to incorporate structural and non-structural BMPs to improve water quality. To meet the requirements of the SWMP, the Town requires the incorporation of low impact development (LID) features into new development and redevelopment projects, as specified in the Mojave River Watershed Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The Project Applicant would be required to implement the WQMP to demonstrate compliance with the Town’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. As identified within the Project-specific WQMP (Draft EIR

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 45 Technical Appendix I2), the Project has been designed to include onsite structural-source control BMPs, as well as operational-source controls. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-11 through 4.9-12) Structural-source control BMPs include, but are not limited to, storm drain system stenciling and signage, efficient irrigation system and landscape design, and slope protection. Non-structural source control BMPS include, but are not limited to, litter/debris control program, employee training, catch basin inspection program and vacuum sweeping of private streets and parking lots. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9- 12)
As shown on Draft EIR Figure 4.9-2, WQMP Site Plan, 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 on-site 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. 4.9-12)
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. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-12) By complying with the NPDES permit and WQMP requirements, the Project would ensure effective control of and would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to receiving waters. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-12)
Mandatory compliance with regulatory requirements for the protection of water quality would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation. Therefore, water quality and waste discharge impacts associated with operation of the Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-12)

3.9.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.5 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 46  Substantial Evidence
Groundwater Recharge
The Project site is underlain by the Upper Mojave River Valley Groundwater Basin. Groundwater, which may be consumed by the Project, and the service area as a whole, would be recharged pursuant to Liberty Utilities’ policies and programs. The Project site is not a designated groundwater recharge area. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise adversely affect designated recharge areas. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-14)
Groundwater Supply
Water is provided to the Project area by Liberty Utilities, which relies solely on groundwater obtained from 20 active wells in the Mojave Basin Area. Liberty Utilities only pumps the amount of water necessary to serve the demand. 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 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) (Technical Appendix I3), the projected operational 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 Urban Water Management Planning (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 projected by the Project with existing supply sources. According to the Liberty Utilities Urban Water Management Plan and the 2021-2022 Watermaster Report and the Project’s WSA, Liberty Utilities can meet its water demands (including the Project) during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years over the next 20 years. Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies and would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin and impacts associated with groundwater supplies would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.

4.9-14)

3.9.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows.

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 47  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.5 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
The Project incorporates necessary drainage and stormwater management systems, and would comply with stormwater system design, construction, and operational requirements mandated under the Town Municipal Code, and with regulations established by other agencies, including the Lahontan RWQCB and California Department of Water Resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-15) The Project would implement a storm drain system that will collect and detain stormwater runoff. The Project has been designed to reduce the impacts of additional runoff that would be generated by the Project. Final design, configuration, and locations of proposed drainage system improvements will be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to, or concurrent with, the application for grading permits.

A complete description of the proposed drainage system for the site is presented in Draft EIR Section

3.0, Project Description. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-15)
Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site
Although the Project would alter the subject property’s drainage patterns, such changes would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Under post-development conditions, a majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces and, therefore, the amount of exposed soils on the Project site would be minimized. Also, as discussed under Threshold a, the Project would construct an integrated storm drain system on-site with BMPs to minimize the amount of water-borne pollutants carried from the Project site. The system would include catch basins and an underground infiltration basin to retain and infiltrate water onsite and address the Hydromodification Performance Criteria required for the proposed Project in accordance with MS4 Phase II Storm Water permit requirements.

Adherence to water quality control requirements consistent with MS4 Phase II Storm Water permit would ensure that the proposed changes to drainage patterns would result in less than significant impacts related to erosion or siltation in runoff on- or off-site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-15) Runoff and Flooding On- or Off-Site
The Project’s proposed grading, earthwork activities, and the addition of impervious surfaces on the Project site would alter the site’s existing interior drainage characteristics. The purpose of the Project’s Preliminary Hydrology Report (Technical Appendix I1 to the Draft EIR) is to determine the postdevelopment peak flow rate for the 100-year storm event and to determine the sizing of the on-site underground infiltration system under proposed conditions to ensure stormwater is released below the existing 25-year flow rate. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-15 through 4.9-16) All proposed drainage and storm drain facilities would be appropriately sized for the 100-year storm event. The design of these facilities would ensure that none of these storm events has a higher peak

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 48 discharge in the post-development condition than in the predevelopment condition. Therefore, the proposed storm drainage system would ensure that the Project would not result in a substantial increase in rate or amount of runoff that would result in on- or off-site flooding or exceed existing or planned stormwater systems. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-16)
An off-site drainage study has been prepared to address the off-site run-on and includes sizing calculations for the proposed culverts along Johnson Road and the proposed drainage channels along the north, east, and south perimeter of the property. The culverts and drainage channels would divert existing flows around and through the Project site without the untreated runoff coming onto the proposed development. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-16)
Storm Drain Systems and Polluted Runoff
As shown on Draft EIR Figure 4.9-3, Proposed Hydrology Conditions, the underground infiltration system would be designed to accommodate the treatment of the design capture volume and provide peak storm detention. The proposed drainage system would be designed to convey runoff in compliance with the Town of Apple Valley and the County of San Bernardino WQMP and SWMP requirements. In addition, the Project would incorporate LID features, including on-site infiltration/retention and detention basins and ongoing maintenance requirements to ensure continued successful operation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-16)
Based on the existing and proposed hydrology analyses, the underground infiltration system has been sized for water quality treatment and to mitigate outflow below the existing 25-year storm condition.

The maximum allowable flow rate into the proposed public storm drain on Wrangler Road is 90% of the existing 25-year flow rate, which is 147 cubic feet per second (cfs). In the proposed condition, through Basin Routing Analysis, the peak 100-year discharge flow is 93 cfs. Therefore, the total peak discharge flow is less than 90% of the existing 25-year flow rate. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-16) As a result, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts associated with stormwater drainage systems capacity and polluted runoff sources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-16) Flood Flows
According to FEMA’s Flood Map Service Center, the Project site is located in Zone D, which is identified as an area with possible but undetermined flood hazards. Although onsite drainage patterns would be altered as a result of Project development, the Project would maintain adequate stormwater conveyance and would not result in an increase of surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off-site associated with the 100-year storm event. Therefore, impacts associated with impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18)

“ATTACHMENT X”
Apple Valley 84
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 49

3.9.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to inundation.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 4.9.5 of the Draft EIR.

The Town finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project site is not located within an identified flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. The site is located approximately 78 miles inland; as such, tsunamis are not a concern at the site. The nearest large body of surface water (Spring Valley Lake) is approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the Project site.

At this distance, seiches are not a concern. As shown on Exhibit III-12 of the Town’s General Plan, the Project site is not located within an identified 100- or 500-year flood zone. As illustrated in the Town’s General Plan Exhibit III-13, the Project site is not located in or near any identified dam inundation area. As such, the potential for the Project to risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation is considered less than significant.. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18)

3.9.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.5 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 Project site is located within the Mojave River Basin; Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region.

Consistent with MS4 Permit requirements, the Applicant would be required to develop and implement a construction SWPPP acting to reduce and control potential erosion, siltation, and discharge of pollutants during Project construction. Project operations would comply with the Project’s mandated Town-approved WQMP to minimize storm water pollutants of concern and document implementation of required BMPs. By complying with the NPDES permit and WQMP requirements, the Project would not conflict with a water quality control plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.

4.9-18)