Agenda packet, regular meeting — Moreno Valley City Council, February 21, 2023 (part 3 of 4)

3. APPROVING the Planning Commission’s approval of Plot Plan PEN2 1- 0102 based on the Recital s, Evidence contained in the Administrative Records, and Findings as set forth in Resolution No. 2023-XX.

SUMMARY

This staff report recommends denying Appeals PAA22 -0005 (County of Riverside) and PAA23-0003 (Department of the Air Force) and approving PEN21-0102, which upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of the Proposed Project, which consists of a Plot Plan application for an automobile parking lot on 9.14 acres located on the east side of Heacock Street north of the Perris Valley Storm Drain in the Moreno Valley Industrial Area Specific Plan 208, Clear Zone District (Specific Plan 208). This staff report also recommends that the City Council certify the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Proposed Project.

DISCUSSION

Planning Commission Decision

The Proposed Project was scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on October 27, 2022. However, the item was continued at the applicant’s request to December 22, 2022.

On December 22, 2022, the Planning Commission approved the proposed project after conducting the public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 with 1 abstention, to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti gation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approve the Plot Plan for the proposed automobile parking lot. The Planning Commission also approved a modification to conditions of approval number 102, to revise the timing of the fair share contribution for th e City of Perris for impacts to the City of Perris roadways from “prior to building permit” to “prior to occupancy.”

The Planning Commission’s decision was appealed by the County of Riverside (PAA22 - 0005) and the Department of the Air Force (PAA23 -0003) within the Municipal Code’s 10-day appeal period.

Findings and Conditions of Approval

Pursuant to Section 9.02.070 (Plot Plan) of the Municipal Code, the Proposed Project was subject to the major development review process, which is why it was presented t o the Planning Commission, which is vested with the authority to approve plot plans of this nature.

The Planning Commission approved the Proposed Project based on the following findings, as required under Section 9.02.070 (Plot Plan) of the Municipal Code:

1. The Proposed Project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan;
F.1
Packet Pg. 453

Page 3 ends

2. The Proposed Project complies with all applicable zoning and other regulations;

3. The Proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and

4. The location, design, and operation of the Proposed Project will be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity.

In addition to making the ab ove findings, the Planning Commission imposed various conditions of approval on the Proposed Project regarding on -site improvements, off-site improvements, the manner in which the site is used and other conditions the Planning Commission deemed necessary t o protect the public health, safety and welfare to ensure that the Proposed Project will be developed in accordance with the purpose and intent of Title 9 (Planning & Zoning) of the Municipal Code.

Basis of Appeals

Pursuant to Section 9.02.240 (Appeals), any affected party may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The appeal must be addressed to the City Council in a letter submitted to the Community Development Director and shall be accompanied by the required appeal fee. The appellant is also required to state the specific reasons for the appeal. Section 9.02.240 further provides that public notice of an appeal hearing shall be provided and that an action which has been appealed shall not become effective until a final determination is made by the City Council.

In the appeal letter dated January 3, 2023, the Department of the Air Force provides the following specific reasons for its appeal:

• Plot Plan Does Not Meet the Requirements under the City Code • The Proposed Project Woul d Be Detrimental to Public Health, Safety, and Welfare Risks, and Presents Mission Sustainment Concerns • Approval of Plot Plan is Not Consistent with Moreno Valley General Plan • Approval of Plot Plan is Not Consistent with Specific Plan 208 • Approval of Plot Plan is Not Consistent with Use of Open Spaces • Approval of Plot Plan is Not Consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
• Overrule by Two-Thirds with Specific Findings is Required • Municipal Code Does Not Allow Ignoring Valid Legal Covenan ts Such as the Air Force's 1984 Restrictive Easement
• Avigation Easement vs. March ARB Perpetual Easement
• Community Partnership and Operational Military Missions

In the appeal letter dated December 29, 2022, the County of Riverside references its letter to the Planning Commission dated October 28, 2022, which contained the County’s concerns relating to:

• Public health and safety given the Project's location in Compatibility Zone A as identified in the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, including the Project's inconsistency with that plan, the City F.1
Packet Pg. 454

Page 4 ends

General Plan, Department of Defense requirements, recorded easement restrictions, and the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

The County also joined in on the “many of the concerns raised by others, including the U.S. Department of the Air Force and Air Force Reserve Command, Congressman Mark Takano, Congressman Ken Calvert, the March Joint Powers Authority (March JPA), March Air Museum, the Ci ty of Norco, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce and its Military Affairs Council.”

The County also purports that the “parking lot use in the Clear Zone will be detrimental to the national def ense operations at the March ARB. Parking lots are prohibited in the Clear Zone by U.S. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) No. 4165.57.”

Restrictive Easement

Notwithstanding the specific reasons for the appeals as described above, the primary contention of the appellants appears to be over the restrictive easement that the appellants argue does not permit the approval of the Proposed Project. While staff does not contest the existence of the restrictive easement, staff believes that the restrictive easement does not prevent the City from approving the Proposed Project.

When exercising their police power, cities and counties must comply with constitutional principles of due process. Cal Const art I, §7. In particular, their regulations must be applied in a manner that is reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and neither arbitrary nor capricious. See, Loewenstein v City of Lafayette (2002) 103 CA4th 718; G & D Holland Constr. Co. v City of Marysville (1970) 12 CA3d 989,; Village of Willowbrook v Olech (2000) 528 US 562, 565, 120 S Ct 1073; and Gerhart v Lake County Mont. (9th Cir 2011) 637 F3d 1013. The exercise of police power, however, may not be limited by restrictive covenants that do not include the City as a party. (Acker v. Baldwin (1941) 18 Cal.2d 341, 345 [115 P.2d 455]; Wheeler v. Gregg (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 348, 367 [203 P.2d 37].) Basically, agreements as to the use of property are immaterial to the validity of a particular zoning ordinance. (O'Rourke v. Teeters (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 349, 352 [146 P.2d 983].) Even though the City’s decision on the Proposed Project is not controlled by the subject restrictive easement, the appellants still have remedies available to them to enforce the easement, which includes actions for declaratory relief and to q uiet title. These kinds of actions are brought to establish and determine the scope of easements. In other words, even if the City approves the Proposed Project, the appellants have other remedies available to them rather than suing the City.

Proposed Project

Plot Plan
F.1
Packet Pg. 455

Page 5 ends

The Planning Commission approved the Applicant’s proposed automobile parking lot to accommodate approximately 194 parking stalls on a 9.14 -acre parcel consistent with Clear Zone District of Moreno Valley Industrial Area Specific Plan 208 (Specific Plan 208). The parking lot has been designed and planned to include landscape, lighting, fencing, and water quality improvements.

Site/ Surrounding Area
The Project Site is approximately 9.14 acres and is located on the east side of Heacock Street just north of the Perris Valley Storm Drain.

Surrounding land uses include developed industrial uses to the north and northeast of the Project Site, within Specific Plan 208, the Perris Valley Storm Drain to the south of the Project Site, and March Air Reserve Base (MARB) to the west of the Project Site.

Access
Access to the Project Site will be from a single 40 -foot wide, 75 -foot-deep driveway along Heacock Street, with a gated entry.

Design/Landscaping
The parking lot will be designed per the City s tandards, with Asphalt Concrete pavement, drainage, and water quality treatment areas. All parking lot end islands and parking fingers within the lot will meet the minimum standards to include five feet of landscape areas, step-outs, and curbing.

Tubular steel fencing will be used on Heacock Street along 100 feet on the north and south property lines, with coated chain link on the remaining portions of the perimeter fencing, consistent with the Specific Plan 208 requirements.

Drought-tolerant shrubs will be planted in the landscape areas within the parking lot and along the Heacock Street frontage. Due to the proximity to March Air Reserve Base, trees are not required to ensure compliance with the March Air Reserve Base / Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Environmental
An Initial Study was prepared by CASC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study examined the Proposed Project’s impacts on th e environment. The Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (IS/MND) provides information in support of the finding that a Mitigated Negative Declaration serves as the appropriate CEQA documentation for the Proposed Project. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Technical studies prepared in support of the IS/MND include the following:

Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis, Burrowing Owl F ocused Survey Report, Cultural Report, Paleontological Report, Geotechnical Investigation and Percolation Test Results, EDR Radius Map, Preliminary Drainage Analysis, Preliminary F.1
Packet Pg. 456

Page 6 ends

Water Quality Maintenance Plan, and Traffic Impact Analysis. The electronic files for the IS/MND with appendices are attached to this staff report. Public inspection of the above documents have been made available at City Hall.

Mitigation Measures are recommended for the Proposed Project in the following areas:

Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Tribal Resources, and Hydrology. T he measures for Tribal resources have been included to address input from the Tribal governments. The measures are intended to ensure that potential Tribal resources that might be discovered are pro tected. However, these measures are not required to address a known significant impact. Based on the Initial Study, and the proposed mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not cause any significant impacts or environmental damage.

The public commen t period for the Notice of Availability for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration began on September 29, 2022, and ended on October 18, 2022, which satisfied the required 20-day review period.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Conduct a public hearing and take acti on to DENY THE APPEALS PAA22 -0005 AND PAA23 -0003, and, CERTIFY the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and ADOPT the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVE the Plot Plan consistent with the Staff recommendations to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends this alternative.

2. Conduct a public hearing on the Project and uphold the appeals, PAA22 -0005 and PAA23 -0003, and do not approve the applications. Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT

Not applicable

NOTIFICATION

Notice of the public hearing was sent to all property owners of record within 600 feet of the Project Site. The public hearing notice was also posted on the Project Site and published in the Press Enterprise newspaper.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Julia Descoteaux Manuel A. Mancha
Senior Planner Community Development Director

Concurred By:

Sean Kelleher
Planning Official

F.1
Packet Pg. 457

Page 7 ends

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

1. PAA22-0005 Appeal Letter Riverside County

2. PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB

3. 2023-XX_Resolution IS-MND

4. Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study

5. Appendix A Air Quality & Global Climate Change Impact Analysis (October 12, 2021)

6. Appendix B Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report (June 16, 2021)

7. Appendix C Cultural Report (September 25, 2021)

8. Appendix D Paleontological Report (September 27, 2021)

9. Appendix E Geotechnical Investigation & Percolation Test Results (March 18, 2021)

10. Appendix F EDR Radius Map (October 6, 2021)

11. Appendix G Preliminary Drainage Analysis-Proposed Heacock Logistics (April 2022)

12. Appendix H Preliminary Water Quality Maintenance Plan (WQMP) (April 18, 2022)

13. Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis (May 19, 2022)

14. Exhibit B to Resolution 2023-XX_NOI - PEN21-0102-0103

15. Exhibit C to Resolution 2023-XX_Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program

16. 2023-XX_Resolution Plot Plan

17. Exhibit A to 2023-XX Resolution Plot Plan COAs modified - PC No. 102

18. Zoning Map

19. Project Plans

20. Planning Commission Staff Report December 22, 2022

21. Planning Commission Resolution 2022-41 ISMND
F.1
Packet Pg. 458

Page 8 ends

22. Planning Commission Resolution 2022-42 PP

23. Initial Study Comment

24. Comments Received

25. Comments to PC at meeting with memo 12222022

26. Comment Letter_DEC_Rec_12-27-2022

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval ✓ Approved . 2/16/23 1:00 PM City Attorney Approval ✓ Approved .

City Manager Approval ✓ Approved . 2/16/23 1:14 PM F.1
Packet Pg. 459
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 460
Attachment: PAA22-0005 Appeal Letter Riverside County (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.a
Packet Pg. 461
Attachment: PAA22-0005 Appeal Letter Riverside County (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 462
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 463
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 464
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 465
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 466
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 467
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 468
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 469
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 470
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 471
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 472
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 473
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 474
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 475
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 476
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 477
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 478
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 479
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 480
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 481
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 482
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 483
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 484
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 485
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 486
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 487
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 488
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 489
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 490
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 491
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 492
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 493
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 494
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 495
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 496
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 497
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 498
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 499
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 500
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 501
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 502
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 503
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 504
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 505
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 506
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 507
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 508
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 509
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 510
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 511
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 512
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 513
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 514
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 515
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 516
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 517
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 518
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 519
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 520
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 521
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 522
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 523
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 524
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 525
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 526
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 527
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 528
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 529
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 530
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 531
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 532
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 533
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 534
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 535
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 536
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 537
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 538
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 539
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 540
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 541
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 542
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 543
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 544
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 545
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 546
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 547
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 548
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 549
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 550
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 551
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 552
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 553
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 554
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 555
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 556
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 557
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 558
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 559
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 560
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 561
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 562
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 563
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 564
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 565
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 566
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 567
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 568
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 569
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 570
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 571
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 572
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 573
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 574
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 575
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 576
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 577
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 578
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 579
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 580
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 581
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 582
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 583
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 584
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 585
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 586
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 587
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 588
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 589
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 590
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 591
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 592
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 593
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 594
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 595
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 596
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 597
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 598
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 599
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 600
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 601
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 602
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 603
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 604
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 605
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 606
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 607
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 608
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 609
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 610
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 611
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 612
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 613
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 614
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 615
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 616
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 617
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 618
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 619
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 620
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 621
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) F.1.b
Packet Pg. 622
Attachment: PAA23-0003 Dept of Air Force_MARB (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS (PAA22-0005) AND
(PAA23-0003) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S

ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR PLOT
PLAN PEN2 1-0102 FOR THE PROPOSED AUTOMOBILE PARKING

LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HEACOCK STREET NORTH OF THE PERRIS VALLEY STORM DRAIN (APN 316-211-014)

WHEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley (“City”) is a general law city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for local projects that are subject to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1 and CEQA Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, Lawrence Family Trust (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a Plot Plan (PEN21 -0102) to develop an automobile parking lot and certain public improvements on 9.14 -acres (“Proposed Project”) which is currently vacant and unimproved and located on the east side of Heacock Street north of the Perris Va lley Storm Drain (APN 316-211-014) (“Project Site”); and

WHEREAS, Planning Division Staff completed an Initial Study ( environmental assessment) for the Proposed Project and based on the assessment, recommended the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and a Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in accordance with Section 6 (Negative Declaration Procedures) of the City’s Rules and Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 – 15075; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was duly noticed and circulated for public review for a period of 20 days commencing on September 29, 2022, through October 18, 2022; and

WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), which is a program for monitoring and reporting on the Proposed Project’s mitigation measures, was prepared for the Proposed Project and circulated with the MND; and

WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was initially scheduled by the Planning Commission on October 27, 2022, which was continued at the Applicant’s request to December 22, 2022; and

1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 623
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution IS-MND [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) 2 WHEREAS, on December 22, 2022, a duly noticed continued public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission to consider the Proposed Project’s MND , the MMRP, and the Proposed Project, at which time the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study, MND, and the MMRP, together with any comments received during and prior to the public review process; and

WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the December 22, 2022, continued public hearing, in the exercise of its own independent judgment, the Planning Commission determined by a 5-0-1 vote to approve the Proposed Project after it determined that the MND and the MMRP prepared for the Proposed Project would reduce the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project to levels of insignificance and that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment that would otherwise require the preparation of an environmental impact report; and

WHEREAS, on December 29, 2022, and January 3, 2023, the County of Riverside (PAA22-0005) and the Department of the Air Force (PAA23-0003) appealed the Planning Commission’s decision; and

WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023, a duly noticed appeal hearing was conducted by the City Council to consider the two appeals; and

WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the City Council denied the appeals which upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the MND and MMRP prepared for the Proposed Project based on the findings that the Planning Commission committed no error in deciding to adopt the subject MND and MMRP for the Proposed Project and reaffirmed, based on the exercise of its own independent judgment, that the MND and MMRP will reduce the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project to levels of insignificance and that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment in a manner that otherwise would require the preparation and verification of an Environmental Impact Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals and Exhibits

That the foregoing Recitals and attached exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

Section 2. Evidence

That the City Council has considered all the evidence submitted into the Administrative Record for the MND and MMRP, including, but not limited to, the following:

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 624
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution IS-MND [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) 3 a. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
b. Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND/Newspaper Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B;
c. MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit C;
d. Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission’s consideration and all documents, records, and references related thereto, and Staff’s presentation at the public hearing;
e. Testimony, comments, and correspondence from all persons that were provided at, or prior to, the December 22, 2022 , Planning Commission’s continued public hearing;
f. Appeals PAA22-0005 and PAA23-0003;
g. Staff Report prepared for the City Council’s consideration and all documents, records, and references related thereto, and Staff’s presentation at the public hearing; and
h. Testimony, comments, and correspondence from all persons that were provided at, or prior to, the City Council February 21, 2023, appeal hearing; and i. Proposed conditions of approval for the Proposed Project.

Section 3. Findings

That based on the content of the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record as set forth above, the City Council makes the following findings:

a. That the MND and MMRP have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines consistent with the City’s Rules and Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; b. That the MND and MMRP are adequate to serve as the required CEQA environmental documentation for the proposed Project;
c. That the Planning Commission properly determined that all environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, with the mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP, have been reduced to levels of insignificance and there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment that would otherwise require the preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report;
d. That the MND and MMRP reflect both the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission and the City.

Section 4. Denial of Appeals

That based on the foregoing Recitals, Evidence contained in the Administrative Record, and Findings, as set forth herein, the City Council hereby denies both Appeals, PAA22-0005, and PAA23-0003, and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the MND and MMRP prepared for the Proposed Project based on the findings that the Planning Commission committed no error in deciding to adopt the subject MND and MMRP for the Proposed Project and reaffirmed, based on the exercise of its o wn independent judgment, that the MND and MMRP will reduce the environmental impacts F.1.c
Packet Pg. 625
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution IS-MND [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) 4 of the Proposed Project to levels of insignificance and that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment in a manner that otherwise would require the preparation and verification of an Environmental Impact Report.

Section 5. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions

That all the provisions as heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 6. Severability

That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 7. Effective Date

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon the date of adoption.

Section 8. Certification

That the City Clerk for the City Council shall certify to the passage of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 21nd day of February 2023, by the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley.

_________________________
Ulises Cabrera,
Mayor of the City of Moreno Valley

ATTEST:
_________________________
Jane Halstead, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Steven B. Quintanilla,
Interim City Attorney

Exhibits:

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 626
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution IS-MND [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) 5 Exhibit A: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit B: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration / Newspaper Notice
Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring Plan
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 627
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution IS-MND [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

Exhibit A

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 628
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution IS-MND [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

Exhibit B

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION /

NEWSPAPER NOTICE
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 629
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution IS-MND [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

Exhibit C

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 630
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution IS-MND [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR

HEACOCK LOGISTICS PARKING LOT

HEACOCK STREET AND PERRIS VALLEY STORM DRAIN
PEN21-0102, PEN21-0103, LST22-0011, LST21-0041, LWQ21-0028 September 27, 2022
Lead Agency

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92552
Prepared By
CASC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC.
1470 E. Cooley Dr.

Colton, CA 92324
(909) 783-0101 Ext. 5370
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 631
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page i City of Moreno Valley
Project Description:

Lawrence Family Trust (“Applicant”) proposes to construct the Heacock Logistics Parking Lot (“Project”) which will be used for automobile parking on 9.14 acres located at the northeast corner of Heacock Street and the Perris Valley Storm Drain in the City of Moreno Valley (“City”) as illustrated in Figure 1-1, Regional Vicinity Map and Figure 1-2, Aerial Imagery.

The Project site is located in the southwestern portion of the Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan (Specific Plan 208) designated as Clear Zone (CZ). The Specific Plan was originally approved by the City on June 27, 1989. The property consists of one (1) parcel (APN: 316- 211-014).

Specific Plan 208 was developed for the purpose of increasing flexibility in accommodating economic development opportunities and support uses (Specific Plan, p. I-3). Notably, the specific plan identifies roads, agriculture, automobile parking and open space as compatible land uses within the Clear Zone (SP, p.III-3).

The Project site is generally flat and vacant. Surrounding land uses include the March Air Reserve Base (MARB) to the northwest; industrial uses and vacant land to the north and east; and the Perris Valley Storm Drain to the south. The Project site is currently designated as Open Space per the City’s General Plan Update (June 15, 2021) as illustrated in Figure 1- 3, General Plan Land Use Map. Per the City’s Zoning Map dated January 22, 2020, the Project site is designated as SP 208 CZ, see Figure 1-4, Zoning Map. Although the March 3, 2022, Zoning Map update does not explicitly identify the Project site as SP 208 CZ, the Specific Plan 208 boundary has not changed. Therefore, the Project site remains within SP 208 and is designated as CZ. SP 208 (Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan) designates the site as Clear Zone (CZ) with land uses restricted to open space, agricultural, automobile parking, and roads. The Project site is located within Zone A (Clear Zone) of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).

Zone A prohibits non-aeronautical structures, assemblage of people, objects exceeding height limits determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), all storage of hazardous materials and all hazards to flight. There will be no structures, no assemblage of people, no objects exceeding FAA height limit, and no storage of hazardous materials on the Project site.

The Project includes a parking lot designed with 12’ x 30’ parking stalls for automobile parking as illustrated in Figure 1-5 Site Plan. Although the proposed Site Plan identifies 194 parking stalls, the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated May 19, 2022, prepared for the Project analyzed up to 440 automobiles. Thus, the analysis in this IS/MND assumes up to 440 automobiles parked at the site.

The Project will also include tubular steel fencing along the Heacock frontage with security coated chain-link fencing along the north, south and east perimeter of the site conforming to City standards restricting access onto the site. Access to the parking lot is proposed via a gated, full- access driveway off Heacock Street. There will be no personnel stationed at the site with the exception of up to two employees routinely checking the site throughout the day and night for security purposes. The Project hours of operation will be twenty-four (24) hours a day/seven (7) days a week. Up to twelve (12) shuttles a day will drive and pick -up drivers who have dropped off the automobiles and/or are picking up automobiles at the parking lot. Entrance into the lot will be gated and drivers will be required to use a card-key and/or access code to enter and exit the F.1.d
Packet Pg. 632
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page ii City of Moreno Valley lot. There are no structures proposed on the site. Bollards will be installed throughout the parking lot to provide lighting at night. Landscaping along the Project perimeter will consist of low-profile ground cover with shrubs and bushes.

A 10-foot setback is proposed along the perimeter of the Project site to the north, east, and south and a 15-foot landscaped setback is proposed along Heacock Street. The Project proposes a 24-foot access easement along the northern property boundary to allow access to the landlocked parcel directly east of the Project site.

Project Location:

East of Heacock Street and north of the Perris Valley Storm Drain . Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 316-211-014.

Project Proponent:

Lawrence Family Trust
P.O. Box 7200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Findings:

It is hereby determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, the project would clearly not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Mitigation Measures:

No. Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular water or other dust preventative measures using the following procedures, as specified in SCAQMD Rule 403:
• Water material excavated or graded sufficiently to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Water at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. • Water or securely cover material transported on-site or off-site sufficiently to prevent generating excessive amounts of dust.
• Indicate these control techniques in project specifications. Compliance with the measure will be subject to the City.
• Prevent visible dust from the Project from emanating beyond the property line, to the maximum extent feasible.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soils, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 633
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page iii City of Moreno Valley • Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.

BIO-1 Burrowing Owls
A 30-day preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist recognized by the County of Riverside . The Applicant must provide documentation to the City confirming the “qualified” status of the biologist. The Burrowing Owl Survey results must be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. After the survey, a technical memorandum of findings shall be prepared and sent to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Environmental Programs Department (EPD) at the County of Riverside, and the Regional Conservation Authority.

If the Project site is found positive for burrowing owl, coordination with CDFW will be mandatory and additional exclusionary and relocation efforts will be necessary.

CR-1 Archeological Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall retain a professional archaeologist to conduct monitoring of all ground disturbing activities. The Project Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during Project construction. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s) including the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP as defined in CR-3. The Project archeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contra
ctors and will conduct a mandatory
Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed.

CR-2 Native American Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall secure agreements with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Soboba Bank of Luiseno Indians for tribal monitoring. The Developer is also required to provide a minimum of 30 days’ advance notice to the tribes of all ground disturbing activities. The Native American Tribal Representatives shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed. The Native American Monitor(s) shall attend the pre- grading meeting with the Project Archaeologist, City, the construction manager, and any contractors and will conduct the Tribal Perspective of the mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 634
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page iv City of Moreno Valley CR-3 Cultural Resource Monitoring Plan (CRMP)
The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting Tribe is defined as a Tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project description and location
b. Project grading and development scheduling;
c. Roles and responsibilities of individuals on the Project; d. The pre- grading meeting and Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training details;
e. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe (s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. f. The type of recordation needed for inadvertent finds and the stipulations of recordation of sacred items.
g. Contact information of relevant individuals for the Project; CR-4 Cultural Resource Disposition
In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible.

Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Onsite reburial of the discovered items as detailed in the treatment plan required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR-1. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed. No recordation of sacred items is permitted without the written consent of all Consulting Native American Tribal Governments as defined in CR- 3 The location for the future reburial area shall be identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City, and concurred to by the F.1.d
Packet Pg. 635
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page v City of Moreno Valley
Consulting Native American Tribal Governments prior to certification of the environmental document.

Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation.

Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional archeologist and Tribal Monitors, if needed.

Determinations and
recommendations by the consultant shall be immediately submitted to the Planning Division for consideration, and implemented as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and any and all Consulting Native American Tribes as defined in CR-2 before any further work commences in the affected area. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data reco very plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan.

CR-6 Human Remains
If human remains are discovered, no further disturbance shall occur in the affected area until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are potentially Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified within 24 hours of the published finding to be given a reasonable opportunity to identify the “most likely descendant”. The “most likely descendant” shall then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains (California Public Resources Code 5097.98). (GP Objective 23.3, CEQA).

CR-7 Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations
It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be F.1.d
Packet Pg. 636
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page vi City of Moreno Valley disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).

CR-8 Archeology Report - Phase III and IV
Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the Project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery repo rt (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre- grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Depart
ment shall clear this condition. Once the
report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).

HYD-1 The City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) requires development projects to prepare and submit to the City for approval a site- specific Storm Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Applicant shall adhere to and comply with the requirements noted in the respective project specific SWPPP for the duration of project - related activities.

HYD-2 The Applicant shall adhere to and comply with requiremen ts noted in the City approved, project specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the duration of project-related activities.

Attachments:

1. Initial Study
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 637
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page vi City of Moreno Valley

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Summary ............................................................................................................... 1

1. Proj
ect Title: Heacock Logistics Parking Lot Project ........................................................... 1

2. Lead A
gency Name and Address: ...................................................................................... 1

3. Contac
t Person and Phone Number: .................................................................................. 1

4. Pr
oject Location: ................................................................................................................. 1

5. Pr
oject Applicant’s Name and Address: .............................................................................. 1

6. Gener
al Plan Designation: .................................................................................................. 1

7. Zonin
g Designation: ............................................................................................................ 1

8. Pr
oject Description: ............................................................................................................. 1

9. Sur
rounding Land Uses and Setting: .................................................................................. 2

10. Other
Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): .............................................................................................. 3

11. N
ative American Tribes ..................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1-1: Regional Vicinity Map .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 1-2: Aerial Imagery Map ................................................................................................. 5 Figure 1-3: General Plan land Use MAP ................................................................................... 6 Figure 1-4: Zoning Map ............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 1-5: Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 8

1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................. 9

1.3 Determination ............................................................................................................... 9

1.4 Evaluat
ion of Environmental Impacts ...................................................................... 10 CHAPTE
R TWO – INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND SUBSTANTIATION ............................ 12 I. A
esthetics ....................................................................................................................... 12 II. Agr
icultural Resources ................................................................................................... 14 III. Ai
r Quality ...................................................................................................................... 17 Table 3-1 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB .................................... 19 IV. Bi
ological Resources ..................................................................................................... 22 V. C
ultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 27 VI. Ener
gy ........................................................................................................................... 32 F.1.d
Packet Pg. 638
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page vii City of Moreno Valley VII. Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... 34 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Em
issions .......................................................................................... 40 Table 8-1 Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................. 41 IX. Hazards and H
azardous Materials ............................................................................. 43 X. Hydrology and Water
Quality ...................................................................................... 48 XI. Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................. 53

XII. Mineral R
esources ...................................................................................................... 55 XIII. Noise .......................................................................................................................... 57 XIV. Population and Hous
ing .............................................................................................. 59 XV. Public Serv
ices ............................................................................................................ 60 XVI. Recreation ................................................................................................................... 63

XVII. Transportation
/Traffic .................................................................................................. 64 XVIII. Tribal C
ultural Resources ............................................................................................ 66 XIX. Utilitie
s and Service Systems ...................................................................................... 69 XX. Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 72 XXI. Mandatory Findi
ngs of Significance ............................................................................ 74 CHAPTER THREE – PR
EPARERS ........................................................................................... 77 APPENDICIES (Separate Documents)
Appendix A Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis (October 12, 2021) Appendix B Burrowing Owl Focused Survey R eport (June 16, 2021) Appendix C Cultural Report (September 25, 2021)
Appendix D Paleontological Report (September 27, 2021)
Appendix E G
eotechnical Investigation and Percolation Test Results (March 18, 2021) Appendix F EDR Radius Map (October 6, 2021)
Appendix G Preliminary Drainage Analysis for Proposed Heacock Logistics Parking Lot (April 2022)
Appendix H
Preliminary Water Quality Maintenance Plan (WQMP) (April 18, 2022) Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis (May 19, 2022)
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 639
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page 1 City of Moreno Valley
CHAPTER ONE – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1.1 Project Summary

1. Project Title: Heacock Logistics Parking Lot Project

2. Lead Agency Nam
e and Address:

City of Moreno Valley
Community Development Department, Planning Division
14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92552

3. Contact
Person and Phone Number:

Julia Descoteaux, Senior Planner, Community Development, City of Moreno Valley (951) 413-3209

4. Project
Location: East of Heacock Street and north of the Perris Valley Storm Drain .

Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 316-211-014

5. Project
Applicant’s Name and Address:

Lawrence Family Trust
P.O. Box 7200, Beverly Hills, CA 90212

6. General P
lan Designation: Open Space

7. Zoning Designation:

Specific Plan 208 CZ

8. Project
Description: Lawrence Family Trust (“Applicant”) proposes to construct the Heacock Logistics Parking Lot (“Project”) which will be used for automobile parking on 9.14 acres located at the northeast corner of Heacock Street and the Perris Valley Storm Drain in the City of Moreno Valley (“City”) as illustrated in Figure 1-1, Regional Vicinity Map and Figure 1-2, Aerial Imagery.

The Project site is generally flat, unimproved and vacant. Surrounding land uses include the March Air Reserve Base (MARB) to the northwest; industrial uses and vacant land to the north and east; and the Perris Valley Storm Drain to the south. The Project site is currently designated as Open Space per the City’s General Plan Update (June 15, 2021) as illustrated in Figure 1-3, General Plan Land Use Map. Per the City’s Zoning Map dated January 22, 2020, the Project site is designated as SP 208 CZ, see Figure 1-4, Zoning Map. Although the March 3, 2022, F.1.d
Packet Pg. 640
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page 2 City of Moreno Valley
Zoning Map update does not explicitly identify the Project site as SP 208 CZ, the Specific Plan 208 boundary has not changed. Therefore, the Project site remains within SP 208 and is designated as CZ. SP 208 (Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan) designates the site as Clear Zone (CZ) with land uses restricted to open space, agricultural, automobile parking, and roads .

The Project site is located within Zone A (Clear Zone) of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Zone A prohibits non-aeronautical structures, assemblage of people, objects exceeding height limits determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), all storage of hazardous materials and all hazards to flight. There will be no structures, no assemblage of people, no objects exceeding FAA height limit, and no storage of hazardous materials on the Project site.

The Project includes a parking lot designed with 12’ x 30’ parking stalls for automobile parking as illustrated in Figure 1-5 Site Plan. Although the proposed Site Plan identifies 194 parking stalls, the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated May 19, 2022 prepared for the Project analyzed up to 440 automobiles. Thus, the analysis in this IS/MND assumes up to 440 automobiles parked at the site.

The Project will also include tubular steel fencing along the Heacock frontage with security coated chain-link fencing along the north, south and east perimeter of the site conforming to City standards restricting access onto the site. Access to the parking lot is proposed via a gated, full- access driveway off Heacock Street. There will be no personnel stationed at the site with the exception of up to two employees routinely checking the site throughout the day and night for security purposes. The Project hours of operation will be twenty-four (24) hours a day/seven (7) days a week. Up to twelve (12) shuttles a day will drive and pick -up drivers who have dropped off the automobiles and/or are picking up automobiles at the parking lot. Entrance into the lot will be gated and drivers will be required to use a card-key and/or access code to enter and exit the lot. There are no structures proposed on the site. Bollards will be installed throughout the parking lot to provide lighting at night. Landscaping along the Project perimeter will consist of low-profile ground cover with shrubs and bushes.

9. Surr
ounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project site is designated as Open Space per the City’s General Plan and is zoned as SP 208 CZ per the City’s Zoning Map (see Figures 1-3, General Plan Land Use Map and 1- 4 Zoning Map) . Immediate surroundings include industrial uses zoned as SP 208 CZ and SP 208 I (Industrial) to the north and the east, March Air Reserve Base to the northwest, and the Perris Valley Storm Drain to the south.

North: The Project site is bound by a vacant parcel zoned as SP 208 CZ and the March Air Reserve Base (MARB).

South: The Project site is bound by the Perris Valley Storm Drain.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 641
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS PARKING LOT
Heacock Logistics Project Page 3 City of Moreno Valley
East: The Project site is bound by a vacant parcel zoned as SP 208 CZ.

West: MARB.

10. Ot
her Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

None.

11. Have Calif
ornia Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
The City, Lead Agency, has initiated the AB 52 process with Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Rincon Band of Luiseñ o Indians. Consultation pursuant to AB 52 has been closed with each of the Tribal Governments.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 642
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 4 City of Moreno Valley
FIGURE 1-1: REGIONAL VICINITY MAP
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 643
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for Heacock Logistics Project Page 5 City of Moreno Valley
FIGURE 1-2: AERIAL IMAGERY MAP
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 644
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for Heacock Logistics Project Page 6 City of Moreno Valley
FIGURE 1-3: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 645
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for Heacock Logistics Project Page 7 City of Moreno Valley
FIGURE 1-4: ZONING MAP
SP 208 CZ
SP 208 I
SP 208 I
SP 208 I
SP 208 I
SP 208 I
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 646
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for Heacock Logistics Project Page 8 City of Moreno Valley
FIGURE 1-5: SITE PLAN
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 647
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for F.1.d
Packet Pg. 648
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 10 City of Moreno Valley

1.4 Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the Project falls outside a fault ruptur e zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g. the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to inform ation sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; F.1.d
Packet Pg. 649
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 11 City of Moreno Valley however
, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 650
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 12 City of Moreno Valley CHAPTER TWO – INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND SUBSTANTIATION Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
I. Aesthetics – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in
an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 10 – Open Space & Resource Conservation
- Map OS
RC-3: Scenic Resources and Ridgelines

2. Moreno Valley Indus
trial Area Plan (Specific Plan 208). City of Moreno Valley, amended March 12, 2002.
• General Design Guidelines, Section 4, Lighting, Page III-19

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.110 – Li
ght and Glare of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code.
• Chapter 9.16 – Design Guidelines

4. California Department of Transportation, 2018. List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. 2018. Available on-line at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/2017 -03DesigandEligible.xlsx
Discussion of Im
pacts
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than
Significant Impact: The Project site is located within the southwestern portion of the City , adjacent to the March Air Reserve Base (see Figure 1-1, Regional Vicinity Map). The nearest major scenic resource is the Russel Mountain range which is located over two miles northeast of the Project s ite. According to General Plan Map OSRC -3:

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 651
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 13 City of Moreno Valley Sceni
c Resources and Ridgelines, the Project s ite is not located within the view corridor for Russel Mountains (City of Moreno Valley, 2021, p. 10-11). While outside of the view corridor for the Russell Mountain range, some views are available from the Project s ite, however, these views are not considered to be distinct and prominent d ue to the intervening development and their distance and orientation in relation to the Project site.

Within the vicinity of the Project s ite is vacant land, light industrial uses, and March Air Reserve Base. The major scenic resources within the Moreno Valley study area are visible from State Route 60 and Moreno Beach Drive. The Project site is approximately 6 miles south of the State Route 60 and Moreno Beach Drive interchange, and the view is buffered by urban development. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur.
b) Substanti
ally damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Signif
icant Impact: The Project site is located along the east side of Heacock Street and along the northside of the Perris Valley Storm Drain. The Project site is not located within or adjacent to a scenic highway corridor and does not contain scenic resources, such as trees of scenic value, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The property is vacant and disturbed (i.e. disked), therefore, the property does not contain any scenic resources. There are no State-designated or eligible scenic highways within the vicinity of the Project site (CalTrans, 2017). The Project site is located approximately 5.5 miles south of State Route 60, which the City’s General Plan identifies as a “Scenic Route” (City of Moreno Valley, 2021). The Project includes 194 automobile parking stalls with fencing around the perimeter. Fencing would not be significantly visible from either highway due to intervening development and distance between the scenic route and the Project site. A ccordingly, the Project s ite is not located within a state scenic highway corridor and implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial effect on scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway corridor. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur.
c) In nonurban
ized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than S
ignificant Impact: Construction of the Project would result in the visual conversion of the site from vacant land to 194 parking stalls for automobiles with fencing around the perimeter. The Project would be compatible with the size, scale, and aesthetic qualities of other parking lots constructed in the City and would be required to comply with the applicable development standards and design guidelines contained in the Moreno Valley Zoning Ordinance. T he Project does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The proposed Project will be subject to conformance with design guidelines and criteria after approval to create a synchronous visual character with the surroundings. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not have F.1.d
Packet Pg. 652
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 14 City of Moreno Valley a substanti
al adverse effect on a scenic vista, and a less than significant impact would occur.
d) Create a ne
w source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less t
han Significant Impact: Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact night-time views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars.

Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources, as well as reflective surfaces. The City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 9.16.280 includes design standards for outdoor lighting that apply to all development in the City (City of Moreno Valley, 2017). The Municipal Code lighting standards govern the placement and design of outdoor lighting fixtures to ensure adequate lighting for public safety while also minimizing light pollution and glare and precluding public nuisances (e.g., blinking/flashing lights, unusually high intensity, or needlessly bright lighting). Although the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the applicable requirements of the City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, the proposed Project would introduce new sources of light at the developed Project site, including p arking and security lighting with the installation of bollards for night lighting. Project lighting will be bollards since the site is located within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Zone A (Clear Zone). As described in the Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan, “the use of ‘ full cut off’ fixtures shall be used adjacent to the MARB/MIP to reduce nighttime glare towards the flight line” (City of Moreno Valley, 2002).

The additional light s
ources on site due to the Project are not anticipated to be substantial enough, with the installation of bollards instead of standard light fixtures, to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
II. Agricultural Resources – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) 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?
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 653
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 15 City of Moreno Valley Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 10 – Open Space & Resource Conservation
- Map OSRC-1: Regional Open Space and Trails

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified Ju ne 15, 2021.
• Section 4.2 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources
- Figure 4.2-1 FMMP Important Farmlands

3. California Department of Conservation (CDC), California Important Farmland Finder (CIFF), 2016

4. Heacock Parking EDR report #6691976.11, Environmental Data Resources, Inc., October 6, 2021.

Discussion of Im
pacts
a) 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 non-agricultural use? Less than
Significant Impact : The California Department of Conservation’s (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) identifies and maps significant farmland. Farmland is classified using a system of five categories including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance or Potential, and Grazing Land. The classification of farmland is determined by a soil survey conducted by the Natural Resources Conservations Service (NRCS) which analyses the suitability of soils for agricultural production. b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined by
Public Resource Code section
122220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resource Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104 (g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) 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?
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 654
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 16 City of Moreno Valley Based on the Im
portant Farmland Finder, an interactive GIS application, the Project site is classified as “Prime Farmland” (CDC, 2018 ; City of Moreno Valley, 2021). Therefore, the proposed Project would convert Prime Farmland to non-agricultural use. However, the Project’s underlying zoning, Moreno Industrial Area SP 208 CZ, allows land uses restricted to open space, agricultural, automobile parking, and roads. The property is currently vacant and is not used for agricultural uses. Furthermore, Policy OSRC. 1-6 of the 2021 General Plan Update states that “[w]here agriculture exists within the City limits, allow uses to continue until urban development occurs on these properties and support appropriate commercial activities (i.e. horse stables, agri -tourism) in rural areas in and around Moreno Valley” (City of Moreno Valley, 2021). Thus, the Project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan and is projected in future buildout of the City.

An Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report produced aerial imagery dating back to 1938. Review of these aerial photos revealed that the Project site did not contain agricultural uses between the years of 1938 and 2012. A portion of the Project s ite, approximately one-third of the 9.14-acres, appears to have been utilized for farming for a short time between 2013 and 2016. The Applicant has indicated that onions were grown on the site at this time. Due to the small area utilized for farming, the Project site would not have produced a significant economic yield from the planted crops. Following 2016, the crops were removed, and the Project site remains vacant to this date. Over the seventy-four (74) years prior to 2012, and for the past five (5) years, the Project site has not been utilized for farming or any other agricultural uses.

Based on the aforementioned, the development of the property w ould convert Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use, however, this would not be considered a significant environmental effect to agricultural resources since the site has been mostly vacant since 1938 with the exception of onions planted on a small portion of the site between 2013 and 2016. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur. b) Confli
ct with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than
Significant Impact: The Project site is currently zoned as Moreno Industrial Area SP 208 CZ. Additionally, the Project site is identified as Prime Farmland according to Map OSCR -1: Regional Open Space and Trails of the General Plan. While the underlying zoning allows agricultural uses, the Moreno Industrial Area SP 208 also allows open space, automobile parking, and roads on the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the existing zoning. As disclosed in the General Plan (and supported mapping information from the California Department of Conservation), no land within the City is under a Williamson Act Contract (CDC, 2018; City of Moreno Valley, 2021). As such, a less than significant impact would occur. c) Confli
ct with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resource Code section 122220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resource Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))?
No Impact
: The Project s ite is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, nor is the site surrounded by forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production land. The site is vacant and disturbed. There are no lands located within the City of Moreno F.1.d
Packet Pg. 655
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 17 City of Moreno Valley Vall
ey that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (City of Moreno Valley, 2021). Therefore, the Project has no potential to conflict with any areas currently zoned as forest, timberland, or Timberland Production and would not result in the rezoning of any such lands. As such, no impact would occur. d) Resul
t in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact
: The City does not possess any forestland; thus, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use (City of Moreno Valley, 2021). As such, no impact would occur. e) Involv
e other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less than S
ignificant Impact: As previously discussed under Section II (a), the Project site is classified as “Prime Farmland” by the California Department of Conservation. The Project site is vacant and contains no active agricultural uses under existing conditions.

The property shows evidence of being routinely disturbed (i.e., disked). Implementation of the Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that would result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or forest land to non-forest use outside of the boundaries of the Project site. A less than significant impact would occur.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
III. Air Quality – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 8 – Environmental Justice
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 656
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 18 City of Moreno Valley

2. Final
Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.3 – Air Quality

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.050 – Air Quality of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.150 – Odors of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.170 – Vibration of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 12.50.040 – Limitations on Engine Idling

5. Heacock Logistics Tailer Parking Lot Project Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis, Ganddini, October 12, 2021. (Appendix A) Regulatory Setting: The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis ‐Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. The Project s ite is located within the SCAB, a 6,745‐ square mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. Existing air quality is measured at established SCAQMD air quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated in the context of ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare.

The determination of whether a region’s air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to the state and federal standards. The U.S.

EPA has set National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and monitoring requirements for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria pollutants,” including Ozone (O3), Particular Matter (PM) (including both PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause regional and/or localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards, such as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Currently, the SCAB is in nonattainment for Ozone (O3) and PM2.5 under state and federal air quality standards, and PM10 under state air quality standards. The attainment status of criteria pollutants in the SCAB are shown in Table 3-1 below. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires areas that are not attaining the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to develop and implement an emission reduction strategy that will bring the area into attainment in a timely manner. The SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. The most recent AQMP for the SCAB was published in 2016. The SCAQMD has developed regional and localized significance thresholds (LST) for criteria pollutants, which indicate that any Projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the AQMP is affirmed when a Project (1) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 657
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 19 City of Moreno Valley Table 3-
1 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB
Discussion of Im
pacts
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Signif
icant Impact: The SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) establishes thresholds for criteria pollutants; projects that exceed any of the indicated daily thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact and are not in compliance with the AQMP. The primary purpose of the air quality plans is to bring an area that does not attain federal and state air quality standards into compliance with those standards pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the
project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
(2) Whether the proj
ect will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Based
on the air quality modeling analysis contained in the Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis, the proposed Project will generate emissions of NOx, ROG, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. However, these emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional or local thresholds and would not be expected to result in ground level concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. Due to the magnitude of traffic that the Project is anticipated to create, no violations of the state and federal CO standards are projected to occur (see Appendix A). The Air Quality Analysis concluded that short-term construction impacts, and long-term operation impacts of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not create emissions that would exceed those assumed in the AQMP and would therefore be consistent with the AQMP. Impacts related to air quality plan consistency would be less than significant.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 658
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 20 City of Moreno Valley b) Resul
t in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than S
ignificant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The Project area is out of attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The AQMD states that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project‐ specific 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. Alternatively, individual project‐ related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project ‐specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.

Constr
uction Impacts
As discussed above in section (a), short-term construction impacts of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure AQ -1 ensures adherence to S CAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) . Implementation of these control measures will further reduce criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore, Project construction‐source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project‐specific and cumulative basis.

Operat
ional Impacts
Long-term air quality impacts generally involve mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic and stationary source emissions. The Project does not contain any stationary source emissions; however, the Project will generate traffic-related emissions.

These long-term operation traffic -related emissions will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance.

Thus, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Expos
e sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Signif
icant Impact: Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities. The CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site include the existing single-family detached residential dwelling unit located approximately 1,409 feet southwest and 1,570 feet south of the Project site. Other air quality sensitive land uses are located further from the Project site and would experience lower impacts (see Appendix A) . As discussed F.1.d
Packet Pg. 659
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 21 City of Moreno Valley above in s
ections (b), Mitigation Measure AQ-1 ensures adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). Implementation of these control measures will further reduce criteria pollutant emissions due to construction, and a less than significant impact will occur with incorporated mitigation.
d) Resul
t in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Signif
icant Impact: The Project will not involve land uses that are typically associated with odor complaints, as are agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt during construction activities. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. 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 is thus considered less than significant. Regarding operational odors, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation
Measures
Mitigation:
(III.)
(b, c)
AQ-1 During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular water or other dust preventative measures using the following procedures, as specified in SCAQMD Rule 403:
• Water material excavated or graded sufficiently to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Water at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. • Water or securely cover material transported on-site or off-site sufficiently to prevent generating excessive amounts of dust.
• Indicate these control techniques in project specifications. Compliance with the measure will be subject to the City.
• Prevent visible dust from the Project from emanating beyond the property line, to the maximum extent feasible.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soils, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer. • Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 660
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 22 City of Moreno Valley Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IV. Biological Resources: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conser vation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 10
– Open Space & Resource Conservation

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.4 – Biological Resources
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 661
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 23 City of Moreno Valley

3. Burr
owing Owl Focused Survey Report for Heacock Logistics Parking Lot Project, CASC Engineering and Consulting, June 16, 2021. (Appendix B)

4. Preliminary Drainage Analysis for Proposed Heacock Logistics Parking Lot, CASC Engineering and Consulting, May 12, 2021. (Appendix G)

5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)

6. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer. Accessed October 7, 2021.

7. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Natural Community Conservation Plan Summaries map. Accessed October 7, 2021.

Discussion of Im
pacts
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than S
ignificant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The Project site is currently vacant land (see Figure 1-2, Aerial Imagery) that shows evidence of routine disturbance (i.e. disking). CASC Engineering and Consulting conducted a burrowing owl focused literature review and field survey in April 2021. No special status plant or animal species were observed within the Project site or within the 500-foot buffer surrounding the site during the field survey.

Vegetation:

The Project site, and directly adjacent land uses, are characterized by predominantly weedy non-native annual herbaceous species intermixed with a low density of common, weedy native species. Native species observed throughout the site and buffer include annual burweed ( Ambrosia acanticarpa) , western ragweed ( Ambrosia psilostachya) , California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush ( Baccharis pilularis), common horseweed (Conyza canadensis) , western sunflower (Helianthus annuus) , telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandifola) , small wreath plant (Stphanomeria exigua) , spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum) , tarweed fiddleneck ( Amsinckia lycopsoides), California croton (Croton californicus), doveweed ( Croton setigerus), palo verde ( Parkinsonia aculeata), California buckwheat ( Eriogonum fasciculatum), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). Non-native species observed include tocolote (Centaurea melitensis), rush skeletonweed ( Chondrilla j uncea), brass buttons ( Cotula coronopifolia), bristly ox - tongue (Picris echioides), perennial sow-thistle (Sonchus arvensis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), shortpod mustard ( Hirshfeldia incana), Russian thistle ( Salsola tragus), spotted rattlesnake spurge ( Chamaesyce maculate), burclover ( Medicago polymorpha), yellow sweet-clover ( Melilotus indica), red -stemmed filaree ( Erodium cicutarium), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), tree tobacco ( Nicotiana glauca), soft chess ( Bromus hordeaceus), and foxtail chess ( Bromus madritensis) . No special status vegetation communities were observed within the Project site during the April 2021 field visit. The disturbed nature of the site would have limited potential for any special status species to occur (see Appendix B).

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 662
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 24 City of Moreno Valley Wildlife:

Spec
ies of wildlife are afforded “special status” by federal agencies, state agencies, and/or non-governmental organizations due to their recognized rarity, potential vulnerability to extinction, or local importance. These species typically have a limited geographic range and/or limited habitat and are referred to collectively as “special status” species. Special status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Project site and surrounding area include the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat and burrowing owl. However, the Project site is not located within a Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Core Reserve Area.

A total of 25 wildlife species or signs thereof were observed during the April 2021 site visit.

The species observed include Funeral dusky wing (Erynnis funeralis), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticaulis), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhunchos), common raven (Corvus corax), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnis vulgaris), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Audubon cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and coyote (Canis latrans).

The Project site does not contain any plant species that have been given federal, state, or local designation as sensitive or special status species. However, the Project s ite has been identified by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation Plan Area (MSHCP), as part of the Additional Needs Survey Area for Burrowing Owls and is therefore subject to habitat assessment and focused burrowing owl (BUOW) surveys , if suitable habitat is present. Although BUOWs have no federal protection, BUOW is designated by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a species of special concern. The MSHCP is intended to serve as a Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act, as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP).

An initial site assessment for BUOW was conducted on April 23, 2021, and three (3) focused surveys were conducted between April 23, 2021 and June 1, 2021. While suitable BUOW habitat was present on the Project s ite, no burrowing owl or indications of their presence were observed during the habitat assessment or the focused surveys.

Additionally, past agricultural activities have resulted in substantial loss of native habitat within the Project boundary. The Project site is devoid of most vegetation due to seasonal disking of the site. Due to the lack of native vegetation on-site, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive or special status plant species. Although BUOW were not found within the Project s ite, the habitat assessment identified areas within the Project site and the surrounding areas that are suitable for BUOW habitat. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. b) 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? F.1.d
Packet Pg. 663
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 25 City of Moreno Valley Less than Signif
icant Impact: The Project s ite does not contain any habitat areas, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or migratory wildlife corridors. Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP states that “riparian/riverine resources are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent [wetland plant species], or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to, or which depend upon moisture from a nearby freshwater source; or areas with freshwater after flow during all or a portion of the year .” There is no evidence of riparian/riverine resources subject to the MSHCP on the Project site.

The nearest body of water is Lake Perris, approximately 2.75 miles east of the Project site. Considering the distance, the proposed Project is not anticipated to have adverse effects on any nearby bodies of water. Additionally, no impact is anticipated to cause a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as none exist within the Project site or the surrounding area. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur.
c) Have
a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, march, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than S
ignificant Impact: The Project site does not contain state or federally protected wetlands such as marches, vernal pools, streams, or rivers. However, the Perris Valley Storm Drain runs along the Project’s southern boundary. The Project proposes an underground catch basin and sump and pump to pump water to the east and reduce post-development water flow. Proposed drainage patterns will mimic the existing condition by sheet flowing from the northwest corner of the site to the southeast corner to the proposed catch basin (see Appendix G). Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on state or federally protected wetlands and a j urisdictional delineation would not be required.
d) Interfere s
ubstantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Signif
icant Impact: Wildlife movement and the fragmentation of wildlife habitat are recognized as critical issues that must be considered in assessing impacts to wildlife.

Habitat fragmentation is the division or breaking up of larger habitat areas into smaller areas that may or may not be capable of independently sustaining wildlife and plant populations. Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages , but wildlife corridors provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. The Project site is surrounded by March Air Reserve Base to the northwest and vacant land and warehouses to the north, east, and south. Due to the industrial nature of the surrounding area, the Project site does not act as a wildlife corridor and Project implementation would not substantially interfere with native resident or migratory species, wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 664
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 26 City of Moreno Valley e) Confli
ct with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than
Significant Impact: The Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat and burrowing owl are protected species under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation Plan Area (MSHCP) and occur within the City of Moreno Valley. The Project site is not located within a Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Core Reserve Area. Additionally, the Project site is not located within an MSHCP criteria cell; however, the site does fall within the Additional Needs Survey Area for Burrowing Owls and is subject to habitat assessment and focused burrowing owl surveys if suitable habitat is present (see Appendix B). The Burrowing Owl site assessment conducted for the Project site is discussed in Section III (a) of this Initial Study.

The City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code contains provisions for the protection of the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat (refer to Municipal Code Section 8. 8.60), as well as provisions for the collection of mitigation fees to further the implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP (refer to Municipal Code Section 3.3.48). The proposed Project is not subject to focused survey requirements for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat due to the location of the Project site. However, the Applicant is required to contribute a local development impact and mitigation fee to assist the City in implementing the habitat conservation plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. Additionally, the Applicant is required to contribute a local development impact and mitigation fee to assist the City in implementing the Western Riverside County MSHCP reserve system (including the acquisition, management, and long-term maintenance of sensitive habitat areas). Therefore, the project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances. Due to the City’s standard regulatory requirements, impacts would be less than significant.
f) Confl
ict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than
Significant Impact: The Project site is not located within Stephens’ Kangaroo Rate Core Reserve Area, nor is it located within any criteria cells for special status species under the MSHCP. Although the Project site is located within the Additional Needs Survey Area for Burrowing Owls, the site does not contain any burrowing owls. The Project site is not located within any other planning areas of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 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. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigat
ion Measures
Mitigation:
(IV.)
(a)
BIO-1: Burrowing Owls
A 30-day preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist recognized by the County of Riverside. The Applicant must provide F.1.d
Packet Pg. 665
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 27 City of Moreno Valley documentati
on to the City confirming the “qualified” status of the biologist. The Burrowing Owl Survey results must be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. After the survey, a technical memorandum of findings shall be prepared and sent to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Environmental Programs Department (EPD) at the County of Riverside, and the Regional Conservation Authority.

If the Project s ite is found positive for burrowing owl, coordination with CDFW will be mandatory and additional exclusionary and relocation efforts will be necessary.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. Cultural Resources – Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those outside of formal cemeteries?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 10- Open Space and Resource Conservation

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.5 – Cultural and Tribal Resources
- Table 4.5-1 List of Historic Resources and their Eligibility Status - Figure 4.5-1 Historic Resources
- Figure 4.5-2 Archaeological Sensitive Areas

3. Cultural Resources Survey Report for Heacock Logistics Tractor/Trailer Parking Lot, City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, California prepared by CRM Tech, September 25, 2021. (see Appendix C)

4. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for Heacock Logistics Tractor/Trailer Parking Lot, City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, California prepared by CRM Teach, September 27, 2021. (see Appendix D)

5. Heacock Parking EDR report #6691976.11, Environmental Data Resources, Inc., October 6, 2021.

6. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

7. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Title 7 – Cultural Preservation F.1.d
Packet Pg. 666
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 28 City of Moreno Valley Discussion of Im
pacts
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
No Impact
: A Cultural Resources Survey Report and a Paleontological Resources Assessment Report was prepared by CRM Tech on September 25 and September 27, 2021, respectively. On August 11, 2021, a historical/archaeological resources records search service for the Project area was provided by the Eastern Information Center (EIC).

The records search included review of all recorded cultural resources within a half -mile radius of the Project area, as well as review of known cultural resource reports. The results of the records search from the EIC indicated that no cultural resources are recorded within the Project area; however, one historic-period site has been recorded outside but adjacent to the southern project boundary. Site 33-024867 represents a 290-foot-long segment of Lateral B-Oleander Channel, which has been determined not to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.

On August 16, 2021, CRM Tech archaeologist conducted an intensive pedestrian field survey of the Project area with the assistance of a tribal monitor from the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. The field survey produced completely negative results for potential cultural resources, and no buildings, structures, objects, sties, features, or artifact deports of prehistoric or historical origin were encountered. Ultimately, the research and survey results from the Cultural Resources Assessment indicated that the proposed Project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known historical resources and no further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the Project (see Appendix C).

The Project s ite is currently vacant and there are no known historically or culturally significant resources, structures, buildings, or objects located within in the Project area.

The Project site does not contain any previously recorded cultural and/or paleontological resources. In addition, the integrity of the property has been significantly disturbed due to discing. Thus, the Project site would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and impacts to historic resources are not anticipated; therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: As concluded in the Cultural and Paleontological Assessments, the Project area does not contain previously recorded cultural and/or paleontological resources. No paleontological resources were observed during the field survey. In addition, the integrity of the property has been badly altered from the many years of disking. However, the potential to discover buried archaeological deposits remains. Within a one-half mile radius of the Project, at least 14 other studies on various tracts of land and linear features were completed, which resulted in the recordation of five (5) additional historical/archaeological sites (see Appendix C).

Additionally, the Paleontological Assessment concluded that the soil within the Project site is comprised of Pleistocene- age alluvium, which generally has a high potential to contain significant, nonrenewable fossil remains. Therefore, there is a potential that F.1.d
Packet Pg. 667
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 29 City of Moreno Valley paleontologi
cal or archaeological resources/deposits could be uncovered during digging or earthwork. Thus, Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 and CR-8 are identified to require archaeological monitoring during any earth-moving activities to evaluate and salvage discoveries, if any, that occur. With incorporation of mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Dis
turb any human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Signif
icant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Due to the heavy disturbance (discing) of the Project site, no human remains, or cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed Project. Furthermore, an Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report produced aerial imagery dating back to 1938. Review of these aerial photos did not identify possible cemeteries in the area, and therefore, the likelihood of encountering human remains during Project development is minimal . H owever, these findings do not preclude the existence of previously unknown human remains located below the ground surface, which may be encountered during construction excavations associated with the proposed Project. As a result, Mitigation Measures CR-6 and CR-7 have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously unknown human remains that may be unexpectedly discovered during project implementation to a less than significant level. Consistent with State law, if at any time during grading huma n remains are found, the Project is to be conditioned to halt work and contact the Riverside County Coroner’s Office. Based on compliance with existing regulations and the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-6 and CR-7, the Project’s potential to dist urb human remains is considered less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigat
ion Measures
Mitigation:

V.
(b)
CR-1: Archeological Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall retain a professional archaeologist to conduct monitoring of all ground disturbing activities. The Project Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during Project construction. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s) including the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP as defined in CR -3. The Project archeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed. (b)
CR-2: Native American Monitoring
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 668
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 30 City of Moreno Valley Pri
or to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall secure agreements with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Soboba Bank of Luiseno Indians for tribal monitoring. The Developer is also required to provide a minimum of 30 days’ advance notice to the tribes of all ground disturbing activities. The Native American Tribal Representatives shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed. The Native American Monitor(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the Project Archaeologist, City, the construction manager, and any contractors and will conduct the Tribal Perspective of the mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance.
(b)
CR-3: Cultural Resource Monitoring Plan (CRMP)
The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting Tribe is defined as a Tribe that initiated the AB52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project description and location
b. Project grading and development scheduling;
c. Roles and responsibilities of individuals on the Project; d. The pre-grading meeting and Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training details;
e. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe (s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
f. The type of recordation needed for inadvertent finds and the stipulations of recordation of sacred items.
g. Contact information of relevant individuals for the Project; (b)
CR-4: Cultural Resource Disposition
In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 669
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 31 City of Moreno Valley ii. Onsi
te reburial of the discovered items as detailed in the treatment plan required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR -1. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed. No recordation of sacred items is permitted without the written consent of all Consulting Native American Tribal Governments as defined in CR -3 The location for the future reburial area shall be identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City and concurred to by the Consulting Native American Tribal Governments prior to certification of the environmental document.

The City shall verify that the following note is included on the Grading Plan: “If any suspected archaeological resources are discovered during ground –disturbing activities and the Project Archaeologist or Native American Tribal Representatives are not present, the construction supervisor is obligated to halt work in a 100-foot radius around the find and call the Project Archaeologist and the Tribal Representatives to the site to assess the significance of the find."
(b)
CR-5: Inadvertent Finds
If potential historic or cultural resources are uncovered during excavation or construction activities at the project site that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to Project approval, all ground disturbing activities in the affected area within 100 feet of the uncovered resource must cease immediately and a qualified person meeting the Secretary of the Interior's standards (36 CFR 61), Tribal Representatives, and all site monitors per the Mitigation Measures, shall be consulted by the City to evaluate the find, and as appropriate recommend alternative measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative effects on the historic, or prehistoric resource. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional archeologist and Tribal Monitors, if needed. Determinations and recommendations by the consultant shall be immediately submitted to the Planning Division for consideration, and implemented as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and any and all Consulting Native American Tribes as defined in CR -2 before any further work commences in the affected area. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. (c)
CR-6: Human Remains
If human remains are discovered, no further disturbance shall occur in the affected area until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are potentially Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified within 24 hours of the published finding to be given a reasonable opportunity to identify the “most likely descendant”. The “most likely descendant” shall then make recommendations and engage in consultations F.1.d
Packet Pg. 670
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 32 City of Moreno Valley concer
ning the treatment of the remains (California Public Resources Code 5097.98). (GP Objective 23.3, CEQA).
(c)
CR
-7: Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations
It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).
(b)
CR-8: Archeology Report - Phase III and IV
Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the Project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre-grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance.

Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. Energy – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impacts due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or Local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 5 Parks and Public Services
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 671
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 33 City of Moreno Valley • Chapter 10
- Open Space and Resource Conservation

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.6 - Energy

3. Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan (Specific Plan 208). City of Moreno Valley, amended March 12, 2002.

4. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code Discussion of Im
pacts
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. The construction activities for the Project would include grading of the Project site, paving, and striping. The Project would consume energy resources during construction in three (3) general forms:

1. P
etrol
eum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site, construction worker travel to and from the Project site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g. hauling of demolition material to off- site reuse and disposal facilities);

2. E
lec
tricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and,

3. E
nergy
used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber.

All
construction equipment is subject to the CARB In-Use Off -Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. This regulation, which applies to all off-road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater, limits unnecessary idling to 5 minutes, requires all construction fleets to be labeled and reported to CARB, bans Tier 0 equipment, and phases out Tier 1 and 2 equipment (thereby replacing fleets with cleaner equipment), and requires that fleets comply with Best Available Control Technology requirements, which would increase construction equipment fuel efficiency. These limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment, and the requirements that equipment must be properly maintained (CCR Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485), would result in fuel savings. Due to the temporary nature of construction, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, there are no policies at the local level applicable to energy conservation specific to the construction phase. The proposed Project does not include construction of buildings or land uses associated with significant energy use during operation.

Moreno Valley Electric Utility (MVU) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) would provide electricity and natural gas for the Project. The on-going operation of the proposed parking lot would require the use of electricity for lighting purposes. Project operation may result in increased consumption of petroleum -based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the Project site. However, operation of the proposed Project F.1.d
Packet Pg. 672
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 34 City of Moreno Valley would not r
esult in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact: The applicable state plans that address renewable energy and energy efficiency are CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and RPS. Under the California Renewables Portfolio Standard, the State of California is transitioning to renewable energy through the California’s Renewable Energy Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. Electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. Executive Order S-1408, signed in November 2008, expanded the state’s renewable portfolios standard (RPS) to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Senate Bill 350 (de Leon) was signed into law September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. Senate Bill 350 also set a new goal to double the energy -efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which supersedes the SB 350 requirements. Under SB 100, the RPS for public owned facilities and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Additionally, SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. The bill also established a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under SB 100 the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

The statewide RPS goal is not directly applicable to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as MVU, which is the utility that would provide all of electricity needs for the Project. Compliance of MVU in meeting the RPS goals would ensure the State in meeting its objective in transitioning to renewable energy. Additionally, the Project would be conditioned to comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) and CALGreen. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency and a less than significant impact would occur.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VII. Geology and Soils– Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 673
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 35 City of Moreno Valley Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 6 – Safety
− Map S-1: Fault Zones

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.7 – Geology/Soils

3. Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan (Specific Plan 208). City of Moreno Valley, amended March 12, 2002.

4. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for Heacock Logistics Tractor/Trailer Parking Lot, City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, California prepared by CRM Tech, September 27, 2021. (Appendix D)

5. Geotechnical Investigation and Percolation Test Results for Heacock Logistic Parking Project, Geocon West Inc., March 18, 2021. (Appendix E)

6. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault. Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 674
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 36 City of Moreno Valley • Chapter 8.21
– Grading Regulations

7. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of Moreno Valley Fire Department, adopted October 4, 2011, amended 2017, http://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/haz-mit- plan.pdf
• Chapter 4
– Earthquake
- Figure 4-1 – Right-Lateral Strike -Slip Fault
- Figure 4-1.1 – Moreno Valley Geologic Faults and Liquefaction 2016 - Figure 4-1.2 – Moreno Valley Area Ground Shaking Map
• Chapter 8 – Landslide
- Figure 8-1 – Moreno Valley Slope Analysis 2016

8. Emergency Operations Plan, City of Moreno Valley, March 2009, http://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/mv-eop-0309.pdf • Threat As
sessment 1 – Major Earthquakes
- Figure 9 – Types of Faults
- Figure 10 – Earthquake Faults
- Figure 11 – Comparison of Richter Magnitude and Modified Mercalli Intensity
- Figure 12 – Magnitude 4.5 or Greater Earthquake Map
- Figure 13 – Geologic Faults and Liquefaction
Discussion of Impacts
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, 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 substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Signif
icant Impact: The San Jacinto Fault Zone traverses the
northeastern boundary of the City. One of the most seismically active structures in southern California, the San Jacinto fault zone has produced 10 historical earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 6 and has been categorized as an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone by the State of California. Alquist-Priolo Zones identify surface traces of known active faults that pose seismic hazards and buffers around the known traces.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet).

According to Map S-1: Fault Zones of the City’s General Plan Safety Element, there are no fault zones in the proximity of the Project site (City of Moreno Valley, 2021) .

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 675
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 37 City of Moreno Valley The neares
t fault is the San Jacinto Fault which is located over 8 miles northeast of the Project site. Because there are no known faults located on the Project site, there is low potential for the proposed Project to expose people or structures to adverse effects related to ground rupture. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur. ii. Strong s
eismic ground shaking?
Less than Signif
icant Impact: The Project site is located within a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the proposed Project. Several factors control how ground motion interacts with structures, making the hazard of ground shaking difficult to predict. Seismic waves propagating through the Earth’s crust are responsible for the ground vibrations normally felt during an earthquake. Structures within the City could be affected by ground shaking during a seismic event associated with the San Jacinto Fault Zone. Additionally, seismic events associated with the active San Andreas Fault located approximately 15 miles northeast and the active Elsinore Fault located approximately 17 miles southwest could also generate ground shaking within the City.

The ground shaking risk of the Project is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the City of Moreno Valley will require that any proposed structures be constructed in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), also known as California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 and the City Building Code. CALGreen and City Building Code are designed to preclude significant adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. The future workers on the Project site have the potential to be exposed to strong seismic ground shaking associated with seismic events. Adherence to the recommendations outlined in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, as well as conditions of approval and the California Building Code (CBC) Guidelines that are currently adopted by the City, would ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic shaking are less than significant.
iii. Seis
mic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Signif
icant Impact: Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: shallow groundwater; low-density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and high-intensity ground motion. Liquefaction is typified by a buildup of pore-water pressure in the affected soil layer to a point where a total loss of shear strength occurs, causing the soil to behave as a liquid. According to Map S -2: Liquefaction Hazards of the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the Project site is identified as having a “low” liquefaction susceptibility. Conformance with the CBC’s guidelines currently adopted by the City would ensure impacts associated with liquefaction are less than significant.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 676
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 38 City of Moreno Valley iv. Landsl
ides?
No impact
: Landslides occur when masses of rock, earth, or debris move down a slope, including rock falls, deep failure of slopes, and shallow debris flows. Landslides are influenced by human activities such as grading and other construction activities, irrigation of slopes, mining activity, and by natural factors such as precipitation, geology/soil types, surface/subsurface flow of water, and topography. Frequently, they may be triggered by other hazards such as floods and earthquakes. The Project site is relatively flat and contains no hillside or steep slopes on or in the vicinity (Google Earth Pro, 2020). Accordingly, the Project site is located with in an area with a low potential for landslides. Additionally, grading in support of the Project is not anticipated to result in the creation of any new substantial slopes on- site that could be subject to landslide. Grading of the site would not pose a landslide threat to adjacent properties, future site workers, or the proposed buildings. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not create and would not be exposed to any risk of a landslide. No impact would occur.
b) Resul
t in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than
Significant Impact: Construction activities associated with the Project would involve earth movement and the exposure of soil, which would temporarily increase erosion susceptibility. In the long-term, development of the subject property would increase impervious surface cover and permanent landscaping on the Project site, thereby reducing the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil that currently occurs. The Project would be required to adhere to standard regulatory requirements, including, but not limited to, requirements imposed by the City of Moreno Valley’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit and a Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize water pollutants including sedimentation in stormwater runoff. The Proposed Project involves construction of a parking lot in an essentially level area of the City. The Project does not propose to significantly alter existing topography. Based on the preceding, potential impacts associated with erosion or changes in topography, including loss of topsoil are considered less than significant.
c) Be loc
ated on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than
Significant Impact: Refer to the discussion of Section VI ((a)(iii)) and (iv) for a discussion of hazards associated with liquefaction and landslide hazards. As noted, landslide hazards are not anticipated to affect or result from the Project, and the site is in an area of “low potential” for exposing future development on-site to liquefaction-related hazards. (City of Moreno Valley, 2021). The Project site’s potential for lateral spreading or collapse is low, given that the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation and Percolation Test Results are followed, (see Appendix E). The upper portion of the alluvium is not considered suitable for development and will need to be removed to expose competent material. The existing soils within approximately three (3) feet below subgrade elevation are expected to require remedial excavation and proper compaction. H owever, the actual depth of removal should be evaluated by the engineering geologist during F.1.d
Packet Pg. 677
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 39 City of Moreno Valley grading
operations. The Project site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with fill compacted in layers . Additionally, the Project Site may contain some granular material, which has little to no cohesion and is subject to caving in un-shored excavations and will need to follow proper OSHA guidelines for shoring to prevent any cave-ins (see Appendix E). Further, the Project will be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and California Building Code (CBC) that would act to minimize any unstable soils, and any unstable geologic units that may be encountered.

On this basis, the potential for the Project 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 on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse is less than significant.
d) Be loc
ated on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than
Significant Impact: Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and shrink when dried. Foundations constructed on these soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling. Without proper mitigation measures, heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade could result. The subsurface soils beneath the site consist of alluvium (Qa); which is comprised of silty sand, sandy silt, and well -graded sand. The recommended grading specifications state, “where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material” (see Appendix E). Furthermore, the proposed Project does not consist of building any structures or buildings which would create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
e) Have s
oils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact
: The Project would not install any septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. No impact would occur.
f) Dir
ectly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Signif
icant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: On July 26, 2021, CRM Tech principal paleontologist conducted an intensive level field survey. Throughout the course of the field survey, no surface manifestation of any paleontological remains was observed within the Project area. It was noted during the survey that the ground surface in the entire Project area has been extensively disturbed by disking. Additionally, Western Science Center (WSC) provided paleontological records to CRM Tech that identified no known paleontological localities within the Project area but yielded numerous localities that were discovered in similar types of soil in the surrounding region. The WSC describes the soils within the Project area as Quaternary alluvium of Holocene and Pleistocene origin, which are well documented to be of high paleontological sensitivity.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 678
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 40 City of Moreno Valley Plei
stocene-age alluvium generally has high potential to contain significant, nonrenewable fossil remains.

Ultimately, the research and survey results from the Paleontological Assessment found the proposed Project’s potential to impact significant, nonrenewable paleontologi cal resources to be high, based on the Pleistocene-age alluvium within the project site and surrounding vicinity. Based on these findings, CRM Tech recommends that a paleontological resource impact mitigation program be developed and implemented during the Project to prevent such impacts or reduce them to a level less than significant (see Appendix D).

The Project area does not contain any previously recorded paleontological resources, and no paleontological resources were observed during the field survey conducted on July 26, 2021. In addition, the integrity of the property has been altered from the many years of disturbance (disking). However, the soil within the Project site is comprised of Pleistocene- age alluvium, which generally has a high potential to contain significant nonrenewable fossil remains . Therefore, there is a potential that paleontological resources could be uncovered duri ng digging or earthwork at the Project s ite. M itigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 and CR-8 are identified to require archaeological monitoring during any earth-moving activities to evaluate and salvage discoveries, if any, that occur. Ultimately, the likelihood of directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature is extremely low due to the lack of presence of paleontological resources. However, there is still a potential to uncover paleontological resources during excavation of the Project site. By adhering to Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-5 and CR-8, the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature will be minimized. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 4 – Circulation
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 679
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 41 City of Moreno Valley • Chapter 8
– Environmental Justice

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3. Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan (Specific Plan 208). City of Moreno Valley, amended March 12, 2002.

4. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

5. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, prepared by the California Air Resources Board, November 2017,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, accessed April 24, 2019

6. Heacock Logistics Tailer Parking Lot Project Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis, Ganddini, October 12, 2021. (Appendix A) Discussion of Impacts
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Signif
icant Impact:

As shown in Table 8-1 Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would generate 2,761.64 MTCO2e per year (see Appendix A) . According to the threshold of significance, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on-going operations of the proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD industrial threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, since the Project will not exceed the threshold of significance, the Project does not have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions and a less than significant impact will occur.

Table 8-
1 Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 680
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 42 City of Moreno Valley b) Confli
ct with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Signif
icant Impact: The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the City of Moreno Valley Energy Efficiency and Climate Action Strategy, City of Moreno Valley CAP, and California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan.

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with regulations imposed by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) aimed at the reduction of air pollutant emissions. The regulations that are directly and indirectly applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of GHG emissions include:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill (AB) 32) • Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (Senate Bill (SB) 375)
• Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles.
• California Building Code (Title 24 California Code of Regulations (CCR)). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent (%) less by 2020.
• Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078 – also referred to as RPS). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 % by 2010 and 33% by 2020.
• California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (SB 32). Requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15.

CAR
B Scoping Plan:

CARB’s Scoping Plan is California’s GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state’s GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32, which is to return to 1990 emission levels by year 2030 (CARB 2017). The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that is used to develop perfor mance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.

On December 24, 2017, CARB adopted the Final 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update to address the new 2030 interim target to achieve a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030, established by SB 32 (CARB 2017). Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures as necessary to ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions F.1.d
Packet Pg. 681
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 43 City of Moreno Valley reducti
on goals of AB 32. While measures in the Scoping Plan apply to state agencies and not the proposed Project, the Project’s GHG emissions would be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Therefore, the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Given this consistency, the Project’s increm ental contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on climate change would be less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) 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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project
area?
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 682
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 44 City of Moreno Valley f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, Public Review Draft, April 2, 2021 • Chapter 6 – Safety

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3. Heacock Parking EDR report #6691976.2s, Environmental Data Resources, Inc., October 6, 2021 (Appendix F)

4. Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan (Specific Plan 208). City of Moreno Valley, amended March 12, 2002.

5. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

6. March Air Reserve Base (MARB)/March Inland Port (MIP) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) on November 13, 2014,
(http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/17%20-
%20Vol.%201%20March%20Air%20Reserve%20Base%20Final.pdf?ver=2016-08-15- 145812-700)

7. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of Moreno Valley Fire Department, adopted October 4, 2011, amended 2017, http://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/haz-mit- plan.pdf
• Chapter 5
– Wildland and Urban Fires
- Figure 5-2 – Moreno Valley High Fire Area Map 2016
• Chapter 12 – Dam Failure/Inundation
- Figure 12-2 Moreno Valley Evacuation Routes Map 2015
• Chapter 13 – Pipeline
- Figure 13-1 – Moreno Valley Pipeline Map 2016
• Chapter 14 – Transportation
- Figure 14-1.1 – Moreno Valley Air Crash Hazard Area Map 2016 • Chapter 16 – Hazardous Materials Accident
- Moreno Valley Hazardous Materials Site Locations Map 2016

8. Emergency Operations Plan, City of Moreno Valley, March 2009, http://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/mv-eop-0309.pdf • Hazar
d Mitigation and Hazard Analysis
• Threat Assessment 2 – Hazardous Materials
• Threat Assessment 3 – Wildfire
• Threat Assessment 6 – Transportation Emergencies
• Figure 17 – Air Crash Hazards
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 683
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 45 City of Moreno Valley Discussion of Impacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact: The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Branch serves as the Certified Unified Public Agency (CUPA) and is responsible for overseeing the six hazardous materials programs in the County. The Branch is responsible for inspecting facilities that handle hazardous materials, generate hazardous waste, treat hazardous waste, own/operate underground storage tanks, own/operate aboveground petroleum storage tanks, or handle other materials subject to the California Accidental Release Program.

Hazardous materials are used in Moreno Valley for a variety of purposes including manufacturing, service industries, various small businesses, agriculture, medical uses, schools, and households. Hazardous materials are also used at the March Air Reserve Base (MARB) adjacent to the City and may be transported to and from the base on City roadways.

Within the vicinity of the Project site is vacant land, light industrial uses, and the March Air Reserve Base (see Figure 1-2, Aerial Imagery) . Construction of the proposed Project would require the use and transport of hazardous materials such as asphalt, paints, oil, diesel, fuel, gasoline, and building materials. The use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials using these substances must comply with existing regulations established by several agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), and the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials.

Construction would also be required to adhere to any local standards set forth by the City, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements that are intended to minimize hazardous materials risks to the public, such as the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Prevention program, and the California Health and Safety Code. Compliance with federal safety standards and the authorities of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Branch would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Operation of the proposed parking lot is not anticipated to store or transport hazardous materials. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions inv olving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact: As mentioned above in Section IX(a), any handling, storing, or dispensing activities associated with hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Both short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations with the policies and programs established by agencies such as the EPA, USDOT, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Cal/OSHA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act F.1.d
Packet Pg. 684
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 46 City of Moreno Valley (RC
RA), and the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Branch. Adherence to the applicable policies and programs of these agencies would ensure that any transport or interaction with hazardous materials would occur in the safest possible manner, reducing the opportunity for the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Any handling of hazardous materials would be limited in both quantities and concentrations. Furthermore, the Project site is located within Zone A of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Zone A prohibits all storage of hazardous materials and all hazards to flight. The proposed Project would adhere to the applicable policies and programs of the agencies listed above, as well as, to the outlines set forth by the March Air Reserve Base Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Zone A. Therefore, the Project would not 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, a l ess than significant impact would occur.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact: The nearest school to the Project site is Val Verde Academy and High School, located approximately 1. 4 miles southwest of the Project site. As previously mentioned, handling activities associated with hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Given that there are no schools within one-quarter mile of the proposed Project, no impact would occur.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant Impact: Government Code Section 65962.5 describes that before an application for a development project is completed, the Applicant and/or Lead Agency shall indicate whether the site is included on any of the lists compiled pursuant to that section and identify whi ch list(s). According to the Cortese List, the Project s ite is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Additionally, the nearest hazardous materials site is approximately one (1) mile away. However, an EDR report dated October 21, 2021 (see Appendix F) identified soil and groundwater contamination of March Air Force Base (AFB), which is located upgradient of the Project site. Water wells within March AFB have been determined to be contaminated with trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, at levels that exceed State drinking water standards.

The contamination identified in the EDR report pertains to contaminated groundwater located approximately .5 miles to the northwest on the MARB . The Project proposes to construct a parking lot that will require a maximum excavation of two (2) feet below surface level for the parking lot and a maximum excavation of up to six (6) feet below surface level for the underground catch basin. Groundwater in the immediate area is typically located approximately twenty-five ( 25) feet below surface level . Thus , if groundwater contamination exists within the Project boundaries, the proposed Project F.1.d
Packet Pg. 685
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 47 City of Moreno Valley would not uncover contamination and a significant hazard will not be created.

Additionally, groundwater contamination is typically addressed when within 0.1 miles of the subject area. As the Project site is located approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the recorded groundwater contamination, the results of the EDR report do not impact the proposed Project. In addition, the site is designated as Clear Zone within SP 208 which restricts permitted land uses to only open space, agriculture, automobile parking, and roads which would not require significant grading below the surface. Therefore, Project implementation would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, a less than significant impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less th
an Significant Impact: The Project site is located within Zone A of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Zone A prohibits non-aeronautical structures, assemblages of people, objects exceeding height limits determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), all storage of hazardous materials and all hazards to flight. Due to the Project site’s proximity to MARB and the site’s location within Zone A, the Project is subject to very high noise impacts , which can be expected to have a 70-75 dB activity level. However, the Project site is within Specific Plan 208 CZ which identifies agriculture, automobile parking and open space as compatible land uses. In addition, there are no structures, assemblage of people, objects exceeding FAA height limits, nor storage of hazardous materials proposed on the Project site. Therefore, Project implementation would cause a less than significant impact.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact: The City adopted its Local Hazard Mitigation Program (LHMP) on October 4, 2011 (revised 2017). The LHMP contains a map of emergency evacuation routes in the community that includes I-215, SR -60 and major roadways through the City. The circulation and access for the Project site will conform with applicable standards associated with the LHMP. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impai r implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, effects would be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact: Impacts associated with wildland fires are also addressed in Section XX , Wildfire, of this Initial Study. The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard, particularly within areas adjacent to open space or within close proximity to wildland fuels. The Project site is not located on a CAL FIRE threat designation or fire hazard severity sone. The nearest severity zones are a Very High and a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone located over 2.25 miles east of the Project s ite. Compliance with F.1.d
Packet Pg. 686
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 48 City of Moreno Valley the Moreno
Valley Fire Department’s regulations and policies would ensure that the Project would not expose people or structure to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
b) Substantially de crease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) 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:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 687
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 49 City of Moreno Valley • Chapter 6
– Safety
- Map S-4: Flood Hazard Areas
• Chapter 10 – Open Space & resource Conservation

2. Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan (Specific Plan 208). City of Moreno Valley, amended March 12, 2002.

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.080 – Liquid and Solid Waste

4. Preliminary Drainage Analysis for Proposed Heacock Logistics Parking Lot, CASC Engineering and Consulting, May 12, 2021. (Appendix G)

5. Water Quality Maintenance Plan (WQMP), CASC Engineering and Consulting, prepared May 28, 2021, amended April 18, 2022. (Appendix H)

6. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.12 – Flood Damage Prevention

7. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.21 – Grading Regulations

8. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Groundwater Reliability Plus, http://gwrplus.org/

9. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Discussion of Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than S
ignificant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Surface water resources in and near Moreno Valley include Lake Perris, Mystic Lake, and several small reservoirs and creeks throughout the City (see Figure 1-1, Regional Vicinity) . Lake Perris is located over 4 miles south of the Project site. Water resources in the city and throughout Riverside County are sustained by substantial groundwater basins, which are used as reservoirs to store water during wet years. These underground reservoirs are tapped throughout the year according to the demand for water. While groundwater no longer provides a significant percentage of the local water supply for Moreno Valley, it is still an important natural resource for the area that should be protected (City of Moreno Valley, 2021) .

California’s groundwater is regulated under the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires Groundwater Sustainability Plans to be adopted for medium or high-priority basins. Moreno Valley’s groundwater falls within the West San Jacinto Groundwater Management Area, along with most of the groundwater in western Riverside County. The San Jacinto Groundwater Basin is deemed a high priority basin but is not currently critically over drafted. The City is governed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Board for implementation of the federal Clean Water Act in California.

Construction Effects:

The proposed Project would involve grading, paving, pavement striping, and construction of an underground storage tank for water quality purposes , which could result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, chemicals, paints, and other pollutants with the potential to affect water quality. All new development projects equal to one acre or more are subject to Riverside County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS 618033. The proposed Project would disturb approximately 9.14 acres of land and, therefore, will be subject to NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. Additionally, pursuant to Municipal Code F.1.d
Packet Pg. 688
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 50 City of Moreno Valley Secti
on 8.21.170, the Project shall prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Project s ite prior to commencement of Project construction activities. The SWPPP provides temporary measures to control discharges of sediment and other pollutants and includes methods to minimize water quality impacts and stabilize disturbed surfaces throughout the Project site during construction. The City engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.10.050. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HYD -1 is identified to require the Applicant to prepare and submit a SWPPP and implement the BMPs identified by the SWPPP during construction activities.

With adherence to the Project-specific SWPPP, relevant plans and programs, as well as the Municipal Code requirements, construction activities for the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or degrade surface or ground water quality.

Construction related impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Operation Effects:

Urban runoff is typically associated with impervious surfaces, such as rooftops, streets, and other paved areas, where various types of pollutants may build up and eventually be washed into the offsite waters. The Project would be developed and operated in compliance with all applicable City and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations and water quality standards. Urban pollutants entering and potentially polluting the local water system would not be expected to occur as a result of the proposed Project.

Additionally, the Applicant has prepared and submitted a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to ensure that the Project w ill not cause an increase in storm water runoff and will include water quality treatment prior to discharge from the site (see Appendix H). The WQMP includes BMPs and source control BMPs to protect downstream watercourses after construction. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HYD-2 is identified to require the Applicant to adhere to the Project-specific WQMP. O peration-related impact with regard to violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirement and substantial degradation of surface or ground water quality will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Signif
icant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Development of the proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surface onsite which could reduce the amount of water percolating down into the underground aquifer that underlies the Project site and a majority of the City. However, the impact of an incremental reduction in groundwater would not be significant as domestic water supplies are not reliant on groundwater as a primary source (City of Moreno Valley, 2021). The Project would not impinge on, nor would otherwise affect, designated recharge areas. Furthermore, adherence to the Project-specific SWPPP and prepared WQMP required by M itigation Measure HYD-1 and HYD-2 would ensure that construction and operational impacts of the Project would not degrade groundwater quality or groundwater recharge. The prepared Project-specific WQMP includes storm water best management practices (BMPs) addressing post-construction activities. The WQMP includes the requirement for F.1.d
Packet Pg. 689
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 51 City of Moreno Valley low i
mpact development (LID) BMPs to address water quality concerns. LID comprises a set of technologically feasible and cost-effective approaches to stormwater management and land development that combine a hydrologically functional site design with pollution prevention measures to compensate for land development impacts on hydrology and water quality. LID techniques mimic the site’s predevelopment hydrology by using site design techniques that store, infiltrate, evapotranspire, bio-treat, bio-filter, bio-retain, or detain runoff close to its source. Therefore, implementation of the mitigation measures would ensure that the Project would not significantly contribute to groundwater depletion, nor discernibly interfere with groundwater recharge. Based on the preceding discussions, the Project’s potential impacts to groundwater availability, quality, or recharge capabilities, are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) 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?
Storm
water and wetlands in Moreno Valley generally drain from north to south into the San Jacinto River, Canyon Lake, and ultimately to Lake Elsinore via three major storm drain channels: the Sunnymead Storm drain, the Kitching Storm drain, and the Perris Valley Storm drain. Like many communities in the region, Moreno Valley has a history of flooding, primarily in areas that are not fully developed and where storm drain system is not yet built out. Storms can result in flooding of drainage channels and areas immediately adjacent floodplains, while sheet flows can occur if the capacities of defined watercourses are exceeded. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) is the agency responsible for the regional flood control system. RCFCWCD has prepared four Master Drainage Plans within the City (Perris Valley, Sunnymead, Moreno and Moreno Valley West End), each of which covers a different portion of the City.

The Project site falls within the Perris Valley Master Drainage Plan area.

The Riverside County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) and the City jointly maintain the storm drain system. Existing regulations at the State and regional level have been established to regulate discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, and discharge specifications, receiving water limitations, and other provisions (i.e., monitoring and reporting, watershed management programs, control measures, and total maximum daily loads). Further, the City and RCFC&WCD have established additional local regulations for storm water runoff. Any new development or significant redevelopment are required to follow the established Low Impact Development (LID) principles and guidelines in the design of their site. New developments must not increase stormwater runoff downstream, both in rate and volume; rather they must capture it on-site for attenuation and/or recharge to control the stormwater runoff downstream. i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Signif
icant Impact: The proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed drainage patters will mimic the existing condition by sheet flowing from the northwest corner of the site to the F.1.d
Packet Pg. 690
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 52 City of Moreno Valley southeast c
orner to a proposed underground catch basin ( see Appendix G), and a less than significant impact would occur.
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would res
ult in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than S
ignificant Impact: As indicated above, the proposed Project will mimic existing drainage patterns. Furthermore, the proposed underground catch basin and sump and pump will reduce post-development flows to be less than pre-development flows (see Appendix G). Therefore, Project implementation would have a less than significant impact on surface runoff both on- and offsite. iii. or, 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?
Less than Signif
icant Impact: As discussed above in sections (i) and (ii), the Project proposes a drainage system that will mimic the existing drainage conditions and lessen stormwater flows. The proposed grading and drainage designs are anticipated to protect the proposed on-site improvements from the 100-year storm event without causing adverse impacts to the downstream drainage conditions (see Appendix G). Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact: The Pacific Ocean is located over 40 miles southwest of the Project site; consequently, there is no potential for tsunamis to impact the Project. In addition, no steep hillsides subject to mudflow are located on or near the Project site. The nearest dam to the Project site is Lake Perris, located approximately 2.8 miles east of the Project site (Google Maps, 2021). According to City of Moreno Valley General Plan FEIR Figure

5.5-2, Floodplains and High Fire Hazard Areas, the Project site is not located in an identified dam inundation area. There is no levee located within the vicinity of the Project site. According to applicable FEMA FIRM No. 06065C0761G, the Project site is located within “Zone X (unshaded),” which is not considered to be a flood hazard area (FEMA, 2008). Accordingly, the Project site has no potential to be impacted by seiches, mudflows, and/or tsunamis.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated : The Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana Region Basin Water Quality Control Program which includes the requirement to complete and submit a SWPPP for construction related activities. Additionally, the prepared WQMP demonstrates compliance with the City’s MS4 Permit and minimize s the release of potential waterborne pollutants.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 691
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 53 City of Moreno Valley Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 are identified to require the Applicant to prepare and submit a project specific SWPPP and adhere to the prepared WQMP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Miti
gation Measures
Mitigation:

X
(a, b, e)
HYD-1: The City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) requires development projects to prepare and submit to the City for approval a site- specific Storm Pol lution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Applicant shall adhere to and comply with the requirements noted in the respective project specific SWPPP for the duration of project - related activities.

HYD-2
: The Applicant shall adhere to and comply with requirements noted in the City approved, project specific Water Quality Management Plan ( WQMP) for the duration of project-related activities.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. Land Use and Planning – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 2 – Community Development Element – Section 2.1 – Land Use - Map LCC-2: Concept Areas and Major Specific Plans
- Map LCC-4: Proposed General Plan Land Use
• Chapter 8 – 2014 – 2021 Housing Element

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 692
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 54 City of Moreno Valley • Section 5.12
– Population and Housing

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Final Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study, March Air Reserve Base, 2018.

5. Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan (Specific Plan 208), City of Moreno Valley, amended March 12, 2002

6. City of San Bernardino General Plan, adopted November 1, 2005.

7. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted April 19, 2011.

Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant
Impact: The Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan (Specific Plan 208) was adopted by the City on June 27, 1989 and was amended on March 12, 2002.

The Project site is located within the southwestern portion of the S pecific Plan planning area. Specific Plan 208 designates the site as a Clear Zone, which restricts land uses to open space, agriculture, automobile parking, and roads (SP p. III-3). SP 208 was intended to facilitate industrial development and related land uses to further economic development and expand the employment base. The surrounding land uses include the MARB to the northwest and vacant land and warehouses to the north, south, and east. No established communities exist within the Project site, nor does the Project propose or require elements or operations that would divide an off-site community.

Although the Project site is not located near or within an established community, the parcel (APN 316-211-015) directly east of the Project site is currently landlocked and thus would need access at the time the parcel is developed . Thus, the Project Applicant proposes a 24-foot access easement along the northerly property boundary (see Figure 1-5, Site Plan) to provide access to the landlocked parcel. Thus, with the proposed easement, the potential for the Project to physically divide an established community is less than significant.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant
Impact:

The Project site is currently designated as Open Space per the City’s General Plan Update (June 15, 2021) as illustrated in Figure 1-3, General Plan Land Use Map. Per the City’s Zoning Map dated January 22, 2020, the Project site is designated as SP 208 CZ , see Figure 1-4, Zoning Map. Although the March 3, 2022 Zoning Map update does not explicitly identify the Project site as SP 208 CZ, the Specific Plan 208 boundary has not changed. Therefore, the Project site remains within SP 208 and is designated as CZ.

Specific Plan 208
The Project site is located within the Moreno Valley Industrial Area Specific Plan (SP 208) (City of Moreno Valley, Map LCC -2, 2021). SP 208 designates the Project site as Clear F.1.d
Packet Pg. 693
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 55 City of Moreno Valley Zone (CZ) w
ith land uses restricted to open space, agricultural, automobile parking, and roads. As noted within the SP 208, p. 1-5, actions deemed to be consistent with the Area Plan will be judged to be consistent with the Moreno Valley General Plan, as mandated in Section 65454 of the California Government Code. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning designation. The City’s Municipal Code allows the City to approve projects within a specific plan area only if the project is consistent with the Specific Plan (Moreno Valley Mun. Code, sec. 9.13.100). As the Project is proposing to develop a parking lot, the Project is consistent with the specific plan CZ designation and is therefore consistent with the General Plan land use designation.

Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
In addition, the Project site is located within Zone A of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC). ALUC identifies that “ automobile parking lots are acceptable as open space areas” free of most structures and other major obstacles such as walls, large trees, or poles (greater than 4 inches in diameter, measured 4 feet above the ground, and overhead wires” (ALUC Policy Section 4.32.4). In addition, pursuant to Policy 1.5.2, ALUC Commission policy is that only major land use actions listed in Policy

1.5.3 shall be submitted for review. The proposed Project is a parking lot which is a permitted land use under SP 208 (subject to plot plan approval) and does not require any legislative actions. Thus, ALUC review is not required.

Zone A prohibits non-aeronautical structures, assemblage of people, objects exceeding height limits determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), all storage of hazardous materials and all hazards to flight. The Project has been designed so there will be no structures, no assemblage of people, no objects exceeding FAA height limit, and no storage of hazardous materials on the Project site.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. Mineral Resources – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 2 – Land Use & Community Character
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 694
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 56 City of Moreno Valley - Map LCC-
4: Proposed General Plan Land Use

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.12 – Mineral Resources
- Figure 4.12-1 Mineral Resource Zones

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.02.120 – Surface Mining Permits

4. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA, Public Resources Code, Sections 2710-2796), https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dmr/lawsandregulations Discussion of Impacts
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Moreno Valley General Plan does not identify any mineral resource recovery sites or designate land for mineral resource production within the vicinity of the Project site. SMARA regulations govern the extraction of mineral resources and eventual reclamation of mining operations, allowing for the mining of any locally important mineral resources while precluding or minimizing potentially adverse environmental effects. Mineral Land Classification (MLC) studies are produced by the State Geologist as specified by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA, PRC 2710 et seq.) of 1975. The mineral potential within the City is very limited.

The Project site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally -or locally- important mineral resources, as disclosed by the City’s General Plan and associated General Plan DEIR. The General Plan indicates that the Project site is located within an MRZ-3 (Mineral Resource Zone 3) classification, in which the significance of mineral deposit cannot be evaluated; however, it is unlikely that the site would be considered viable for mineral extraction (MoVal 2040 Project EIR, 2021, p. 4.12-4).

Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State of California. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less than Significant Impact: As stated above in Section (a) , t he Project s ite is not located within an area designated to contain locally important mineral resources. The Project site is within an area of undetermined mineral resource significance, identified as zone MRZ-3. The City’s General Plan does not identify any locally -important mineral resource recovery sites. Thus, Project implementation would have a less than significant impact.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 695
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 57 City of Moreno Valley Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. Noise – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial, temporary, or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 7 – Noise
- Map N-1: Existing Noise Contour
- Map N-2 : MARB Noise Contour
- Map N-3 : Future Noise Contour

2. Final
Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.13 – Noise
- Figure 4-13.3 March Air Reserve Base Noise Contours

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the
Moreno Valley Municipal Code
• Section 9.10.140 Noise and Sound

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulations

5. March Air R
eserve Base (MARB)/March Inland Port (MIP) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) on November 13, 2014,
http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/17%20-
%20Vol.%201%20March%20Air%20Reserve%20Base%20Final.pdf? ver=2016-08
-15-145812-700

6. “RIV March Arb Airport (RIV/KRIV).” FlightAware, accessed October 17, 2021. https://flightaware.com/live/airport/KRIV.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 696
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 58 City of Moreno Valley Discussion of Impacts
Would the project result in:
a-b) Generation of a substantial, temporary, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies ? Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project site is surrounded by the March Air Reserve Base (MARB) to the northwest and industrial uses to the north, south, and east. The Project site is zoned as SP 208 CZ, which restricts land use to open space agriculture, automobile parking, and roads. Additionally, the Project site is located within Zone A of the MARB Land Use Compatibility Plan. The noise levels surrounding the Project site are projected to be between 70 and 75 dB. Over the past three (3) years, MARB has had a range of flight activity from a minimum of four (4) arrivals and departures per day to a maximum of forty-f ive (45 ) arrivals and departures per day (FlightAware).

In 2021, the average departures per day rang ed between twenty (20) to thirty (30) flights. Thus,
with the existing noise levels surrounding the site, Project implementation would have a less than significant impact on noise levels.

Construction Effects:

The Municipal C
ode Section 8.14.040(E) states that construction within the City shall only occur from 7AM to 7PM from Monday through Friday excluding holidays and from 8AM to
4PM on Saturdays. A noise disturbance is defined as a sound that disturbs a reasonable
person of normal sensitivities, exceeds the sound level limits set forth in the
Noise Ordinance, or is plainly audible (as measured at a distance of 200 feet from the property line of the source of the sound if the s ound occurs on privately owned property, or
public right-of-way, public space, or other publicly owned property). The Municipal Code does not establish quantified limits for vibration levels. Section 9.10.170 states t
hat “No vibration shall be permitted which can be felt at or beyond the property line.”
Construction noise is expected to occur from site grading, and construction of the parking lot, and perimeter fence. Noise generated from Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and other equipment that when combined, can reach high levels. However, all construction of the Property
will occur during hours permitted by the City’s Municipal Code and therefore, will result in a less than significant impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees
of ground-b orne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the
construction equipment employed. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminishes in amplitude with distance from the source. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-i ncreasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with
the distance from the energy source. The proposed Project would generate ground-b orne vibration during site grading; however, the ground-b orne vibration and ground-b orne noise levels would not be considered excessive. The potential impac
ts associated with construction vibration would be less than significant and the operations of the Project would not create any ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise.

Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 697
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 59 City of Moreno Valley Operation Effects:

The parking lot will be secured with a gated entrance. Shuttles to the site will drop and/ or
pick-up drivers or vehicles off at the site and return to their original destinations. There will
be no employees stationed at the gated entry. There may be potentially up to two security personnel checking the site throughout the day and/or evening. Thus, people on the
site will be temporary and on a limited basis. An Environmental Impact Report for SP
208 was prepared which analyzed the proposed land uses allowed in the CZ designation
and determined that there were no significant impacts.
c) For a pr
oject located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less than Significant
Impact: As stated above in Section (a-b), the Project site is located within Zone A of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Due to the Project site’s proximity to MARB and the site’s location within Zone A, the Project is subject to high noise levels, which can be expected to have a 70-75 dB activity level. However, the Project site is within Specific Plan 208 CZ which identifies agriculture, automobile parking and open space as compatible land uses. There will be no employees stationed on the site. According to the Applicant, t here may be up to two employees checking the site for security purposes; however, i t is anticipated that these two employees would typically remain within a vehicle and not more than five (5) minutes as they drive on the site. Thus, they should not be exposed to excessive noise levels. Therefore, Project implementation would cause a less than significant impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. Population and Housing – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 698
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 60 City of Moreno Valley Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 2 – Land Use & Community Character
- Map LCC-4: Proposed General Plan Land Use

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.14 – Population and Housing

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact: The Project does not propose new residential development and would not directly contribute to population growth within the City. The Project will remain zoned as SP 208 CZ, which restricts land use to open space, agricultural, parking and roads. Although the Project includes infrastructure improvements, these improvements are small and unlikely to encourage unanticipated population growth.

Based on the preceding, the Project would have no impact on substantial unplanned population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact: No housing currently exists within the Project site and the Project does not propose uses or activities that would otherwise displace housing assets or persons. Based on the preceding, the proposed Project would have no impact related to displacement of housing or displacement of people.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. Public Services – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 699
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 61 City of Moreno Valley impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service rations, response
times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 5 – Parks & Public Services
- Section 5.2 – Parks and Open Space Network
- Section 5.10 – Integrated Public Facilities and Inclusive Community Services
- Map PPS-3: Public Facilities
- Section 5.13 – Public Safety

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.15 – Public Services and Recreation

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. School District Locator, Riverside County Office of Education, County Superintendent of Schools
Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental i mpacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact: Fire protection services to the Project site are provided by the Moreno Valley Fire Department (MVFD). The Project site is served by the Kennedy Park Fire Station (Station No. 65), located at 15111 Indian Avenue, approximately 2 miles to the northeast of the Project s ite. Additional services in the vicinity are the College Park Fire Station, located 2.8 miles northeast of the Project and the Morrison Park Fire Station, located 5 miles northeast of the Project site (City of Moreno Valley, 2021). Thus, the Project would be adequately served by fire protection F.1.d
Packet Pg. 700
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 62 City of Moreno Valley servi
ces, and no new or expanded unplanned facilities would be required. Impacts to fire protection facilities would be less than significant.
ii. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact: Police protection services to the Project site are provided by the Moreno Valley Police Department. The Project site is served by the Moreno Valley Police Station, located at 22850 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos, approximately 3.9 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project does not include buildings and would not have long-term employees at the Project site. During construction, there will be workers at the Project site, which would result in a short-term increase in demand for police protection services. The Project is not anticipated to require or result in the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would receive adequate police protection service, and would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts to police protection facilities would therefore be less than significant.
iii. Schools?
No Impact:

The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Val Verde Unified School District. The nearest schools are Val Verde Academy and High School, located

1.4 miles southwest of the Project; Rancho Verde High School located 1.9 miles east of the Project; and El Potero Preschool and Mary McLeod Bethune Elementary School, located 1.9 miles northeast of the Project site.

Development of the Project site as proposed by the Project would not create a direct demand for public school services, as the subject property would contain non-residential uses that would not generate any school -aged children requiring public education. The proposed Project is not expected to draw new residents to the region and would therefore not indirectly generate school -aged students requiring public education. T he Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. There would be no impact to public schools and no further analysis of this subject is required.
iv-v. Parks and Other public facilities?
No Impact: The C
ity of Moreno Valley’s Parks and Community Services Department maintains approximately 482 acres of parkland, which consists of seven community parks, 24 neighborhood parks, four specialty parks and 15 miles of trails/greenways (MoVal 2040 Project EIR, 2021, p. 4.15-11). The nearest park is El Potrero Community Park, located approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the Project site.

The Project would not create a demand for public park facilities and would not result in the need to modify existing or construct new park facilities. As discussed under (ii) and (iii) above, the Project would not create a demand for other public facilities/services, including libraries, community recreation centers, post offices, and animal shelters. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect other public facilities or require the construction of new or modified public facilities and no impact F.1.d
Packet Pg. 701
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 63 City of Moreno Valley would oc
cur.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 5 – Parks & Public Services
- Section 5.4 – Parks and Open Space Network
- Map PPS-1: Existing and Planned Parks and Recreation Facilities

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.15 – Public Services and Recreation – 4.15.5.2 Topics 2 and 3: Parks and Recreation Facilities

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. California Government Code § 66477
Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact: The Project proposes to develop the site with a parking lot for automobiles. The Project does not propose any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park, thus, no impact would occur, and no further analysis of this subject is required.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 702
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 64 City of Moreno Valley b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact: The Project proposes to develop the site with a parking lot for automobiles. The Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off -site recreation facilities. Additionally, the Project would not expand any existing off -site recreational facilities. Thus, environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur with implementation of the proposed Project. Thus, no impact would occur, and no further analysis of this subject is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. Transportation/Traffic – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit , roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 4 Circulation Element
- Map C-1: Circulation Diagram
- Map C-2: Existing and Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Network - Map C-3: Transit Lines and Facilities

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.16 – Transportation

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.18 Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund F.1.d
Packet Pg. 703
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 65 City of Moreno Valley

5. Moreno Valley Master Bike Plan, adopted January 2015.

6. Riverside County Transportation Commission, Congestion Management Program, December 14, 2011.

7. Focused Traffic Impact Analysis for the Heacock Logistics Parking Lot Project. Prepared by Li
nscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, May 19, 2022. (Appendix I) Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including t ransit, r oadway, bi cycle, and pedestrian f acilities? Less than Significant Impact: Per request of the City on July 8, 2021, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) conducted a Focused Traffic Impact Analysis for the Heacock Logistics Parking Lot Project, dated May 19, 2022 (Appendix I). The results of the traffic analysis indicate that the proposed automobile parking will not significantly impact the existing surrounding roadway network without and with the Heacock Street Extension. The two (2) key study intersections of Heacock Street at Nandina Avenue and Webster Avenue at Harley Knox Boulevard, and the one (1) Project driveway are forecast to operate in the Year 2023 at acceptable levels of service (LOS) B or better during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour without and with the Heacock Street Extension. Therefore, no improvements are required under Year 2023 Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions. The Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions take into consideration the traffic generation of ten (10) cumulative projects within a one-m ile radius of the Project site. Additionally, based on the low amount of project volume entering the site, project vehicles will not queue back onto Heacock Street, as the queue is expected to be no more than one project vehicle.

Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-w ay vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. The proposed Project for automobile parking is forecast to generate 158 daily trips (see Appendix I).The Traffic Impact Analysis concluded that that the daily vehicle trips associated with the proposed Project is below the thresholds requiring the preparation of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis report. Although the Project will add additional traffic along Heacock Street during the construction phase, this traffic will be minimal and temporary in nature.

The Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element identifies Heacock Street as an Arterial roadway that will connect to Harley Knox Boulevard and N. Webster Avenue.

Heacock Street currently ends at the southwest corner of the Project site just before the Perris Valley Storm Drain. The Heacock Street Extension planned changes include the construction of a 100-f oot right-o f-way (ROW) with a Class II bike lane to connect the existing portion of Heacock Street to Harley Knox Boulevard and N.

Webster Avenue.

Based on the Focused Traffic Impact An alysis (see Appendix I), Project operation will have minimal traffic impacts. The proposed Project will include infrastructure improvements per the guidelines set forth by the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with any program, plan, or ordinance or policy addressing the F.1.d
Packet Pg. 704
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 66 City of Moreno Valley circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) pertains to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and whether the land use project will generate vehicle miles traveled in excess of an applicable threshold of significance.

Vehicle trips associated with the Project are below thresholds requiring preparation of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact: The proposed Project does no t include any sharp curves or traffic intersection crossings. The proposed Project will only add one (1) driveway approach along Heacock Street and will not alter the geometric design of the existing street, see Figure 1-5: Site Plan. The traffic impact analysis indicates that the proposed Project will not significantly impact either of the two (2) key study intersections without and with the Heacock Street Extension. Given that there are no significant project impacts, no street improvements are required. Therefore, no impact will occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project would be compatible with the design and operation of the street network and would not result in any major modifications to the existing access or circulation features. The Project proposes one (1) full-access driveway on Heacock Street. The Project will conform with local, state, and federal regulations regarding circulation and traffic pattern design. The driveway would accommodate traditional fire apparatus, allowing for adequate emergency access. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access to the Project Site. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources – Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 705
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 67 City of Moreno Valley a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.

Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 10- Open Space and Resource Conservation

2. Moreno Valley General Plan Draft Program Environmental Impact Report • Section 4.5 – Cultural and Tribal Resources
- Table 4.5-1 List of Historic Resources and their Eligibility Status - Figure 4.5-1 Historic Resources
- Figure 4.5-2 Archaeological Sensitive Areas

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Title 7 – Cultural Preservation

5. Cultural Resources Survey Report for Heacock Logistics Tractor/Trailer Parking Lot, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California prepared by CRM Tech, September 25, 2021. (Appendix C)

6. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for Heacock Logistics Tractor/Trailer Parking Lot, City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, California prepared by CRM Tech, September 27, 2021. (Appendix D)

7. California Public Resources Code
• Section 21074
• Section 50.20.1(k)
• Section 50.24.1
• Sections 21080.1, 21080.3.1, and 21080.3.2

8. Moreno Valley Tribal Mitigation Measures, received January 11, 2022 Discussion of Impacts
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Signif
icant Impact: On June 3, 2021, CRM Tech submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File. In a response letter from NAHC, dated F.1.d
Packet Pg. 706
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 68 City of Moreno Valley June 24,
2021, NAHC states that the Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources in the Project vicinity (see Appendix D). CRM Tech also reached out to invite a member of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians to participate in a field survey of the Project site. On July 26, 2021, CRM Tech archaeologist carried out an intensive field survey of the Project area with the assistance of tribal monitor Victoria Banda from the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. The intensive- level field survey produced completely negative results for potential cultural resources, and no buildings, structures, objects, sites, features, or artifact deposits of prehistoric or historical origin were encountered. The entire Project s ite has been extensively disturbed due to many years of previous agricultural activities. No bedrock outcrops or other potential markers of prehistoric human activities were found in the Project area. A segment of Lateral B-Oleander Channel of the Perris Vall ey Storm Drain, adjacent to the southern Project boundary , was previously recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory as Site 33-024867 but was determined not to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. Furthermore, no tribal cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), have been identified or associated with the Project site.

The Project would not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significanc e of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than S
ignificant Impact: The Project s ite does not contain any known resources determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and support by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. It is possible that tribal cultural resources exist at a depth given the prehistoric occupation of the region. As mentioned in the Mitigation Measures of section V. Cultural Resources, an archaeologist and Tribal monitors will be present during all earth-moving activities regarding the Project. If human remains or artifacts are unearthed, they will be analyzed and, if they are found to be of human prehistoric origin, council from on-site Native American tribes will be sought. The California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources within the Project s ite, and the site survey, which was accompanied by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians tribal monitor, found no indication of tribal cultural resources within the Project site. Therefore, a less than significant impact to resources considered significant by a California Native American tribe is expected to occur.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 707
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 69 City of Moreno Valley Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 5 – Parks & Public Services – Section 5.16 – Utilities

2. Final Draft Environmental Impact Report for the MoVal 2040: Moreno Valley Comprehensive Plan Update, Housing Element Update, and Climate Action Plan, RECON Environmental, Inc., April 2, 2021.
• Section 4.0 – Environmental Analysis – Section 4.17 Utilities/Service Systems

3. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.10 Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 708
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 70 City of Moreno Valley

5. Moreno V
alley Municipal Code Section 8.21.170 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

6. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.80 – Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste
Discussion of Impacts
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project involves the construction of a 194- stall automobile parking lot on 9.14 acres. Water supply and wastewater treatment are provided to the Project site by EMWD. No additional or non-standard treatment is required to specifically meet the Project’s water supply and/or wastewater conveyance and treatment demands. The Project is required to conform with City regulations relating to stormwater runoff and discharge. Adequate stormwater management systems and Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be incorporated into the Project to reduce impacts to existing City drainage infrastructure. Based on the preceding, the Project’s potential to require the construction or relocation of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, is considered less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less than
Significant Impact: The City of Moreno Valley is served by two water purveyors: Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the Box Springs Mutual Water Company. EMWD is the primary water purveyor for the City and would provide water service to the Project. Water demands of the Project are consistent with the EMWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The proposed Project involves the construction of a 194-stall automobile parking lot that is consistent with the z oning designation and Specific Plan. EMWD plans to meet increases in projected demands through a combination of local supply development and ongoing water conservation. EMWD is in the process of completing master planning documents that investigate optimal supply portfolios to meet the agency’s needs. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Signif
icant Impact: Wastewater service will be provided to the Project site by F.1.d
Packet Pg. 709
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 71 City of Moreno Valley EMWD
. Wastewater generated by the Project would be collected and conveyed to the Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (MVRWRF). This facility has a capacity to treat 16 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd) and a capacity to expand to 41 mgd. The utilization in the year 2002 was approximately 11 mgd. The Project would pay applicable sewer connection and service fees, providing funds available for EMWD wastewater system expansion and maintenance, acting to offset the Project’s incremental demands for wastewater collection and treatment services. Given that the Project proposes a low intensity land use, as zoned as SP 208 CZ, wastewater from the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the capacity to the wastewater treatment provider, even when considering existing and cumulative demand. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Signif
icant Impact: Locally generated solid waste is deposited in several local landfills, including the Badlands Sanitary Landfill at the eastern end of Ironwood Avenue.

The Badlands Sanitary Landfill is owned and operated by the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. The proposed Project would minutely increase the volume of solid waste generated in the County.

In these regards, the California Integrated Waste Management Act under the Public Resources Code requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50% of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The City remains committed to continuing its existing waste reduction and minimization efforts with the programs that are available through the City.

Additionally, beginning July 1, 2012, the State of California required that all businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of refuse per week implement a recycling program.

This requirement is set forth in Assembly Bill 341, which was passed by the California legislation in October 2011. The Project would comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act and AB 341 as implemented by the City.

Commercial uses proposed by the Project, and solid waste generated by those uses, would not otherwise conflict with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals is less than significant. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Im
pact: The Project would be implemented and operated in compliance with applicable City General Plan Goals and Policies, and would comport with City Zoning regulations—specifically, the Project would comply with local, state, and federal initiatives and directives acting to reduce and divert solid waste from landfill waste streams. As described in section (d) above, the Project would comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act and AB 341 as implemented by the City. The proposed Pr oject is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, County, and City statues and regulations related to solid waste as a standard project condition of approval. Therefore, F.1.d
Packet Pg. 710
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 72 City of Moreno Valley no impac
t would occur.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XX. Wildfire – If located in or near a State Responsibility Area (“SRA”), lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone, or other hazardous fire areas that may be designated by the Fire Chief, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-
fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan, adopted June 15, 2021.
• Chapter 6 – Safety Element
- Map S-3: Landslide Hazards
- Map S-4: Flood Hazard Areas
- Section 6.8 Wildfire Hazards
- Map S-5: Fire Hazard Severity Zones

2. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan, certified June 15, 2021.
• Section 4.18 – Wildfire
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 711
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 73 City of Moreno Valley

3. Local H
azard Mitigation Plan, City of Moreno Valley Fire Department, adopted October 4, 2011, amended 2017, http://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/haz-mit- plan.pdf
• Chapter 6
– Flooding
- Figure 6-1 – Moreno Valley Flood Zones 100 & 500 Year Zones 2017

4. Emergency Operations Plan, City of Moreno Valley, March 2009, http://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/mv-eop-0309.pdf • Threat As
sessment 3 – Wildfire

5. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA – Western Riverside County. December 2009.

Discussion of Impacts
If located in or near a State Responsibility Area (“SRA”), lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone, or other hazardous fire areas that may be designated by the Fire Chief, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: The Project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). The nearest fire hazard zone to the Project site is located approximately 2 miles northeast in the Bernasconi Hills area. There are no wildland conditions in the urbanized area where the Project is located. Additionally, the proposed Project will not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impact will occur.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact: The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) designates Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) throughout the state based on factors such as fuel, slope, and weather to indicate varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate, high, and very high). According to the Moreno Valley General Plan, wildland fire is of minimal concern in most of the City due to the urbanized landscape.

However, some areas within the City limit and the surrounding rolling hills are highly prone to fire due high temperatures, low annual precipitation, and the annual grasses and shrubbery that cover the hills.

As discussed above in section (a), the Project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, and there are no wildland conditions in the urbanized area where the Project site is located. Therefore, the Project will not exacerbate wildfire risks, thereby exposing Project occupants or visitors to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impact will occur.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 712
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 74 City of Moreno Valley c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact: The Project site is not located within or near any State Responsibility Areas.

As a result, none of the Project improvements would exacerbate fire risk or will result in a temporary or ongoing impact from wildfires requiring installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impact will occur. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Im
pact: The Project site is not located within or near any State Responsibility Areas that would expose people or development to significant risks from post-fire instability or drainage changes. The Project site is not located within any FEMA 100- year Floodplains or Landslide Hazard Areas; however, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies that the Project site is within a 500-year Floodplain. Given that the Proj ect site is located in an urban environment and is not in proximity to a State or Local Responsibility Area, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impact would occur.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number, or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California History or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 713
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 75 City of Moreno Valley the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Discussion of Impacts
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California History or prehistory?
Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed Project would not substantially impact any scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area, and would not result in excessive light or glare. The Project s ite is located within a developed area that contains light industrial uses as well as MARB. The proposed Project would not significantly impact any sensitive plants, plant communities, fish, wildlife, or habitat for any sensitive species with incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

As described in Section IV, adverse impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. Construction-phase procedures would be implemented in the event any important cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during grading, consistent with Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-8.

Furthermore, the analysis provided in Section III and VIII concludes that impacts related to emissions of criteria pollutants, climate change, and other air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to Sections I through XX, no evidence is presented that the proposed Project would degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts related to degradation of the environment, biological resources, and cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than S
ignificant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed Project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public systems, transportation network elements, air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts could be short-term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction impacts, as well as long-term, due to the permanent land use changes and operational characteristics F.1.d
Packet Pg. 714
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 76 City of Moreno Valley invol
ved with the proposed Project. The analysis in Section III related to air quality found that impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1; therefore, the Project would not contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts. Additionally, the analysis in Section IV found that no individual impacts to sensitive species or migratory birds would occur with incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. The Project would have no other impacts on biological resources and would not result in localized or regional cumulative impacts.

Loss of on-site archaeological resources could reduce or eliminate important information relevant to the County of Riverside and the City. Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-8 are incorporated to reduce impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources, as well as buried Native American remains /artifacts. Implementation of the mitigation measures would eliminate any potential loss of important local archaeological information or Native American remains that may be buried at the Project Site; therefore, the proposed Project would have no contribution to a cumulative loss of important local or regional archaeological knowledge.

Section X concludes that impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 to require the preparation of a SWPPP and adherence to the City approved WQMP. Impacts on the local or regional level would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation and the Project’s contribution would not be considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Signif
icant Impact: Based on the analysis of the Project’s impacts in the responses to items I through XX, there is no indication that this Project could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. While there would be a variety of temporary adverse effects during construction, these would be less than significant. There are no long-term effects related to traffic, noise, hazardous materials, emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, increased demand for water use, wastewater disposal, and electricity use, or increased demand on emergency response services.

Environmental effects would result in less than significant impacts. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, direct and indirect impacts to human beings would be less than significant.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 715
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) Heacock Logistics Project Page 77 City of Moreno Valley CHAPTER THREE – PREPARERS
City of Moreno Valley
Julia Descoteaux, Senior Planner
CASC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.

Frank Coyle, Director of Planning
Sabrina Snowball, Associate Planner
Ben Hamada, GIS Specialist
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 716
Attachment: Exhibit A to Reso 2023-XX Heacock Logistics Initial Study (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

NOTICE OF INTENT

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Moreno Valley is considering a recommendation that the project herein identified will have no significant environmental impact in compliance with Section 15070 of the CEQA guidelines. A copy of the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION and the ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, which supports the proposed findings, are on file at the City of Moreno Valley.

Project: Plot Plan (PEN21-0102)
Applicant: Lawrence Family Trust
Owner: Lawrence Family Trust
Representative: Frank Coyle, CASC Engineering & Consulting Location: East side of Heacock Street north of the Perris Valley Storm Drain (APN: 316-211-014) Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of the following entitlement: Plot Plan (PEN21- 0102) for an automobile parking lot on 9.14 acres in the Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan, Clear Zone District (Specific Plan 208)
Council District: 4
This Notice of Intent (NOI) has been prepared to notify agencies and interested parties that the City of Moreno Valley, as the Lead Agency , has prepared an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the project as described below.

Project Description: The Project includes a parking lot designed with 12’ x 30’ parking stalls for automobile parking as illustrated in Figure 1- 5 Site Plan. Although the proposed Site Plan identifies 194 parking stalls, the Traffic Im pact Analysis (TIA) dated May 19, 2022, prepared for the Project analyzed up to 440 automobiles. Thus, the analysis in this IS/MND assumes up to 440 automobiles parked at the site.

The Project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Document Availability: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all documents incorporated and/or referenced therein, can be reviewed during normal business hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday and Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division counter, located at 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92553. The documents may also be reviewed on the City’s website at http://www.moreno- valley.ca.us/cdd/documents/about-projects.html.

Potential Environmental Impacts: The City of Moreno Valley has prepared an Initial Study to determine the environmental effects associated with the above actions and finds the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of environmental review. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that all potentially significant impacts of the Project would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Comment Deadline: Pursuant to Section 15105(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has established a 20-day public review period for the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, which begins September 2 9, 2022, and ends October 18, 2022. Written comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received at the City of Moreno Valley Community Development Department by no later than the conclusion of the 20-day review period, 5:30 p.m. on October 17, 2022. Written comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Dec laration should be addressed to:

Julia Descoteaux, Senior Planner
14177 Frederick Street
Post Office Box 88005
Moreno Valley, California 92552 Phone: (951) 413-3206
Email: [email protected]
Press-Enterprise September 29, 2022
Sean Kelleher, Planning Official Newspaper Date of Publication Community Development Department
F.1.n
Packet Pg. 717
Attachment: Exhibit B to Resolution 2023-XX_NOI - PEN21-0102-0103 (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

MITIGATION MEASURES

FOR HEACOCK

LOGISTICS

PARKING LOT
Mitigation Measures:

F.1.o
Packet Pg. 718
Attachment: Exhibit C to Resolution 2023-XX_Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile

MITIGATION MEASURES

FOR HEACOCK LOGISTICS

PARKING LOT
• Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.

If the Project site is found positive for burrowing owl, coordination with CDFW will be mandatory and additional exclusionary and relocation efforts will be necessary.

F.1.o
Packet Pg. 719
Attachment: Exhibit C to Resolution 2023-XX_Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile

MITIGATION MEASURES

FOR HEACOCK LOGISTICS

PARKING LOT
CR-3 Cultural Resource Monitoring Plan (CRMP)
The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting Tribe is defined as a Tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Project description and location
b. Project grading and development scheduling;
c. Roles and responsibilities of individuals on the Project; d. The pre- grading meeting and Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training details;
e. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe (s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. f. The type of recordation needed for inadvertent finds and the stipulations of recordation of sacred items.
g. Contact information of relevant individuals for the Project; CR-4 Cultural Resource Disposition
In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible.

Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Onsite reburial of the discovered items as detailed in the treatment plan required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR-1. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed. No recordation of sacred items is permitted without the written consent of all Consulting Native American Tribal Governments as defined in CR- 3 The location for the future reburial area shall be identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City, and concurred to by the F.1.o
Packet Pg. 720
Attachment: Exhibit C to Resolution 2023-XX_Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile

MITIGATION MEASURES

FOR HEACOCK LOGISTICS

PARKING LOT
Consulting Native American Tribal Governments prior to certification of the environmental document.

Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation.

Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional archeologist and Tribal Monitors, if needed.

CR-7 Non-Disclosure of Reburial Locations
It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be F.1.o
Packet Pg. 721
Attachment: Exhibit C to Resolution 2023-XX_Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile

MITIGATION MEASURES

FOR HEACOCK LOGISTICS

PARKING LOT
disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).

HYD-2 The Applicant shall adhere to and comply with requiremen ts noted in the City approved, project specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the duration of project-related activities.

F.1.o
Packet Pg. 722
Attachment: Exhibit C to Resolution 2023-XX_Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEALS (PAA22 -0005) AND
(PAA23-0003) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN (PEN21 -0102) FOR THE PROPOSED

AUTOMOBILE PARKING LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF

HEACOCK STREET NORTH OF THE PERRIS VALLEY STORM DRAIN
(APN 316-211-014)

WHEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley (“City”) is a general law city and a municipal corporation of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, Lawrence Family Trust (“Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Plot Plan (PEN21 -0102) to develop an automobile parking lot and certain public improvements on 9.14 -acres (“Proposed Project”) which is currently vacant and unimproved and located on th e east side of Heacock Street north of the Perris Valley Storm Drain (APN 316-211-014) (“Project Site”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.02.070 (Plot Plan) of the Municipal Code, the Proposed Project was subject to the major development review process, which is why it was presented to the Planning Commission, which is vested with the authority to approve plot plans of this nature; and

WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was initially scheduled by the Planning Commission on October 27, 2022, to consider the Proposed Project’s MND, the MMRP, and the Proposed Project, which was continued at the Applicant’s request to December 22, 2022; and

WHEREAS, on December 22, 2022, at the duly noticed continued public hearing the Planning Commission considered the Proposed Project’s MND, the MMRP, and the Proposed Project, at which time the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study, MND, MMRP, and Proposed Project, together with any comments received during and prior to the public review process; and

WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the December 22, 2022, continued public hearing, in the exercise of its own independent judgment, the Planning Commission approved the Proposed Project after it determined that the MND and the MMRP prepared for the Proposed Project would reduce the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project to levels of insignificance and that there is no substantial evidence su pporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment that would otherwise require the preparation of an environmental impact report; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also approved by a 5-0-1 vote the Proposed Project based on the following findings, as required under Section 9.02.070 (Plot Plan) of the Municipal Code:

F.1.p
Packet Pg. 723
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution Plot Plan [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) 2 a. The Proposed Project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan;
b. The Proposed Project complies with all applicable zoning and other regulations; c. The Proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The location, design, and operation of the Proposed Project will be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity; and

WHEREAS, in addition to making the above findings, the Planning Commission imposed various conditions of approval on the Proposed Project regarding on -site improvements, off -site improvements, the manner in which the site is used and other conditions the Planning Commission deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare to ensure that the Proposed Project will be developed in accordance with the purpose and intent of Title 9 (Planning & Zoning) of the Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, on December 29, 2022, and January 3, 2023, the County of Riverside (PAA22-0005) and the Department of the Air Force (PAA23-0003) appealed the Planning Commission’s decision; and

WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023, a duly noticed appeal hearing was conducted by the City Council to consider the two appeals; and

WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the City Council denied the appeals which upholds the Planning Commission’s 5-0-1 decision to adopt the MND and MMRP prepared for the Proposed Project and approve the Proposed Project based on the finding that the Planning Commission committed no error in deciding to adopt the subject MND and MMRP for the Proposed Project and reaffirmed, based on the exercise of its own independent judgment, that the MND and MMRP will reduce the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project to levels of insignificance and that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair ar gument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment in a manner that otherwise would require the preparation and verification of an Environmental Impact Report; and

WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the City Council also denied the appeals which upholds the Planning Commission’s 5-0-1 decision to approving the Proposed Project since the Planning Commission did not commit any error when it approved Proposed Proj ect based on the findings that: (i) The Proposed Project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan; (ii) The Proposed Project complies with all applicable zoning and other regulations; (iii) The Proposed Project w ill not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and (iv) the location, design, and operation of the Proposed Project will be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity.

F.1.p
Packet Pg. 724
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution Plot Plan [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals and Exhibits
That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

Section 2. Notice
That pursuant to Government Code section 66020(d)(1), notice is hereby given that the Proposed Project is subject to certain fees, dedications, reservations and other exactions as provided herein, in the staff report and conditions of approval (collectively, “Conditions”); and these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the ninety-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun.

Section 3. Evidence
That the City Council has considered all the evidence submitted into the administrative record for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Moreno Valley General Plan and all other relevant provisions contained therein; b. Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code and all other relevant provisions referenced therein;
c. Moreno Valley Industrial Area Specific Plan 208;
d. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project; e. Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND/Newspaper Notice;
f. Mitigation and Monitoring Program;
g. Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission’s consideration and all documents, records, and references related thereto, and Staff’s presentation at the public hearing;
h. Testimony, comments, and correspondence from all persons that were provided at, o r prior to, the December 22, 2022, Planning Commission’s continued public hearing;
i. Application for the approval of Plot Plan PEN21 -0102 and all documents, records, and references contained therein;
j. Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan PEN21-0102, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
k. Appeals PAA22-0005 and PAA23-0003;
l. Staff Report prepared for the City Council’s consideration and all documents, records, and references related thereto, and Staff’s presentation at the appeal hearing;
m. Testimony and/or comments from Applicant and its representatives during the appeal hearing; and
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 725
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution Plot Plan [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) 4 n. Testimony, comments, and correspondence from all persons that were provided at, or prior to, the City Council February 21, 2023, appeal hearing;

Section 4. Findings

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record as set forth above, the City Council makes the following findings in approving the Proposed Project (Plot Plan PEN21-0102):

a. That the Planning Commission did not commit any error when it approved Proposed Project based on the findings that:

(i) The Proposed Project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan;
(ii) The Proposed Project complies with all applicable zoning and other regulations;
(iii) The Proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
(iv) The location, design, and operation of the Proposed Project will be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity.

Section 5. Denial of Appeals

Section 6. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions

That all the provisions as heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 7. Severability

That the City C ouncil declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining pr ovisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 8. Effective Date

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon the date of adoption.

F.1.p
Packet Pg. 726
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution Plot Plan [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) 5 Section 9. Certification

That the City Clerk for the City Council shall certify to the passage of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST day of February 2023

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

CITY COUNCIL
_________________________
Ulises Cabrera,
Mayor of the City of Moreno Valley
ATTEST:
_________________________
Jane Halstead, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Steven B. Quintanilla,
Interim City Attorney
Exhibits:

Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 727
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution Plot Plan [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot) 6 Exhibit A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F.1.p
Packet Pg. 728
Attachment: 2023-XX_Resolution Plot Plan [Revision 1] (6119 : Plot Plan PEN21-0102 for an Automobile Parking Lot)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan (PEN21-0102)

Page 1 ends

Moreno Valley City CouncilFebruary 21, 2023

Moreno Valley City Council
February 21, 2023