URBANSRC ALL
SRCGROUP ALL
SO FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD RECEPTOR PATHWAY
****************************************
**
**
RE STARTING
INCLUDED "12974 FC.ROU"
RE FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD METEOROLOGY PATHWAY
****************************************
**
**
ME STARTING
SURFFILE PERRISADJU\PERI_V9_ADJU\PERI_V9.SFC
PROFFILE PERRISADJU\PERI_V9_ADJU\PERI_V9.PFL
SURFDATA 3171 2010
UAIRDATA 3190 2010
SITEDATA 99999 2010
PROFBASE 442.0 METERS
ME FINISHED
**
****************************************
** AERMOD OUTPUT PATHWAY
****************************************
**
**
OU STARTING
** AUTO‐GENERATED PLOTFILES
PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL "12974 FC.AD\AN00GALL.PLT" 31
SUMMFILE "12974 FC.SUM"
OU FINISHED
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2120 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised *** Message Summary For AERMOD Model Setup ***
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 2 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 0 Informational Message(s)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
ME W186 1736 MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1‐min ASOS wind speed threshold used
0.50 ME W187 1736 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET
***********************************
*** SETUP Finishes Successfully ***
***********************************
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 1
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY
***
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
**Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values.
‐‐ DEPOSITION LOGIC ‐‐
**NO GAS DEPOSITION Data Provided.
**NO PARTICLE DEPOSITION Data Provided.
**Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DRYDPLT = F
**Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WETDPLT = F
**Model Uses URBAN Dispersion Algorithm for the SBL for 759 Source(s), for Total of 1 Urban Area(s):
Urban Population = 2189641.0 ; Urban Roughness Length = 1.000 m
**Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Stack‐tip Downwash.
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2121 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised
2. Model Accounts for ELEVated Terrain Effects.
3. Use Calms Processing Routine.
4. Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
5. No Exponential Decay.
6. Urban Roughness Length of 1.0 Meter Assumed.
**Other Options Specified:
ADJ_U* ‐ Use ADJ_U* option for SBL in AERMET
CCVR_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions TEMP_Sub ‐ Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions
**Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
**The User Specified a Pollutant Type of: OTHER
**Model Calculates ANNUAL Averages Only
**This Run Includes: 759 Source(s); 1 Source Group(s); and 19 Receptor(s)
with: 0 POINT(s), including
0 POINTCAP(s) and 0 POINTHOR(s)
and: 759 VOLUME source(s)
and: 0 AREA type source(s)
and: 0 LINE source(s)
and: 0 RLINE/RLINEXT source(s)
and: 0 OPENPIT source(s)
and: 0 BUOYANT LINE source(s) with a total of 0 line(s)
**Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing. **The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date: 16216
**Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of ANNUAL Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
Model Outputs Separate Summary File of High Ranked Values (SUMMFILE Keyword)
**NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours m for Missing
Hours
b for Both Calm
and Missing Hours
**Misc. Inputs: Base Elev. for Pot. Temp. Profile (m MSL) = 442.00 ; Decay Coef. = 0.000 ; Rot. Angle = 0.0
Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC ; F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2122 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07
Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3
**Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = 3.8 MB of RAM.
**Input Runstream File: aermod.inp
**Output Print File: aermod.out
**Detailed Error/Message File: 12974 FC.ERR
**File for Summary of Results: 12974 FC.SUM
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 2
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0006618 0 0.14230E‐05 484874.7 3754955.2 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006619 0 0.14230E‐05 484883.3 3754955.3 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006620 0 0.14230E‐05 484891.9 3754955.3 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006621 0 0.14230E‐05 484900.4 3754955.3 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006622 0 0.14230E‐05 484909.0 3754955.4 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006623 0 0.14230E‐05 484917.6 3754955.4 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006624 0 0.14230E‐05 484926.2 3754955.5 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006625 0 0.14230E‐05 484934.8 3754955.5 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2123 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006626
0 0.14230E‐05 484943.4 3754955.5 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006627 0 0.14230E‐05 484952.0 3754955.6 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006628 0 0.14230E‐05 484960.6 3754955.6 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006629 0 0.14230E‐05 484969.2 3754955.7 531.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006630 0 0.14230E‐05 484977.8 3754955.7 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006631 0 0.14230E‐05 484986.3 3754955.8 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006632 0 0.14230E‐05 484994.9 3754955.8 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006633 0 0.14230E‐05 485003.5 3754955.8 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006634 0 0.14230E‐05 485012.1 3754955.9 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006635 0 0.14230E‐05 485020.7 3754955.9 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006636 0 0.14230E‐05 485029.3 3754956.0 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006637 0 0.14230E‐05 485037.9 3754956.0 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006638 0 0.14230E‐05 485046.5 3754956.0 530.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006639 0 0.14230E‐05 485055.1 3754956.1 530.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006640 0 0.14230E‐05 485063.7 3754956.1 530.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006641 0 0.14230E‐05 485072.2 3754956.2 530.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006642 0 0.14230E‐05 485080.8 3754956.2 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006643 0 0.14230E‐05 485089.4 3754956.3 530.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006644 0 0.14230E‐05 485098.0 3754956.3 530.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006645 0 0.14230E‐05 485106.6 3754956.3 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006646 0 0.14230E‐05 485115.2 3754956.4 529.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006647 0 0.14230E‐05 485123.8 3754956.4 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006648 0 0.14230E‐05 485132.4 3754956.5 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006649 0 0.14230E‐05 485141.0 3754956.5 529.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006650 0 0.14230E‐05 485149.6 3754956.5 529.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2124 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006651 0 0.14230E‐05 485158.1 3754956.6 529.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006652 0 0.14230E‐05 485166.7 3754956.6 529.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006653 0 0.14230E‐05 485175.3 3754956.7 529.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006654 0 0.14230E‐05 485183.9 3754956.7 529.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006655 0 0.14230E‐05 485192.5 3754956.7 529.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006656 0 0.14230E‐05 485201.1 3754956.8 529.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006657 0 0.14230E‐05 485209.7 3754956.8 529.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 3
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0006658 0 0.14230E‐05 485218.3 3754956.9 529.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006659 0 0.14230E‐05 485226.9 3754956.9 529.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006660 0 0.14230E‐05 485235.5 3754957.0 528.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006661 0 0.14230E‐05 485244.0 3754957.0 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006662 0 0.14230E‐05 485252.6 3754957.0 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006663 0 0.14230E‐05 485261.2 3754957.1 528.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006664 0 0.14230E‐05 485269.8 3754957.1 528.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006665 0 0.14230E‐05 485278.4 3754957.2 528.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2125 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006666
0 0.14230E‐05 485287.0 3754957.2 528.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006667 0 0.14230E‐05 485295.6 3754957.2 528.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006668 0 0.14230E‐05 485304.2 3754957.3 528.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006669 0 0.14230E‐05 485312.8 3754957.3 528.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006670 0 0.14230E‐05 485321.4 3754957.4 528.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006671 0 0.14230E‐05 485329.9 3754957.4 528.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006672 0 0.14230E‐05 485338.5 3754957.4 528.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006673 0 0.14230E‐05 485347.1 3754957.5 528.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007433 0 0.23640E‐05 484772.5 3754988.7 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007434 0 0.23640E‐05 484772.5 3754980.1 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007435 0 0.23640E‐05 484772.5 3754971.5 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007436 0 0.23640E‐05 484772.6 3754962.9 532.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007437 0 0.23640E‐05 484772.6 3754954.3 532.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007438 0 0.23640E‐05 484777.3 3754952.0 532.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007439 0 0.23640E‐05 484785.6 3754954.4 532.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007440 0 0.23640E‐05 484793.8 3754956.7 532.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007441 0 0.23640E‐05 484802.1 3754959.1 532.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007442 0 0.23640E‐05 484810.3 3754961.5 532.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007443 0 0.23640E‐05 484818.6 3754963.8 532.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007444 0 0.23640E‐05 484826.9 3754966.2 532.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007445 0 0.23640E‐05 484835.1 3754968.6 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007446 0 0.23640E‐05 484843.7 3754968.9 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007447 0 0.23640E‐05 484852.2 3754969.0 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007448 0 0.23640E‐05 484860.8 3754969.0 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007449 0 0.23640E‐05 484869.4 3754969.0 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2126 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007450 0 0.23640E‐05 484878.0 3754969.0 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007451 0 0.23640E‐05 484886.6 3754969.1 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007452 0 0.23640E‐05 484895.2 3754969.1 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007453 0 0.23640E‐05 484903.8 3754969.1 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007454 0 0.23640E‐05 484912.4 3754969.1 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007455 0 0.23640E‐05 484921.0 3754969.2 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007456 0 0.23640E‐05 484929.6 3754969.2 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 4
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007457 0 0.23640E‐05 484938.1 3754969.2 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007458 0 0.23640E‐05 484946.7 3754969.2 532.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007459 0 0.23640E‐05 484955.3 3754969.3 532.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007460 0 0.23640E‐05 484963.9 3754969.3 531.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007461 0 0.23640E‐05 484972.5 3754969.3 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007462 0 0.23640E‐05 484981.1 3754969.3 531.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007463 0 0.23640E‐05 484989.7 3754969.4 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007464 0 0.23640E‐05 484998.3 3754969.4 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2127 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007465
0 0.23640E‐05 485006.9 3754969.4 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007466 0 0.23640E‐05 485015.5 3754969.4 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007467 0 0.23640E‐05 485024.0 3754969.5 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007468 0 0.23640E‐05 485032.6 3754969.5 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007469 0 0.23640E‐05 485041.2 3754969.5 531.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007470 0 0.23640E‐05 485049.8 3754969.5 531.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007471 0 0.23640E‐05 485058.4 3754969.6 531.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007472 0 0.23640E‐05 485067.0 3754969.6 531.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007473 0 0.23640E‐05 485075.6 3754969.6 531.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007474 0 0.23640E‐05 485084.2 3754969.6 530.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007475 0 0.23640E‐05 485092.8 3754969.7 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007476 0 0.23640E‐05 485101.3 3754969.7 530.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007477 0 0.23640E‐05 485109.9 3754969.7 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007478 0 0.23640E‐05 485118.5 3754969.7 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007479 0 0.23640E‐05 485127.1 3754969.8 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007480 0 0.23640E‐05 485135.7 3754969.8 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007481 0 0.23640E‐05 485144.3 3754969.8 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007482 0 0.23640E‐05 485152.9 3754969.8 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007483 0 0.23640E‐05 485161.5 3754969.9 530.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007484 0 0.23640E‐05 485170.1 3754969.9 530.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007485 0 0.23640E‐05 485178.7 3754969.9 530.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007486 0 0.23640E‐05 485187.2 3754969.9 530.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007487 0 0.23640E‐05 485195.8 3754970.0 530.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007488 0 0.23640E‐05 485204.4 3754970.0 529.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007489 0 0.23640E‐05 485213.0 3754970.0 529.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2128 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007490 0 0.23640E‐05 485221.6 3754970.0 529.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007491 0 0.23640E‐05 485230.2 3754970.1 529.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007492 0 0.23640E‐05 485238.8 3754970.1 529.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007493 0 0.23640E‐05 485247.4 3754970.1 529.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007494 0 0.23640E‐05 485256.0 3754970.1 529.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007495 0 0.23640E‐05 485264.6 3754970.2 529.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007496 0 0.23640E‐05 485273.1 3754970.2 529.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 5
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007497 0 0.23640E‐05 485281.7 3754970.2 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007498 0 0.23640E‐05 485290.3 3754970.2 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007499 0 0.23640E‐05 485298.9 3754970.3 528.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007500 0 0.23640E‐05 485307.5 3754970.3 528.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007501 0 0.23640E‐05 485316.1 3754970.3 528.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007502 0 0.23640E‐05 485324.7 3754970.3 528.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007503 0 0.23640E‐05 485333.3 3754970.4 528.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007504 0 0.23640E‐05 485341.9 3754970.4 528.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2129 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007505
0 0.23640E‐05 485350.5 3754970.4 528.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007506 0 0.23640E‐05 485359.0 3754970.4 528.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007507 0 0.23640E‐05 485367.6 3754970.5 528.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007508 0 0.23640E‐05 485376.2 3754970.5 528.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007509 0 0.23640E‐05 485384.8 3754970.5 528.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007510 0 0.23640E‐05 485393.4 3754970.5 528.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007511 0 0.23640E‐05 485402.0 3754970.6 528.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007512 0 0.23640E‐05 485410.6 3754970.6 528.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007513 0 0.23640E‐05 485414.1 3754965.5 528.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007514 0 0.23640E‐05 485414.0 3754956.9 527.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007515 0 0.23640E‐05 485414.0 3754948.3 527.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007516 0 0.23640E‐05 485414.0 3754939.7 527.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007517 0 0.23640E‐05 485414.0 3754931.1 527.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007518 0 0.23640E‐05 485414.0 3754922.5 526.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007519 0 0.23640E‐05 485414.0 3754914.0 526.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007520 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.9 3754905.4 526.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007521 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.9 3754896.8 526.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007522 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.9 3754888.2 526.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007523 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.9 3754879.6 526.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007524 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.9 3754871.0 525.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007525 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.9 3754862.4 525.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007526 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.9 3754853.8 525.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007527 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.8 3754845.2 525.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007528 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.8 3754836.6 525.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007529 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.8 3754828.1 525.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2130 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007530 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.8 3754819.5 525.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007531 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.8 3754810.9 524.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007532 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.8 3754802.3 524.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007533 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.7 3754793.7 524.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007534 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.7 3754785.1 524.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007535 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.7 3754776.5 523.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007536 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.7 3754767.9 523.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 6
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007537 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.7 3754759.3 523.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007538 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.7 3754750.7 523.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007539 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.6 3754742.2 522.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007540 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.6 3754733.6 522.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007541 0 0.23640E‐05 485413.6 3754725.0 522.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007542 0 0.23640E‐05 485416.3 3754719.1 522.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007543 0 0.23640E‐05 485424.9 3754719.2 522.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007544 0 0.23640E‐05 485433.5 3754719.2 522.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2131 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007545
0 0.23640E‐05 485442.1 3754719.2 522.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007546 0 0.23640E‐05 485450.7 3754719.3 521.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007547 0 0.23640E‐05 485459.3 3754719.3 521.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007548 0 0.23640E‐05 485467.9 3754719.3 521.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007549 0 0.23640E‐05 485476.4 3754719.4 521.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006847 0 0.41910E‐06 484765.2 3755016.9 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006848 0 0.41910E‐06 484756.6 3755017.1 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006849 0 0.41910E‐06 484748.0 3755017.3 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006850 0 0.41910E‐06 484739.4 3755017.5 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006851 0 0.41910E‐06 484730.8 3755017.7 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006852 0 0.41910E‐06 484722.2 3755017.8 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006853 0 0.41910E‐06 484713.6 3755018.0 533.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006854 0 0.41910E‐06 484705.0 3755018.2 533.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006855 0 0.41910E‐06 484696.5 3755018.4 533.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006856 0 0.41910E‐06 484687.9 3755018.6 534.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006857 0 0.41910E‐06 484679.3 3755018.8 534.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006858 0 0.41910E‐06 484670.7 3755018.9 534.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006859 0 0.41910E‐06 484662.1 3755019.1 534.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006860 0 0.41910E‐06 484653.5 3755019.3 534.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006861 0 0.41910E‐06 484644.9 3755019.5 534.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006862 0 0.41910E‐06 484636.3 3755019.7 534.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006863 0 0.41910E‐06 484627.8 3755019.8 534.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006864 0 0.41910E‐06 484619.2 3755020.5 534.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006865 0 0.41910E‐06 484610.7 3755021.5 534.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006866 0 0.41910E‐06 484602.1 3755022.5 534.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2132 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006867 0 0.41910E‐06 484593.6 3755023.5 534.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006868 0 0.41910E‐06 484585.1 3755024.5 534.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006869 0 0.41910E‐06 484576.5 3755025.5 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006870 0 0.41910E‐06 484568.0 3755026.5 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006871 0 0.41910E‐06 484559.5 3755027.5 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006872 0 0.41910E‐06 484550.9 3755028.5 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006873 0 0.41910E‐06 484542.5 3755030.0 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 7
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0006874 0 0.41910E‐06 484534.3 3755032.6 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006875 0 0.41910E‐06 484526.1 3755035.2 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006876 0 0.41910E‐06 484517.9 3755037.7 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006877 0 0.41910E‐06 484509.7 3755040.3 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006878 0 0.41910E‐06 484501.5 3755042.9 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006879 0 0.41910E‐06 484493.4 3755045.5 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006880 0 0.41910E‐06 484485.2 3755048.0 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006881 0 0.41910E‐06 484477.0 3755050.6 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2133 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006882
0 0.41910E‐06 484468.8 3755053.2 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006883 0 0.41910E‐06 484460.6 3755055.8 535.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006884 0 0.41910E‐06 484452.4 3755058.4 535.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006885 0 0.41910E‐06 484444.2 3755060.9 535.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006886 0 0.41910E‐06 484436.1 3755063.7 535.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006887 0 0.41910E‐06 484428.2 3755067.2 535.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006888 0 0.41910E‐06 484420.4 3755070.8 535.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006889 0 0.41910E‐06 484412.6 3755074.3 535.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006890 0 0.41910E‐06 484404.8 3755077.9 535.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006891 0 0.41910E‐06 484396.9 3755081.4 535.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006892 0 0.41910E‐06 484389.1 3755085.0 535.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006893 0 0.41910E‐06 484381.3 3755088.5 536.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006894 0 0.41910E‐06 484373.5 3755092.1 536.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006895 0 0.41910E‐06 484365.7 3755095.6 536.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006896 0 0.41910E‐06 484357.8 3755099.2 536.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006897 0 0.41910E‐06 484350.0 3755102.7 536.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006898 0 0.41910E‐06 484342.2 3755106.3 536.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006899 0 0.41910E‐06 484334.4 3755109.8 536.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006900 0 0.41910E‐06 484326.5 3755113.4 536.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006901 0 0.41910E‐06 484318.7 3755116.8 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006902 0 0.41910E‐06 484310.8 3755120.3 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006903 0 0.41910E‐06 484303.0 3755123.8 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006904 0 0.41910E‐06 484295.1 3755127.3 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006905 0 0.41910E‐06 484287.2 3755130.4 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006906 0 0.41910E‐06 484279.4 3755134.1 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2134 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006907 0 0.41910E‐06 484271.7 3755137.8 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006908 0 0.41910E‐06 484263.9 3755141.4 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006909 0 0.41910E‐06 484256.1 3755145.1 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006910 0 0.41910E‐06 484248.4 3755148.8 537.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006911 0 0.41910E‐06 484240.6 3755152.5 537.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006912 0 0.41910E‐06 484232.8 3755156.1 537.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006913 0 0.41910E‐06 484225.1 3755159.8 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 8
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0006914 0 0.41910E‐06 484217.2 3755163.2 537.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006915 0 0.41910E‐06 484209.2 3755166.4 537.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006916 0 0.41910E‐06 484201.3 3755169.7 537.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006917 0 0.41910E‐06 484193.3 3755172.9 537.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006918 0 0.41910E‐06 484185.4 3755176.2 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006919 0 0.41910E‐06 484177.4 3755179.4 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006920 0 0.41910E‐06 484169.5 3755182.7 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006921 0 0.41910E‐06 484161.5 3755185.9 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2135 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006922
0 0.41910E‐06 484153.6 3755189.2 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006923 0 0.41910E‐06 484145.6 3755192.4 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006924 0 0.41910E‐06 484137.4 3755194.9 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006925 0 0.41910E‐06 484129.1 3755197.2 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006926 0 0.41910E‐06 484120.8 3755199.5 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006927 0 0.41910E‐06 484112.6 3755201.8 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006928 0 0.41910E‐06 484104.3 3755204.0 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006929 0 0.41910E‐06 484096.0 3755206.3 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006930 0 0.41910E‐06 484087.7 3755208.6 538.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006931 0 0.41910E‐06 484079.4 3755210.9 538.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006932 0 0.41910E‐06 484071.1 3755213.0 538.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006933 0 0.41910E‐06 484062.5 3755213.6 538.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006934 0 0.41910E‐06 484054.0 3755214.2 538.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006935 0 0.41910E‐06 484045.4 3755214.8 538.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006936 0 0.41910E‐06 484036.8 3755215.4 538.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006937 0 0.41910E‐06 484028.3 3755216.0 538.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006938 0 0.41910E‐06 484019.7 3755216.7 538.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006939 0 0.41910E‐06 484011.1 3755217.3 538.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006940 0 0.41910E‐06 484002.6 3755217.9 538.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006941 0 0.41910E‐06 483994.0 3755218.5 537.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006942 0 0.41910E‐06 483985.4 3755219.1 537.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006943 0 0.41910E‐06 483976.9 3755219.7 537.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006944 0 0.41910E‐06 483968.3 3755220.1 537.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006945 0 0.41910E‐06 483959.7 3755220.0 537.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006946 0 0.41910E‐06 483951.1 3755220.0 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2136 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006947 0 0.41910E‐06 483942.5 3755219.9 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006948 0 0.41910E‐06 483933.9 3755219.9 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006949 0 0.41910E‐06 483925.3 3755219.8 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006950 0 0.41910E‐06 483916.7 3755219.7 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006951 0 0.41910E‐06 483908.2 3755219.7 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006952 0 0.41910E‐06 483899.6 3755219.6 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006953 0 0.41910E‐06 483891.0 3755219.6 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 9
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0006954 0 0.41910E‐06 483882.4 3755219.5 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006955 0 0.41910E‐06 483873.8 3755219.4 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006956 0 0.41910E‐06 483865.2 3755219.4 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006957 0 0.41910E‐06 483856.6 3755219.3 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006958 0 0.41910E‐06 483848.0 3755219.3 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006959 0 0.41910E‐06 483839.4 3755219.2 537.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006960 0 0.41910E‐06 483830.8 3755219.1 537.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006961 0 0.41910E‐06 483822.3 3755219.1 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2137 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006962
0 0.41910E‐06 483813.7 3755219.0 536.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006963 0 0.41910E‐06 483805.1 3755219.0 536.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006964 0 0.41910E‐06 483796.5 3755218.9 536.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006965 0 0.41910E‐06 483787.9 3755218.8 536.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006966 0 0.41910E‐06 483779.3 3755218.8 536.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006967 0 0.41910E‐06 483770.7 3755218.7 536.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006968 0 0.41910E‐06 483762.1 3755218.6 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006969 0 0.41910E‐06 483753.5 3755218.6 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006970 0 0.41910E‐06 483745.0 3755218.5 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006971 0 0.41910E‐06 483736.4 3755218.5 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006972 0 0.41910E‐06 483727.8 3755218.4 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006973 0 0.41910E‐06 483719.2 3755218.3 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006974 0 0.41910E‐06 483710.6 3755218.5 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006975 0 0.41910E‐06 483702.0 3755218.7 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006976 0 0.41910E‐06 483693.4 3755218.9 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006977 0 0.41910E‐06 483684.8 3755219.2 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006978 0 0.41910E‐06 483676.2 3755219.4 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006979 0 0.41910E‐06 483667.7 3755219.6 537.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006980 0 0.41910E‐06 483659.1 3755219.8 537.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006981 0 0.41910E‐06 483650.5 3755220.0 537.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006982 0 0.41910E‐06 483641.9 3755220.3 537.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006983 0 0.41910E‐06 483633.3 3755220.5 538.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006984 0 0.41910E‐06 483624.7 3755220.7 538.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006985 0 0.41910E‐06 483616.1 3755220.9 538.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006986 0 0.41910E‐06 483607.5 3755221.1 538.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2138 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006987 0 0.41910E‐06 483599.0 3755221.4 538.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006988 0 0.41910E‐06 483590.4 3755221.6 539.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006989 0 0.41910E‐06 483581.8 3755221.8 539.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006990 0 0.41910E‐06 483573.2 3755222.0 539.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006991 0 0.41910E‐06 483564.6 3755222.2 539.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006992 0 0.41910E‐06 483556.0 3755222.5 539.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006993 0 0.41910E‐06 483547.4 3755222.7 539.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 10
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0006994 0 0.41910E‐06 483538.9 3755222.9 539.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006995 0 0.41910E‐06 483530.3 3755223.1 539.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006996 0 0.41910E‐06 483521.7 3755223.3 539.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006997 0 0.41910E‐06 483513.1 3755223.6 539.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006998 0 0.41910E‐06 483506.5 3755225.7 539.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0006999 0 0.41910E‐06 483506.7 3755234.3 539.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007000 0 0.41910E‐06 483506.9 3755242.9 539.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007001 0 0.41910E‐06 483507.0 3755251.5 539.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2139 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007002
0 0.41910E‐06 483507.2 3755260.1 540.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007003 0 0.41910E‐06 483507.3 3755268.7 540.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007004 0 0.41910E‐06 483507.5 3755277.3 541.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007005 0 0.41910E‐06 483507.6 3755285.9 541.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007006 0 0.41910E‐06 483507.8 3755294.4 541.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007007 0 0.41910E‐06 483508.0 3755303.0 542.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007008 0 0.41910E‐06 483508.1 3755311.6 542.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007009 0 0.41910E‐06 483508.3 3755320.2 543.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007010 0 0.41910E‐06 483508.4 3755328.8 543.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007011 0 0.41910E‐06 483508.6 3755337.4 544.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007012 0 0.41910E‐06 483508.7 3755346.0 546.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007013 0 0.41910E‐06 483508.9 3755354.6 547.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007014 0 0.41910E‐06 483509.1 3755363.1 547.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007015 0 0.41910E‐06 483509.2 3755371.7 547.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007016 0 0.41910E‐06 483509.4 3755380.3 548.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007017 0 0.41910E‐06 483509.5 3755388.9 548.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007018 0 0.41910E‐06 483509.7 3755397.5 548.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007019 0 0.41910E‐06 483509.8 3755406.1 548.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007020 0 0.41910E‐06 483510.0 3755414.7 548.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007021 0 0.15740E‐06 484782.1 3755018.5 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007022 0 0.15740E‐06 484790.7 3755018.5 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007023 0 0.15740E‐06 484799.3 3755018.6 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007024 0 0.15740E‐06 484807.9 3755018.6 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007025 0 0.15740E‐06 484816.5 3755018.6 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007026 0 0.15740E‐06 484825.1 3755018.7 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2140 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007027 0 0.15740E‐06 484833.7 3755018.7 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007028 0 0.15740E‐06 484842.3 3755018.8 533.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007029 0 0.15740E‐06 484850.8 3755018.8 533.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007030 0 0.15740E‐06 484859.4 3755018.8 533.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007031 0 0.15740E‐06 484868.0 3755018.9 533.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007032 0 0.15740E‐06 484876.6 3755018.9 533.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007033 0 0.15740E‐06 484885.2 3755019.0 533.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 11
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007034 0 0.15740E‐06 484893.8 3755019.0 533.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007035 0 0.15740E‐06 484902.4 3755019.1 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007036 0 0.15740E‐06 484911.0 3755019.1 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007037 0 0.15740E‐06 484919.6 3755019.1 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007038 0 0.15740E‐06 484928.2 3755019.2 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007039 0 0.15740E‐06 484936.7 3755019.2 532.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007040 0 0.15740E‐06 484945.3 3755019.3 532.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007041 0 0.15740E‐06 484953.9 3755019.3 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2141 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007042
0 0.15740E‐06 484962.5 3755019.4 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007043 0 0.15740E‐06 484971.1 3755019.4 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007044 0 0.15740E‐06 484979.7 3755019.4 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007045 0 0.15740E‐06 484988.3 3755019.5 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007046 0 0.15740E‐06 484996.9 3755019.5 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007047 0 0.15740E‐06 485005.5 3755019.6 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007048 0 0.15740E‐06 485014.1 3755019.6 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007049 0 0.15740E‐06 485022.6 3755019.6 532.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007050 0 0.15740E‐06 485031.2 3755019.7 532.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007051 0 0.15740E‐06 485039.8 3755019.7 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007052 0 0.15740E‐06 485048.4 3755019.8 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007053 0 0.15740E‐06 485057.0 3755019.8 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007054 0 0.15740E‐06 485065.6 3755019.9 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007055 0 0.15740E‐06 485074.2 3755019.9 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007056 0 0.15740E‐06 485082.8 3755019.9 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007057 0 0.15740E‐06 485091.4 3755020.0 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007058 0 0.15740E‐06 485100.0 3755020.0 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007059 0 0.15740E‐06 485108.5 3755020.1 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007060 0 0.15740E‐06 485117.1 3755020.1 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007061 0 0.15740E‐06 485125.7 3755020.1 531.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007062 0 0.15740E‐06 485134.3 3755020.2 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007063 0 0.15740E‐06 485142.9 3755020.2 531.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007064 0 0.15740E‐06 485151.5 3755020.3 530.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007065 0 0.15740E‐06 485160.1 3755020.3 530.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007066 0 0.15740E‐06 485168.7 3755020.4 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2142 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007067 0 0.15740E‐06 485177.3 3755020.4 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007068 0 0.15740E‐06 485185.8 3755020.4 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007069 0 0.15740E‐06 485194.4 3755020.5 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007070 0 0.15740E‐06 485203.0 3755020.5 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007071 0 0.15740E‐06 485211.6 3755020.6 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007072 0 0.15740E‐06 485220.2 3755020.6 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007073 0 0.15740E‐06 485228.8 3755020.7 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 12
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007074 0 0.15740E‐06 485237.4 3755020.7 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007075 0 0.15740E‐06 485246.0 3755020.7 530.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007076 0 0.15740E‐06 485254.6 3755020.8 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007077 0 0.15740E‐06 485263.2 3755020.8 530.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007078 0 0.15740E‐06 485271.7 3755020.9 529.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007079 0 0.15740E‐06 485280.3 3755020.9 529.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007080 0 0.15740E‐06 485288.9 3755020.9 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007081 0 0.15740E‐06 485297.5 3755021.0 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2143 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007082
0 0.15740E‐06 485306.1 3755021.0 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007083 0 0.15740E‐06 485314.7 3755021.1 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007084 0 0.15740E‐06 485323.3 3755021.1 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007085 0 0.15740E‐06 485331.9 3755021.2 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007086 0 0.15740E‐06 485340.5 3755021.2 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007087 0 0.15740E‐06 485349.1 3755021.2 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007088 0 0.15740E‐06 485357.6 3755021.3 529.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007089 0 0.15740E‐06 485366.2 3755021.3 529.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007090 0 0.15740E‐06 485374.8 3755021.4 529.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007091 0 0.15740E‐06 485383.4 3755021.4 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007092 0 0.15740E‐06 485392.0 3755021.5 528.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007093 0 0.15740E‐06 485400.6 3755021.5 528.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007094 0 0.15740E‐06 485409.2 3755021.5 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007095 0 0.15740E‐06 485417.8 3755021.6 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007096 0 0.15740E‐06 485426.4 3755021.6 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007097 0 0.15740E‐06 485435.0 3755021.7 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007098 0 0.15740E‐06 485443.5 3755021.7 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007099 0 0.15740E‐06 485452.1 3755021.7 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007100 0 0.15740E‐06 485460.7 3755021.8 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007101 0 0.15740E‐06 485469.3 3755021.8 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007102 0 0.15740E‐06 485477.9 3755021.9 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007103 0 0.15740E‐06 485486.5 3755021.9 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007104 0 0.15740E‐06 485495.1 3755022.0 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007105 0 0.15740E‐06 485503.7 3755022.0 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007106 0 0.15740E‐06 485512.3 3755022.0 528.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2144 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007107 0 0.15740E‐06 485514.2 3755028.6 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007108 0 0.15740E‐06 485514.0 3755037.2 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007109 0 0.15740E‐06 485513.9 3755045.7 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007110 0 0.15740E‐06 485513.7 3755054.3 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007111 0 0.15740E‐06 485513.5 3755062.9 529.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007112 0 0.15740E‐06 485513.3 3755071.5 529.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007113 0 0.15740E‐06 485513.1 3755080.1 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 13
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007114 0 0.15740E‐06 485513.0 3755088.7 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007115 0 0.15740E‐06 485512.8 3755097.3 530.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007116 0 0.15740E‐06 485512.6 3755105.9 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007117 0 0.15740E‐06 485512.4 3755114.5 530.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007118 0 0.15740E‐06 485512.3 3755123.0 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007119 0 0.15740E‐06 485512.1 3755131.6 531.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007120 0 0.15740E‐06 485511.9 3755140.2 531.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007121 0 0.15740E‐06 485511.7 3755148.8 531.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2145 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007122
0 0.15740E‐06 485511.6 3755157.4 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007123 0 0.15740E‐06 485511.4 3755166.0 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007124 0 0.15740E‐06 485511.2 3755174.6 532.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007125 0 0.15740E‐06 485511.0 3755183.2 532.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007126 0 0.15740E‐06 485510.9 3755191.7 532.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007127 0 0.26250E‐06 484782.1 3755018.5 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007128 0 0.26250E‐06 484790.7 3755018.5 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007129 0 0.26250E‐06 484799.3 3755018.6 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007130 0 0.26250E‐06 484807.9 3755018.6 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007131 0 0.26250E‐06 484816.5 3755018.6 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007132 0 0.26250E‐06 484825.1 3755018.7 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007133 0 0.26250E‐06 484833.7 3755018.7 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007134 0 0.26250E‐06 484842.3 3755018.8 533.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007135 0 0.26250E‐06 484850.8 3755018.8 533.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007136 0 0.26250E‐06 484859.4 3755018.8 533.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007137 0 0.26250E‐06 484868.0 3755018.9 533.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007138 0 0.26250E‐06 484876.6 3755018.9 533.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007139 0 0.26250E‐06 484885.2 3755019.0 533.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007140 0 0.26250E‐06 484893.8 3755019.0 533.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007141 0 0.26250E‐06 484902.4 3755019.1 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007142 0 0.26250E‐06 484911.0 3755019.1 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007143 0 0.26250E‐06 484919.6 3755019.1 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007144 0 0.26250E‐06 484928.2 3755019.2 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007145 0 0.26250E‐06 484936.7 3755019.2 532.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007146 0 0.26250E‐06 484945.3 3755019.3 532.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2146 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007147 0 0.26250E‐06 484953.9 3755019.3 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007148 0 0.26250E‐06 484962.5 3755019.4 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007149 0 0.26250E‐06 484971.1 3755019.4 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007150 0 0.26250E‐06 484979.7 3755019.4 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007151 0 0.26250E‐06 484988.3 3755019.5 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007152 0 0.26250E‐06 484996.9 3755019.5 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007153 0 0.26250E‐06 485005.5 3755019.6 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 14
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007154 0 0.26250E‐06 485014.1 3755019.6 532.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007155 0 0.26250E‐06 485022.6 3755019.6 532.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007156 0 0.26250E‐06 485031.2 3755019.7 532.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007157 0 0.26250E‐06 485039.8 3755019.7 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007158 0 0.26250E‐06 485048.4 3755019.8 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007159 0 0.26250E‐06 485057.0 3755019.8 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007160 0 0.26250E‐06 485065.6 3755019.9 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007161 0 0.26250E‐06 485074.2 3755019.9 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2147 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007162
0 0.26250E‐06 485082.8 3755019.9 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007163 0 0.26250E‐06 485091.4 3755020.0 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007164 0 0.26250E‐06 485100.0 3755020.0 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007165 0 0.26250E‐06 485108.5 3755020.1 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007166 0 0.26250E‐06 485117.1 3755020.1 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007167 0 0.26250E‐06 485125.7 3755020.1 531.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007168 0 0.26250E‐06 485134.3 3755020.2 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007169 0 0.26250E‐06 485142.9 3755020.2 531.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007170 0 0.26250E‐06 485151.5 3755020.3 530.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007171 0 0.26250E‐06 485160.1 3755020.3 530.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007172 0 0.26250E‐06 485168.7 3755020.4 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007173 0 0.26250E‐06 485177.3 3755020.4 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007174 0 0.26250E‐06 485185.8 3755020.4 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007175 0 0.26250E‐06 485194.4 3755020.5 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007176 0 0.26250E‐06 485203.0 3755020.5 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007177 0 0.26250E‐06 485211.6 3755020.6 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007178 0 0.26250E‐06 485220.2 3755020.6 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007179 0 0.26250E‐06 485228.8 3755020.7 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007180 0 0.26250E‐06 485237.4 3755020.7 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007181 0 0.26250E‐06 485246.0 3755020.7 530.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007182 0 0.26250E‐06 485254.6 3755020.8 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007183 0 0.26250E‐06 485263.2 3755020.8 530.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007184 0 0.26250E‐06 485271.7 3755020.9 529.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007185 0 0.26250E‐06 485280.3 3755020.9 529.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007186 0 0.26250E‐06 485288.9 3755020.9 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2148 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007187 0 0.26250E‐06 485297.5 3755021.0 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007188 0 0.26250E‐06 485306.1 3755021.0 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007189 0 0.26250E‐06 485314.7 3755021.1 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007190 0 0.26250E‐06 485323.3 3755021.1 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007191 0 0.26250E‐06 485331.9 3755021.2 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007192 0 0.26250E‐06 485340.5 3755021.2 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007193 0 0.26250E‐06 485349.1 3755021.2 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 15
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007194 0 0.26250E‐06 485357.6 3755021.3 529.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007195 0 0.26250E‐06 485366.2 3755021.3 529.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007196 0 0.26250E‐06 485374.8 3755021.4 529.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007197 0 0.26250E‐06 485383.4 3755021.4 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007198 0 0.26250E‐06 485392.0 3755021.5 528.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007199 0 0.26250E‐06 485400.6 3755021.5 528.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007200 0 0.26250E‐06 485409.2 3755021.5 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007201 0 0.26250E‐06 485417.8 3755021.6 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2149 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007202
0 0.26250E‐06 485426.4 3755021.6 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007203 0 0.26250E‐06 485435.0 3755021.7 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007204 0 0.26250E‐06 485443.5 3755021.7 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007205 0 0.26250E‐06 485452.1 3755021.7 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007206 0 0.26250E‐06 485460.7 3755021.8 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007207 0 0.26250E‐06 485469.3 3755021.8 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007208 0 0.26250E‐06 485477.9 3755021.9 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007209 0 0.26250E‐06 485486.5 3755021.9 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007210 0 0.26250E‐06 485495.1 3755022.0 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007211 0 0.26250E‐06 485503.7 3755022.0 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007212 0 0.26250E‐06 485512.3 3755022.0 528.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007213 0 0.26250E‐06 485514.2 3755028.6 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007214 0 0.26250E‐06 485514.0 3755037.2 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007215 0 0.26250E‐06 485513.9 3755045.7 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007216 0 0.26250E‐06 485513.7 3755054.3 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007217 0 0.26250E‐06 485513.5 3755062.9 529.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007218 0 0.26250E‐06 485513.3 3755071.5 529.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007219 0 0.26250E‐06 485513.1 3755080.1 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007220 0 0.26250E‐06 485513.0 3755088.7 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007221 0 0.26250E‐06 485512.8 3755097.3 530.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007222 0 0.26250E‐06 485512.6 3755105.9 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007223 0 0.26250E‐06 485512.4 3755114.5 530.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007224 0 0.26250E‐06 485512.3 3755123.0 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007225 0 0.26250E‐06 485512.1 3755131.6 531.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007226 0 0.26250E‐06 485511.9 3755140.2 531.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2150 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007227 0 0.26250E‐06 485511.7 3755148.8 531.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007228 0 0.26250E‐06 485511.6 3755157.4 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007229 0 0.26250E‐06 485511.4 3755166.0 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007230 0 0.26250E‐06 485511.2 3755174.6 532.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007231 0 0.26250E‐06 485511.0 3755183.2 532.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007232 0 0.26250E‐06 485510.9 3755191.7 532.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007667 0 0.52070E‐07 485406.6 3755019.8 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 16
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007668 0 0.52070E‐07 485415.2 3755020.0 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007669 0 0.52070E‐07 485423.8 3755020.2 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007670 0 0.52070E‐07 485432.4 3755020.4 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007671 0 0.52070E‐07 485441.0 3755020.5 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007672 0 0.52070E‐07 485449.6 3755020.7 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007673 0 0.52070E‐07 485458.1 3755020.9 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007674 0 0.52070E‐07 485466.7 3755021.1 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007675 0 0.52070E‐07 485475.3 3755021.2 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2151 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007676
0 0.52070E‐07 485483.9 3755021.4 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007677 0 0.52070E‐07 485492.5 3755021.6 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007678 0 0.52070E‐07 485501.1 3755021.8 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007679 0 0.52070E‐07 485509.7 3755022.0 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007680 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.3 3755026.0 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007681 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.3 3755034.6 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007682 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.2 3755043.2 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007683 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.2 3755051.7 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007684 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.1 3755060.3 529.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007685 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.1 3755068.9 529.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007686 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.0 3755077.5 529.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007687 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.0 3755086.1 530.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007688 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.0 3755094.7 530.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007689 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.9 3755103.3 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007690 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.9 3755111.9 530.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007691 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.8 3755120.5 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007692 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.8 3755129.1 531.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007693 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.7 3755137.6 531.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007694 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.7 3755146.2 531.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007695 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.6 3755154.8 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007696 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.6 3755163.4 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007697 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.6 3755172.0 531.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007698 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.5 3755180.6 532.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007699 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.5 3755189.2 532.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007700 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.4 3755197.8 532.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2152 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007701 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.4 3755206.4 533.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007702 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.3 3755215.0 533.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007703 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.3 3755223.5 534.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007704 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.3 3755232.1 534.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007705 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.2 3755240.7 535.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007706 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.2 3755249.3 535.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007707 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.1 3755257.9 535.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 17
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007708 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.1 3755266.5 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007709 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.0 3755275.1 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007710 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.0 3755283.7 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007711 0 0.52070E‐07 485512.9 3755292.3 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007712 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.0 3755300.9 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007713 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.1 3755309.4 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007714 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.2 3755318.0 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007715 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.3 3755326.6 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2153 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007716
0 0.52070E‐07 485513.4 3755335.2 536.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007717 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.5 3755343.8 536.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007718 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.6 3755352.4 536.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007719 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.7 3755361.0 536.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007720 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.8 3755369.6 536.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007721 0 0.52070E‐07 485513.9 3755378.2 536.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007722 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.0 3755386.7 537.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007723 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.1 3755395.3 537.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007724 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.2 3755403.9 537.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007725 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.3 3755412.5 537.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007726 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.4 3755421.1 538.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007727 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.5 3755429.7 538.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007728 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.6 3755438.3 538.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007729 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.7 3755446.9 538.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007730 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.8 3755455.5 538.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007731 0 0.52070E‐07 485514.9 3755464.1 538.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007732 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.0 3755472.6 538.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007733 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.1 3755481.2 539.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007734 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.2 3755489.8 539.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007735 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.3 3755498.4 539.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007736 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.3 3755507.0 540.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007737 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.4 3755515.6 540.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007738 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.5 3755524.2 540.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007739 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.6 3755532.8 540.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007740 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.7 3755541.4 541.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2154 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007741 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.8 3755549.9 541.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007742 0 0.52070E‐07 485515.9 3755558.5 541.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007743 0 0.52070E‐07 485516.0 3755567.1 541.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007744 0 0.52070E‐07 485516.1 3755575.7 541.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007745 0 0.52070E‐07 485516.2 3755584.3 541.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007746 0 0.52070E‐07 485516.3 3755592.9 541.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007747 0 0.52070E‐07 485516.4 3755601.5 542.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 18
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007748 0 0.52070E‐07 485516.5 3755610.1 542.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007749 0 0.52070E‐07 485516.6 3755618.7 542.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007750 0 0.52070E‐07 485516.7 3755627.3 543.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007751 0 0.52070E‐07 485516.8 3755635.8 543.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007752 0 0.52070E‐07 485516.9 3755644.4 543.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007753 0 0.52070E‐07 485517.0 3755653.0 543.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007754 0 0.52070E‐07 485517.1 3755661.6 544.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007755 0 0.52070E‐07 485517.2 3755670.2 544.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2155 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007322
0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754719.0 521.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007323 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754727.6 522.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007324 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754736.2 522.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007325 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754744.8 522.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007326 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754753.4 522.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007327 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754761.9 522.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007328 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754770.5 522.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007329 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754779.1 522.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007330 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754787.7 523.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007331 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754796.3 523.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007332 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754804.9 523.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007333 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754813.5 523.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007334 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754822.1 524.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007335 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754830.7 524.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007336 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754839.3 524.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007337 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754847.8 525.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007338 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754856.4 525.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007339 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754865.0 525.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007340 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754873.6 525.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007341 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754882.2 525.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007342 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754890.8 525.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007343 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754899.4 525.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007344 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754908.0 526.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007345 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754916.6 526.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007346 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754925.2 526.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2156 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007347 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754933.7 526.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007348 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754942.3 527.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007349 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754950.9 527.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007350 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754959.5 527.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007351 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754968.1 527.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007352 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754976.7 527.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007353 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754985.3 527.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 19
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007354 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3754993.9 527.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007355 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755002.5 528.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007356 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755011.1 528.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007357 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755019.6 528.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007358 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755028.2 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007359 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755036.8 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007360 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755045.4 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007361 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755054.0 529.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2157 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007362
0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755062.6 529.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007363 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755071.2 529.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007364 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755079.8 529.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007365 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755088.4 530.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007366 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755097.0 530.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007367 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755105.5 530.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007368 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755114.1 530.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007369 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755122.7 531.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007370 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755131.3 531.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007371 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755139.9 531.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007372 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755148.5 531.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007373 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755157.1 531.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007374 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755165.7 531.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007375 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755174.3 532.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007376 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755182.9 532.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007377 0 0.15590E‐06 485512.5 3755191.4 532.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007378 0 0.51730E‐07 485510.9 3755208.0 533.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007379 0 0.51730E‐07 485511.0 3755216.6 533.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007380 0 0.51730E‐07 485511.1 3755225.2 534.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007381 0 0.51730E‐07 485511.2 3755233.8 534.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007382 0 0.51730E‐07 485511.3 3755242.4 535.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007383 0 0.51730E‐07 485511.4 3755250.9 535.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007384 0 0.51730E‐07 485511.5 3755259.5 535.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007385 0 0.51730E‐07 485511.6 3755268.1 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007386 0 0.51730E‐07 485511.7 3755276.7 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2158 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007387 0 0.51730E‐07 485511.8 3755285.3 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007388 0 0.51730E‐07 485511.9 3755293.9 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007389 0 0.51730E‐07 485512.0 3755302.5 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007390 0 0.51730E‐07 485512.1 3755311.1 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007391 0 0.51730E‐07 485512.2 3755319.7 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007392 0 0.51730E‐07 485512.3 3755328.2 536.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007393 0 0.51730E‐07 485512.4 3755336.8 536.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 20
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
L0007394 0 0.51730E‐07 485512.5 3755345.4 536.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007395 0 0.51730E‐07 485512.6 3755354.0 536.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007396 0 0.51730E‐07 485512.7 3755362.6 536.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007397 0 0.51730E‐07 485512.8 3755371.2 536.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007398 0 0.51730E‐07 485512.9 3755379.8 536.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007399 0 0.51730E‐07 485513.1 3755388.4 537.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007400 0 0.51730E‐07 485513.2 3755397.0 537.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007401 0 0.51730E‐07 485513.3 3755405.6 537.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2159 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007402
0 0.51730E‐07 485513.4 3755414.1 537.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007403 0 0.51730E‐07 485513.5 3755422.7 538.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007404 0 0.51730E‐07 485513.6 3755431.3 538.3 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007405 0 0.51730E‐07 485513.7 3755439.9 538.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007406 0 0.51730E‐07 485513.8 3755448.5 538.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007407 0 0.51730E‐07 485513.9 3755457.1 538.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007408 0 0.51730E‐07 485514.0 3755465.7 538.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007409 0 0.51730E‐07 485514.1 3755474.3 539.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007410 0 0.51730E‐07 485514.2 3755482.9 539.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007411 0 0.51730E‐07 485514.3 3755491.4 539.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007412 0 0.51730E‐07 485514.4 3755500.0 539.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007413 0 0.51730E‐07 485514.5 3755508.6 540.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007414 0 0.51730E‐07 485514.6 3755517.2 540.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007415 0 0.51730E‐07 485514.7 3755525.8 540.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007416 0 0.51730E‐07 485514.8 3755534.4 540.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007417 0 0.51730E‐07 485514.9 3755543.0 541.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007418 0 0.51730E‐07 485515.0 3755551.6 541.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007419 0 0.51730E‐07 485515.1 3755560.2 541.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007420 0 0.51730E‐07 485515.2 3755568.8 541.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007421 0 0.51730E‐07 485515.3 3755577.3 541.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007422 0 0.51730E‐07 485515.4 3755585.9 541.6 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007423 0 0.51730E‐07 485515.5 3755594.5 541.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007424 0 0.51730E‐07 485515.6 3755603.1 542.2 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007425 0 0.51730E‐07 485515.7 3755611.7 542.5 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007426 0 0.51730E‐07 485515.8 3755620.3 542.8 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2160 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007427 0 0.51730E‐07 485515.9 3755628.9 543.1 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007428 0 0.51730E‐07 485516.0 3755637.5 543.4 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007429 0 0.51730E‐07 485516.1 3755646.1 543.7 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007430 0 0.51730E‐07 485516.2 3755654.6 543.9 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007431 0 0.51730E‐07 485516.3 3755663.2 544.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
L0007432 0 0.51730E‐07 485516.4 3755671.8 544.0 3.49 4.00
3.25 YES
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 21
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ALL L0006618 , L0006619 , L0006620 , L0006621 , L0006622 , L0006623 , L0006624 , L0006625 ,
L0006626 , L0006627 , L0006628 , L0006629 , L0006630 , L0006631 , L0006632 , L0006633 ,
L0006634 , L0006635 , L0006636 , L0006637 , L0006638 , L0006639 , L0006640 , L0006641 ,
L0006642 , L0006643 , L0006644 , L0006645 , L0006646 , L0006647 , L0006648 , L0006649 ,
L0006650 , L0006651 , L0006652 , L0006653 , L0006654 , L0006655 , L0006656 , L0006657 ,
L0006658 , L0006659 , L0006660 , L0006661 , L0006662 , L0006663 , L0006664 , L0006665 ,
L0006666 , L0006667 , L0006668 , L0006669 , L0006670 , L0006671 , L0006672 , L0006673 ,
L0007433 , L0007434 , L0007435 , L0007436 , L0007437 , F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2161 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007438 , L0007439 , L0007440 ,
L0007441 , L0007442 , L0007443 , L0007444 , L0007445 , L0007446 , L0007447 , L0007448 ,
L0007449 , L0007450 , L0007451 , L0007452 , L0007453 , L0007454 , L0007455 , L0007456 ,
L0007457 , L0007458 , L0007459 , L0007460 , L0007461 , L0007462 , L0007463 , L0007464 ,
L0007465 , L0007466 , L0007467 , L0007468 , L0007469 , L0007470 , L0007471 , L0007472 ,
L0007473 , L0007474 , L0007475 , L0007476 , L0007477 , L0007478 , L0007479 , L0007480 ,
L0007481 , L0007482 , L0007483 , L0007484 , L0007485 , L0007486 , L0007487 , L0007488 ,
L0007489 , L0007490 , L0007491 , L0007492 , L0007493 , L0007494 , L0007495 , L0007496 ,
L0007497 , L0007498 , L0007499 , L0007500 , L0007501 , L0007502 , L0007503 , L0007504 ,
L0007505 , L0007506 , L0007507 , L0007508 , L0007509 , L0007510 , L0007511 , L0007512 ,
L0007513 , L0007514 , L0007515 , L0007516 , L0007517 , L0007518 , L0007519 , L0007520 ,
L0007521 , L0007522 , L0007523 , L0007524 , L0007525 , L0007526 , L0007527 , L0007528 ,
L0007529 , L0007530 , L0007531 , L0007532 , L0007533 , L0007534 , L0007535 , L0007536 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 22
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2162 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ L0007537 , L0007538 , L0007539 , L0007540 , L0007541 , L0007542 , L0007543 , L0007544 ,
L0007545 , L0007546 , L0007547 , L0007548 , L0007549 , L0006847 , L0006848 , L0006849 ,
L0006850 , L0006851 , L0006852 , L0006853 , L0006854 , L0006855 , L0006856 , L0006857 ,
L0006858 , L0006859 , L0006860 , L0006861 , L0006862 , L0006863 , L0006864 , L0006865 ,
L0006866 , L0006867 , L0006868 , L0006869 , L0006870 , L0006871 , L0006872 , L0006873 ,
L0006874 , L0006875 , L0006876 , L0006877 , L0006878 , L0006879 , L0006880 , L0006881 ,
L0006882 , L0006883 , L0006884 , L0006885 , L0006886 , L0006887 , L0006888 , L0006889 ,
L0006890 , L0006891 , L0006892 , L0006893 , L0006894 , L0006895 , L0006896 , L0006897 ,
L0006898 , L0006899 , L0006900 , L0006901 , L0006902 , L0006903 , L0006904 , L0006905 ,
L0006906 , L0006907 , L0006908 , L0006909 , L0006910 , L0006911 , L0006912 , L0006913 ,
L0006914 , L0006915 , L0006916 , L0006917 , L0006918 , L0006919 , L0006920 , L0006921 ,
L0006922 , L0006923 , L0006924 , L0006925 , L0006926 , L0006927 , L0006928 , L0006929 ,
L0006930 , L0006931 , L0006932 , L0006933 , L0006934 , L0006935 , L0006936 , L0006937 ,
L0006938 , L0006939 , L0006940 , L0006941 , L0006942 , L0006943 , L0006944 , L0006945 ,
L0006946 , L0006947 , L0006948 , L0006949 , L0006950 , L0006951 , L0006952 , L0006953 ,
L0006954 , L0006955 , L0006956 , L0006957 , L0006958 , L0006959 , L0006960 , L0006961 ,
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2163 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006962 , L0006963 , L0006964 , L0006965 , L0006966 , L0006967 , L0006968 , L0006969 ,
L0006970 , L0006971 , L0006972 , L0006973 , L0006974 , L0006975 , L0006976 , L0006977 ,
L0006978 , L0006979 , L0006980 , L0006981 , L0006982 , L0006983 , L0006984 , L0006985 ,
L0006986 , L0006987 , L0006988 , L0006989 , L0006990 , L0006991 , L0006992 , L0006993 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 23
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ L0006994 , L0006995 , L0006996 , L0006997 , L0006998 , L0006999 , L0007000 , L0007001 ,
L0007002 , L0007003 , L0007004 , L0007005 , L0007006 , L0007007 , L0007008 , L0007009 ,
L0007010 , L0007011 , L0007012 , L0007013 , L0007014 , L0007015 , L0007016 , L0007017 ,
L0007018 , L0007019 , L0007020 , L0007021 , L0007022 , L0007023 , L0007024 , L0007025 ,
L0007026 , L0007027 , L0007028 , L0007029 , L0007030 , L0007031 , L0007032 , L0007033 ,
L0007034 , L0007035 , L0007036 , L0007037 , L0007038 , L0007039 , L0007040 , L0007041 ,
L0007042 , L0007043 , L0007044 , L0007045 , L0007046 , L0007047 , L0007048 , L0007049 ,
L0007050 , L0007051 , L0007052 , L0007053 , L0007054 , F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2164 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007055 , L0007056 , L0007057 ,
L0007058 , L0007059 , L0007060 , L0007061 , L0007062 , L0007063 , L0007064 , L0007065 ,
L0007066 , L0007067 , L0007068 , L0007069 , L0007070 , L0007071 , L0007072 , L0007073 ,
L0007074 , L0007075 , L0007076 , L0007077 , L0007078 , L0007079 , L0007080 , L0007081 ,
L0007082 , L0007083 , L0007084 , L0007085 , L0007086 , L0007087 , L0007088 , L0007089 ,
L0007090 , L0007091 , L0007092 , L0007093 , L0007094 , L0007095 , L0007096 , L0007097 ,
L0007098 , L0007099 , L0007100 , L0007101 , L0007102 , L0007103 , L0007104 , L0007105 ,
L0007106 , L0007107 , L0007108 , L0007109 , L0007110 , L0007111 , L0007112 , L0007113 ,
L0007114 , L0007115 , L0007116 , L0007117 , L0007118 , L0007119 , L0007120 , L0007121 ,
L0007122 , L0007123 , L0007124 , L0007125 , L0007126 , L0007127 , L0007128 , L0007129 ,
L0007130 , L0007131 , L0007132 , L0007133 , L0007134 , L0007135 , L0007136 , L0007137 ,
L0007138 , L0007139 , L0007140 , L0007141 , L0007142 , L0007143 , L0007144 , L0007145 ,
L0007146 , L0007147 , L0007148 , L0007149 , L0007150 , L0007151 , L0007152 , L0007153 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 24
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2165 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ L0007154 , L0007155 , L0007156 , L0007157 , L0007158 , L0007159 , L0007160 , L0007161 ,
L0007162 , L0007163 , L0007164 , L0007165 , L0007166 , L0007167 , L0007168 , L0007169 ,
L0007170 , L0007171 , L0007172 , L0007173 , L0007174 , L0007175 , L0007176 , L0007177 ,
L0007178 , L0007179 , L0007180 , L0007181 , L0007182 , L0007183 , L0007184 , L0007185 ,
L0007186 , L0007187 , L0007188 , L0007189 , L0007190 , L0007191 , L0007192 , L0007193 ,
L0007194 , L0007195 , L0007196 , L0007197 , L0007198 , L0007199 , L0007200 , L0007201 ,
L0007202 , L0007203 , L0007204 , L0007205 , L0007206 , L0007207 , L0007208 , L0007209 ,
L0007210 , L0007211 , L0007212 , L0007213 , L0007214 , L0007215 , L0007216 , L0007217 ,
L0007218 , L0007219 , L0007220 , L0007221 , L0007222 , L0007223 , L0007224 , L0007225 ,
L0007226 , L0007227 , L0007228 , L0007229 , L0007230 , L0007231 , L0007232 , L0007667 ,
L0007668 , L0007669 , L0007670 , L0007671 , L0007672 , L0007673 , L0007674 , L0007675 ,
L0007676 , L0007677 , L0007678 , L0007679 , L0007680 , L0007681 , L0007682 , L0007683 ,
L0007684 , L0007685 , L0007686 , L0007687 , L0007688 , L0007689 , L0007690 , L0007691 ,
L0007692 , L0007693 , L0007694 , L0007695 , L0007696 , L0007697 , L0007698 , L0007699 ,
L0007700 , L0007701 , L0007702 , L0007703 , L0007704 , L0007705 , L0007706 , L0007707 ,
L0007708 , L0007709 , L0007710 , L0007711 , L0007712 , L0007713 , L0007714 , L0007715 ,
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2166 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007716 , L0007717 , L0007718 , L0007719 , L0007720 , L0007721 , L0007722 , L0007723 ,
L0007724 , L0007725 , L0007726 , L0007727 , L0007728 , L0007729 , L0007730 , L0007731 ,
L0007732 , L0007733 , L0007734 , L0007735 , L0007736 , L0007737 , L0007738 , L0007739 ,
L0007740 , L0007741 , L0007742 , L0007743 , L0007744 , L0007745 , L0007746 , L0007747 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 25
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS
***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ L0007748 , L0007749 , L0007750 , L0007751 , L0007752 , L0007753 , L0007754 , L0007755 ,
L0007322 , L0007323 , L0007324 , L0007325 , L0007326 , L0007327 , L0007328 , L0007329 ,
L0007330 , L0007331 , L0007332 , L0007333 , L0007334 , L0007335 , L0007336 , L0007337 ,
L0007338 , L0007339 , L0007340 , L0007341 , L0007342 , L0007343 , L0007344 , L0007345 ,
L0007346 , L0007347 , L0007348 , L0007349 , L0007350 , L0007351 , L0007352 , L0007353 ,
L0007354 , L0007355 , L0007356 , L0007357 , L0007358 , L0007359 , L0007360 , L0007361 ,
L0007362 , L0007363 , L0007364 , L0007365 , L0007366 , L0007367 , L0007368 , L0007369 ,
L0007370 , L0007371 , L0007372 , L0007373 , L0007374 , F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2167 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007375 , L0007376 , L0007377 ,
L0007378 , L0007379 , L0007380 , L0007381 , L0007382 , L0007383 , L0007384 , L0007385 ,
L0007386 , L0007387 , L0007388 , L0007389 , L0007390 , L0007391 , L0007392 , L0007393 ,
L0007394 , L0007395 , L0007396 , L0007397 , L0007398 , L0007399 , L0007400 , L0007401 ,
L0007402 , L0007403 , L0007404 , L0007405 , L0007406 , L0007407 , L0007408 , L0007409 ,
L0007410 , L0007411 , L0007412 , L0007413 , L0007414 , L0007415 , L0007416 , L0007417 ,
L0007418 , L0007419 , L0007420 , L0007421 , L0007422 , L0007423 , L0007424 , L0007425 ,
L0007426 , L0007427 , L0007428 , L0007429 , L0007430 , L0007431 , L0007432 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 26
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINED AS URBAN SOURCES
***
URBAN ID URBAN POP SOURCE IDs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2189641. L0006618 , L0006619 , L0006620 , L0006621 , L0006622 , L0006623 , L0006624 ,
L0006625 ,
L0006626 , L0006627 , L0006628 , L0006629 , L0006630 , L0006631 , L0006632 , L0006633 ,
L0006634 , L0006635 , L0006636 , L0006637 , L0006638 , L0006639 , L0006640 , L0006641 ,
L0006642 , L0006643 , L0006644 , L0006645 , L0006646 , L0006647 , L0006648 , L0006649 ,
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2168 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006650 , L0006651 , L0006652 , L0006653 , L0006654 , L0006655 , L0006656 , L0006657 ,
L0006658 , L0006659 , L0006660 , L0006661 , L0006662 , L0006663 , L0006664 , L0006665 ,
L0006666 , L0006667 , L0006668 , L0006669 , L0006670 , L0006671 , L0006672 , L0006673 ,
L0007433 , L0007434 , L0007435 , L0007436 , L0007437 , L0007438 , L0007439 , L0007440 ,
L0007441 , L0007442 , L0007443 , L0007444 , L0007445 , L0007446 , L0007447 , L0007448 ,
L0007449 , L0007450 , L0007451 , L0007452 , L0007453 , L0007454 , L0007455 , L0007456 ,
L0007457 , L0007458 , L0007459 , L0007460 , L0007461 , L0007462 , L0007463 , L0007464 ,
L0007465 , L0007466 , L0007467 , L0007468 , L0007469 , L0007470 , L0007471 , L0007472 ,
L0007473 , L0007474 , L0007475 , L0007476 , L0007477 , L0007478 , L0007479 , L0007480 ,
L0007481 , L0007482 , L0007483 , L0007484 , L0007485 , L0007486 , L0007487 , L0007488 ,
L0007489 , L0007490 , L0007491 , L0007492 , L0007493 , L0007494 , L0007495 , L0007496 ,
L0007497 , L0007498 , L0007499 , L0007500 , L0007501 , L0007502 , L0007503 , L0007504 ,
L0007505 , L0007506 , L0007507 , L0007508 , L0007509 , L0007510 , L0007511 , L0007512 ,
L0007513 , L0007514 , L0007515 , L0007516 , L0007517 , L0007518 , L0007519 , L0007520 ,
L0007521 , L0007522 , L0007523 , L0007524 , L0007525 , L0007526 , L0007527 , L0007528 ,
L0007529 , L0007530 , L0007531 , L0007532 , L0007533 , L0007534 , L0007535 , L0007536 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2169 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 27
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINED AS URBAN SOURCES
***
URBAN ID URBAN POP SOURCE IDs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ L0007537 , L0007538 , L0007539 , L0007540 , L0007541 , L0007542 , L0007543 , L0007544 ,
L0007545 , L0007546 , L0007547 , L0007548 , L0007549 , L0006847 , L0006848 , L0006849 ,
L0006850 , L0006851 , L0006852 , L0006853 , L0006854 , L0006855 , L0006856 , L0006857 ,
L0006858 , L0006859 , L0006860 , L0006861 , L0006862 , L0006863 , L0006864 , L0006865 ,
L0006866 , L0006867 , L0006868 , L0006869 , L0006870 , L0006871 , L0006872 , L0006873 ,
L0006874 , L0006875 , L0006876 , L0006877 , L0006878 , L0006879 , L0006880 , L0006881 ,
L0006882 , L0006883 , L0006884 , L0006885 , L0006886 , L0006887 , L0006888 , L0006889 ,
L0006890 , L0006891 , L0006892 , L0006893 , L0006894 , L0006895 , L0006896 , L0006897 ,
L0006898 , L0006899 , L0006900 , L0006901 , L0006902 , L0006903 , L0006904 , L0006905 ,
L0006906 , L0006907 , L0006908 , L0006909 , L0006910 , L0006911 , L0006912 , L0006913 ,
L0006914 , L0006915 , L0006916 , L0006917 , L0006918 , L0006919 , L0006920 , L0006921 ,
L0006922 , L0006923 , L0006924 , L0006925 , L0006926 , L0006927 , L0006928 , L0006929 ,
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2170 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0006930 , L0006931 , L0006932 , L0006933 , L0006934 , L0006935 , L0006936 , L0006937 ,
L0006938 , L0006939 , L0006940 , L0006941 , L0006942 , L0006943 , L0006944 , L0006945 ,
L0006946 , L0006947 , L0006948 , L0006949 , L0006950 , L0006951 , L0006952 , L0006953 ,
L0006954 , L0006955 , L0006956 , L0006957 , L0006958 , L0006959 , L0006960 , L0006961 ,
L0006962 , L0006963 , L0006964 , L0006965 , L0006966 , L0006967 , L0006968 , L0006969 ,
L0006970 , L0006971 , L0006972 , L0006973 , L0006974 , L0006975 , L0006976 , L0006977 ,
L0006978 , L0006979 , L0006980 , L0006981 , L0006982 , L0006983 , L0006984 , L0006985 ,
L0006986 , L0006987 , L0006988 , L0006989 , L0006990 , L0006991 , L0006992 , L0006993 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 28
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINED AS URBAN SOURCES
***
URBAN ID URBAN POP SOURCE IDs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ L0006994 , L0006995 , L0006996 , L0006997 , L0006998 , L0006999 , L0007000 , L0007001 ,
L0007002 , L0007003 , L0007004 , L0007005 , L0007006 , L0007007 , L0007008 , L0007009 ,
L0007010 , L0007011 , L0007012 , L0007013 , L0007014 , L0007015 , L0007016 , L0007017 ,
L0007018 , L0007019 , L0007020 , L0007021 , L0007022 , L0007023 , L0007024 , L0007025 ,
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2171 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007026 , L0007027 , L0007028 , L0007029 , L0007030 , L0007031 , L0007032 , L0007033 ,
L0007034 , L0007035 , L0007036 , L0007037 , L0007038 , L0007039 , L0007040 , L0007041 ,
L0007042 , L0007043 , L0007044 , L0007045 , L0007046 , L0007047 , L0007048 , L0007049 ,
L0007050 , L0007051 , L0007052 , L0007053 , L0007054 , L0007055 , L0007056 , L0007057 ,
L0007058 , L0007059 , L0007060 , L0007061 , L0007062 , L0007063 , L0007064 , L0007065 ,
L0007066 , L0007067 , L0007068 , L0007069 , L0007070 , L0007071 , L0007072 , L0007073 ,
L0007074 , L0007075 , L0007076 , L0007077 , L0007078 , L0007079 , L0007080 , L0007081 ,
L0007082 , L0007083 , L0007084 , L0007085 , L0007086 , L0007087 , L0007088 , L0007089 ,
L0007090 , L0007091 , L0007092 , L0007093 , L0007094 , L0007095 , L0007096 , L0007097 ,
L0007098 , L0007099 , L0007100 , L0007101 , L0007102 , L0007103 , L0007104 , L0007105 ,
L0007106 , L0007107 , L0007108 , L0007109 , L0007110 , L0007111 , L0007112 , L0007113 ,
L0007114 , L0007115 , L0007116 , L0007117 , L0007118 , L0007119 , L0007120 , L0007121 ,
L0007122 , L0007123 , L0007124 , L0007125 , L0007126 , L0007127 , L0007128 , L0007129 ,
L0007130 , L0007131 , L0007132 , L0007133 , L0007134 , L0007135 , L0007136 , L0007137 ,
L0007138 , L0007139 , L0007140 , L0007141 , L0007142 , L0007143 , L0007144 , L0007145 ,
L0007146 , L0007147 , L0007148 , L0007149 , L0007150 , L0007151 , L0007152 , L0007153 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2172 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised *** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 29
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINED AS URBAN SOURCES
***
URBAN ID URBAN POP SOURCE IDs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ L0007154 , L0007155 , L0007156 , L0007157 , L0007158 , L0007159 , L0007160 , L0007161 ,
L0007162 , L0007163 , L0007164 , L0007165 , L0007166 , L0007167 , L0007168 , L0007169 ,
L0007170 , L0007171 , L0007172 , L0007173 , L0007174 , L0007175 , L0007176 , L0007177 ,
L0007178 , L0007179 , L0007180 , L0007181 , L0007182 , L0007183 , L0007184 , L0007185 ,
L0007186 , L0007187 , L0007188 , L0007189 , L0007190 , L0007191 , L0007192 , L0007193 ,
L0007194 , L0007195 , L0007196 , L0007197 , L0007198 , L0007199 , L0007200 , L0007201 ,
L0007202 , L0007203 , L0007204 , L0007205 , L0007206 , L0007207 , L0007208 , L0007209 ,
L0007210 , L0007211 , L0007212 , L0007213 , L0007214 , L0007215 , L0007216 , L0007217 ,
L0007218 , L0007219 , L0007220 , L0007221 , L0007222 , L0007223 , L0007224 , L0007225 ,
L0007226 , L0007227 , L0007228 , L0007229 , L0007230 , L0007231 , L0007232 , L0007667 ,
L0007668 , L0007669 , L0007670 , L0007671 , L0007672 , L0007673 , L0007674 , L0007675 ,
L0007676 , L0007677 , L0007678 , L0007679 , L0007680 , L0007681 , L0007682 , L0007683 ,
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2173 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007684 , L0007685 , L0007686 , L0007687 , L0007688 , L0007689 , L0007690 , L0007691 ,
L0007692 , L0007693 , L0007694 , L0007695 , L0007696 , L0007697 , L0007698 , L0007699 ,
L0007700 , L0007701 , L0007702 , L0007703 , L0007704 , L0007705 , L0007706 , L0007707 ,
L0007708 , L0007709 , L0007710 , L0007711 , L0007712 , L0007713 , L0007714 , L0007715 ,
L0007716 , L0007717 , L0007718 , L0007719 , L0007720 , L0007721 , L0007722 , L0007723 ,
L0007724 , L0007725 , L0007726 , L0007727 , L0007728 , L0007729 , L0007730 , L0007731 ,
L0007732 , L0007733 , L0007734 , L0007735 , L0007736 , L0007737 , L0007738 , L0007739 ,
L0007740 , L0007741 , L0007742 , L0007743 , L0007744 , L0007745 , L0007746 , L0007747 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 30
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINED AS URBAN SOURCES
***
URBAN ID URBAN POP SOURCE IDs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ L0007748 , L0007749 , L0007750 , L0007751 , L0007752 , L0007753 , L0007754 , L0007755 ,
L0007322 , L0007323 , L0007324 , L0007325 , L0007326 , L0007327 , L0007328 , L0007329 ,
L0007330 , L0007331 , L0007332 , L0007333 , L0007334 , L0007335 , L0007336 , L0007337 ,
L0007338 , L0007339 , L0007340 , L0007341 , L0007342 , L0007343 , L0007344 , L0007345 ,
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2174 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised L0007346 , L0007347 , L0007348 , L0007349 , L0007350 , L0007351 , L0007352 , L0007353 ,
L0007354 , L0007355 , L0007356 , L0007357 , L0007358 , L0007359 , L0007360 , L0007361 ,
L0007362 , L0007363 , L0007364 , L0007365 , L0007366 , L0007367 , L0007368 , L0007369 ,
L0007370 , L0007371 , L0007372 , L0007373 , L0007374 , L0007375 , L0007376 , L0007377 ,
L0007378 , L0007379 , L0007380 , L0007381 , L0007382 , L0007383 , L0007384 , L0007385 ,
L0007386 , L0007387 , L0007388 , L0007389 , L0007390 , L0007391 , L0007392 , L0007393 ,
L0007394 , L0007395 , L0007396 , L0007397 , L0007398 , L0007399 , L0007400 , L0007401 ,
L0007402 , L0007403 , L0007404 , L0007405 , L0007406 , L0007407 , L0007408 , L0007409 ,
L0007410 , L0007411 , L0007412 , L0007413 , L0007414 , L0007415 , L0007416 , L0007417 ,
L0007418 , L0007419 , L0007420 , L0007421 , L0007422 , L0007423 , L0007424 , L0007425 ,
L0007426 , L0007427 , L0007428 , L0007429 , L0007430 , L0007431 , L0007432 ,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 31
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***
(X‐COORD, Y‐COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 485254.0, 3755508.6, 541.1, 541.1, 0.0); ( 485271.0, 3754588.9, 520.4, 520.4, 0.0);
( 484903.9, 3754588.9, 522.9, 522.9, 0.0); ( 484740.6, 3754586.3, 523.0, 523.0, 0.0);
( 484962.7, 3754583.6, 522.2, 522.2, 0.0); ( 484995.2, F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2175 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised 3754578.2, 522.1, 522.1, 0.0);
( 485061.1, 3754595.7, 522.4, 522.4, 0.0); ( 485081.6, 3754593.0, 522.0, 522.0, 0.0);
( 485193.0, 3754581.9, 521.0, 521.0, 0.0); ( 484823.6, 3754585.0, 523.3, 523.3, 0.0);
( 484884.8, 3754593.0, 523.0, 523.0, 0.0); ( 484798.7, 3754595.4, 523.6, 523.6, 0.0);
( 485166.1, 3754581.9, 521.2, 521.2, 0.0); ( 485167.3, 3755143.8, 533.9, 533.9, 0.0);
( 485005.8, 3755160.8, 535.5, 535.5, 0.0); ( 484254.1, 3755093.7, 536.2, 623.0, 0.0);
( 484513.4, 3755169.9, 537.8, 537.8, 0.0); ( 484084.6, 3755094.8, 535.3, 626.0, 0.0);
( 484819.3, 3755160.8, 537.3, 537.3, 0.0);
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 32
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR
PROCESSING ***
(1=YES; 0=NO)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
*** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED
CATEGORIES ***
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2176 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised (METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23,
10.80,
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 33
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL
DATA ***
Surface file: PERRISADJU\PERI_V9_ADJU\PERI_V9.SFC
Met Version: 16216
Profile file: PERRISADJU\PERI_V9_ADJU\PERI_V9.PFL
Surface format: FREE
Profile format: FREE
Surface station no.: 3171 Upper air station no.: 3190 Name: UNKNOWN Name: UNKNOWN
Year: 2010 Year: 2010 First 24 hours of scalar data
YR MO DY JDY HR H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS WD HT REF TA HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10 01 01 1 01 ‐7.9 0.125 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 106. 21.2 0.19 0.61
1.00 1.30 335. 9.1 282.5 5.5
10 01 01 1 02 ‐3.9 0.088 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 62. 15.1 0.19 0.61
1.00 0.90 142. 9.1 280.9 5.5
10 01 01 1 03 ‐3.9 0.088 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 62. 15.1 0.19 0.61
1.00 0.90 324. 9.1 280.4 5.5
10 01 01 1 04 ‐1.3 0.064 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 39. 18.3 0.19 0.61
1.00 0.40 294. 9.1 278.8 5.5
10 01 01 1 05 ‐3.9 0.088 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 62. 15.0 0.19 0.61
1.00 0.90 205. 9.1 278.1 5.5
10 01 01 1 06 ‐1.3 0.065 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 39. 18.3 0.19 0.61
1.00 0.40 3. 9.1 277.0 5.5
10 01 01 1 07 ‐8.0 0.125 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 106. 21.0 0.19 0.61
1.00 1.30 99. 9.1 277.0 5.5
10 01 01 1 08 ‐3.3 0.086 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 61. 16.8 0.19 0.61
0.54 0.90 319. 9.1 278.8 5.5
10 01 01 1 09 20.1 0.128 0.307 0.010 49. 110. ‐9.0 0.19 0.61 F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2177 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised
0.33 0.90 239. 9.1 284.2 5.5
10 01 01 1 10 56.7 0.087 0.560 0.010 107. 62. ‐1.0 0.19 0.61
0.26 0.40 188. 9.1 289.2 5.5
10 01 01 1 11 81.5 0.323 0.867 0.008 277. 441. ‐35.9 0.19 0.61
0.23 2.70 310. 9.1 290.9 5.5
10 01 01 1 12 97.1 0.281 1.058 0.008 421. 357. ‐19.7 0.19 0.61
0.22 2.20 357. 9.1 293.1 5.5
10 01 01 1 13 92.2 0.279 1.117 0.008 523. 354. ‐20.4 0.19 0.61
0.22 2.20 356. 9.1 293.8 5.5
10 01 01 1 14 77.6 0.275 1.102 0.008 595. 347. ‐23.2 0.19 0.61
0.23 2.20 50. 9.1 294.2 5.5
10 01 01 1 15 54.9 0.230 1.006 0.008 640. 266. ‐19.2 0.19 0.61
0.27 1.80 53. 9.1 293.8 5.5
10 01 01 1 16 12.3 0.206 0.613 0.008 648. 225. ‐61.5 0.19 0.61
0.36 1.80 11. 9.1 292.5 5.5
10 01 01 1 17 ‐3.6 0.087 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 71. 15.6 0.19 0.61
0.64 0.90 351. 9.1 290.4 5.5
10 01 01 1 18 ‐3.8 0.087 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 62. 15.2 0.19 0.61
1.00 0.90 186. 9.1 287.5 5.5
10 01 01 1 19 ‐3.8 0.087 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 62. 15.2 0.19 0.61
1.00 0.90 275. 9.1 285.9 5.5
10 01 01 1 20 ‐1.2 0.064 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 39. 18.1 0.19 0.61
1.00 0.40 181. 9.1 285.4 5.5
10 01 01 1 21 ‐7.8 0.125 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 106. 21.3 0.19 0.61
1.00 1.30 318. 9.1 284.9 5.5
10 01 01 1 22 ‐3.8 0.088 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 62. 15.1 0.19 0.61
1.00 0.90 196. 9.1 283.1 5.5
10 01 01 1 23 ‐3.8 0.088 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 62. 15.1 0.19 0.61
1.00 0.90 330. 9.1 281.4 5.5
10 01 01 1 24 ‐7.9 0.125 ‐9.000 ‐9.000 ‐999. 106. 21.2 0.19 0.61
1.00 1.30 332. 9.1 280.9 5.5
First hour of profile data
YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F WDIR WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA sigmaW sigmaV 10 01 01 01 5.5 0 ‐999. ‐99.00 282.6 99.0 ‐99.00 ‐99.00 10 01 01 01 9.1 1 335. 1.30 ‐999.0 99.0 ‐99.00 ‐99.00 F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0)
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 34
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** THE ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0006618 , L0006619
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2178 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised , L0006620 , L0006621 , L0006622 ,
L0006623 , L0006624 , L0006625 , L0006626 , L0006627 , L0006628 , L0006629 , L0006630 ,
L0006631 , L0006632 , L0006633 , L0006634 , L0006635 , L0006636 , L0006637 , L0006638 ,
L0006639 , L0006640 , L0006641 , L0006642 , L0006643 , L0006644 , L0006645 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC X‐COORD (M) Y‐COORD (M) CONC
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
485254.01 3755508.63 0.00193 485270.99 3754588.87 0.00384
484903.88 3754588.87 0.00265 484740.57 3754586.26 0.00206
484962.67 3754583.65 0.00280 484995.17 3754578.23 0.00285
485061.11 3754595.73 0.00322 485081.62 3754593.03 0.00325
485192.97 3754581.93 0.00345 484823.61 3754584.96 0.00234
484884.84 3754593.03 0.00262 484798.72 3754595.39 0.00233
485166.06 3754581.93 0.00337 485167.27 3755143.75 0.00703
485005.78 3755160.81 0.00597 484254.07 3755093.71 0.00343
484513.36 3755169.91 0.00245 484084.62 3755094.85 0.00197
484819.28 3755160.81 0.00468
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 35
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL RESULTS
AVERAGED OVER 5 YEARS ***
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2179 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised ** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
NETWORK
GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID‐ID
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00703 AT ( 485167.27, 3755143.75, 533.91, 533.91, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00597 AT ( 485005.78, 3755160.81, 535.48, 535.48, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00468 AT ( 484819.28, 3755160.81, 537.33, 537.33, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00384 AT ( 485270.99, 3754588.87, 520.42, 520.42, 0.00) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00345 AT ( 485192.97, 3754581.93, 521.04, 521.04, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00343 AT ( 484254.07, 3755093.71, 536.24, 623.00, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00337 AT ( 485166.06, 3754581.93, 521.19, 521.19, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00325 AT ( 485081.62, 3754593.03, 521.98, 521.98, 0.00) DC
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00322 AT ( 485061.11, 3754595.73, 522.41, 522.41, 0.00) DC
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00285 AT ( 484995.17, 3754578.23, 522.06, 522.06, 0.00) DC
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
*** AERMOD ‐ VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\LAKES\AERMOD VIEW\12974 FC\12974 FC.ISC *** 04/05/22
*** AERMET ‐ VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 17:23:11
PAGE 36
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV URBAN ADJ_U*
*** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution ***
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Summary of Total Messages ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 4 Warning Message(s)
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2180 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised A Total of 2028 Informational Message(s)
A Total of 43824 Hours Were Processed
A Total of 978 Calm Hours Identified
A Total of 1050 Missing Hours Identified ( 2.40 Percent)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
ME W186 1736 MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1‐min ASOS wind speed threshold used
0.50 ME W187 1736 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET
MX W450 17521 CHKDAT: Record Out of Sequence in Meteorological File at:
14010101
MX W450 17521 CHKDAT: Record Out of Sequence in Meteorological File at:
2 year gap
************************************
*** AERMOD Finishes Successfully ***
************************************
F.2.q
Packet Pg. 2181 Attachment: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Evaluation (E-Commerce) for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2182 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2183 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2184 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2185 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2186 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2187 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2188 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2189 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2190 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2191 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2192 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.r
Packet Pg. 2193 Attachment: Warehouse Noise Summary for Moreno Valley Trade Center - Revised Project Evaluation (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100) AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100) AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100) AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100) AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100) AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100) AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100) AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100) AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)
AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)
AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100) AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)
AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)
AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)
AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)
AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)
AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100)AeccDbFeatureLine (AeccLand100) MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL PER COMMUNITY SERVICES STANDARDS MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL PER COMMUNITY SERVICES STANDARDS DECORATIVE PAVING DECORATIVE PAVING DECORATIVE PAVING DECORATIVE PAVING utility information vicinity map PROPOSED SITE tabulation site plan general notes site legend site plan keynotes N.T.S. fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue - ste. #100 hpa, inc. Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: - Thienes Engineering Moreno Valley, CA 9255119137JC TRADE CENTER10/03/19 MORENO VALLEY EUCALYPTUS AVE. Eucalytus Avenue ----- Hunter Landscape AND REDLANDS BLVD. 901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175 Ontario, CA 91764 tel: (909) 382-0033 fax: (909) 382-0073 PEN19-0193 OPTION 1overall site plan DAB A1.1 project information descriptions Existing legal F.2.s
Packet Pg. 2194
Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue - ste. #100 hpa, inc. Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: - Thienes Engineering Moreno Valley, CA 9255119137JC TRADE CENTER10/03/19 MORENO VALLEY EUCALYPTUS AVE. Eucalytus Avenue ----- Hunter Landscape AND REDLANDS BLVD. 901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175 Ontario, CA 91764 tel: (909) 382-0033 fax: (909) 382-0073 PEN19-0193 OPTION 1truck turn plan DAB A1.1T F.2.s Packet Pg. 2195
Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue - ste. #100 hpa, inc. Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: - Thienes Engineering Moreno Valley, CA 9255119137JC TRADE CENTER10/03/19 MORENO VALLEY MA G N N O Y L I C E N S E D A R C H I T E C TS T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 EUCALYPTUS AVE. Eucalytus Avenue ----- Hunter Landscape AND REDLANDS BLVD. 901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175 Ontario, CA 91764 tel: (909) 382-0033 fax: (909) 382-0073 PEN19-0193 OPTION 1 -';016'5Ä(.1142.#0 )'0'4#.016'5Ä(.1142.#0 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN DAB-A2.1 F.2.s Packet Pg. 2196
Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue - ste. #100 hpa, inc. Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection:
- Thienes Engineering
Moreno Valley, CA 9255119137JC TRADE CENTER10/03/19 MORENO VALLEY MA
G
N
N O Y
L I C E N S
E
D
A
R
C
H
I T E C T
S T A T E
O
F
C
A
L I F O R N I A DATE RENEWAL 3-31-23 C-29451 EUCALYPTUS AVE. Eucalytus Avenue ----- Hunter Landscape AND REDLANDS BLVD. 901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175 Ontario, CA 91764 tel: (909) 382-0033 fax: (909) 382-0073 PEN19-0193 OPTION 1 Elevations DAB-A3.1 -';016'5Ä'.'8#6+105 )'0'4#.016'5Ä'.'8#6+105 %1.145%*'&Ä'.'8#6+105 ).#<+0).')'0& 2#+06#0&/#6'4+#..')'0& F.2.s Packet Pg. 2197
Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.s
Packet Pg. 2198 Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue - ste. #100 hpa, inc. Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: - Thienes Engineering Moreno Valley, CA 9255119137JC TRADE CENTER10/03/19 MORENO VALLEY EUCALYPTUS AVE. Eucalytus Avenue ----- Hunter Landscape AND REDLANDS BLVD. 901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175 Ontario, CA 91764 tel: (909) 382-0033 fax: (909) 382-0073 PEN19-0193 OPTION 1 SCREENWALL ELEVATION DAB-A3.3 -';/#2 F.2.s Packet Pg. 2199
Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.s
Packet Pg. 2200 Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.s
Packet Pg. 2201 Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.s
Packet Pg. 2202 Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.s
Packet Pg. 2203
Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.s
Packet Pg. 2204
Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.s
Packet Pg. 2205 Attachment: Site, Elevation, and Landscape Plans (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2206
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2207
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2208
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2209
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2210
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2211
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2212
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2213
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2214
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2215
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2216
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2217
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2218
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.t
Packet Pg. 2219
Attachment: Preliminary Grading Plan (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.u
Packet Pg. 2220
Attachment: Tentative Parcel Map 37836 (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) F.2.u
Packet Pg. 2221
Attachment: Tentative Parcel Map 37836 (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Tammie Ferem
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:00 PM
To: Mike Lee; michelep@moval; Patty Nevins; [email protected]; Victoria Baca; David Martinez; Ulises Cabrera; [email protected]
Subject: Apposition of the rezoning for the Moreno Valley Center.
Warning: External Email- Watch for Email Red Flags!
https :// ceg an et.op r. ca.gov / 2020039038/ 2
Re: The above Property SCH#
We attended a meeting that Councilman David Marquez informed us of on September 19, 2020 letting us know what was intended for the land directly in our backyard.
We are vehemently opposed to the changing of the zoning of the land for this project from Residential or General Land Use of the 71.85 acre site to Light Industrial.
Which is an extremely bogus statement because a building of 1,332,380 square feet is not Light industrial but rather Major Industrial.
We live in the subdivision directly South and across the street from where this Light Industrial Building is to be built. This is literally in our backyard!! I We moved here in 1994 when Kaufman and Broad developed homes in the area. We were always told that another subdivision of homes would be going in some day across the street not an industrial building.
We are opposed to the noise that a building of this kind would create possibly during all hours of the night as does the Paper Factory down on Eucalyptus.
We oppose the massive amount of traffic that it would bring to our quiet neighborhood, jeopardizing the children that play on our streets.
We oppose the taking of our beautiful view of the mountains, which we moved here for.
We are most concerned about what this change would do to the property value of our home here in Rancho Bellago California.
Please find another area for your "Light Industrial Building".
Tammie and John Ferem
28810 Strauss Lane
Moreno Valley, Ca. 92555
F.2.v
Packet Pg. 2222 Attachment: Planning Commission - Public Comments Packet (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Nelly Meza
28604 Strauss Ln.
Moreno Valley, CA 92555
951.203.5034
Nelly [email protected]
September 23, 2020
Economic Development Team
14177 Frederick St.
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
Dear Council Members and Economic Development Team:
My name is Nelly Meza, and I am a member of Valley Springs Homeowners Association. I am writing today to ask you reconsider the proposal for the Moreno Valley Trade Center. I ask that you deny any request to rezone the property and keep as residential.
The impact this project will have on my community and family are substantial. So many health risks, such as respiratory health, increase in cancer and cardiovascular health, neurological health, and mental health are upon the several risk factors we will be faced with if this project moves forward. The chemicals in building products are an overlooked harm and are beyond the control of the community it impacts. These materials contain chemical toxicants that are harmful to human health. I am in fear for the wellbeing of my community and family. It is your responsibility to help protect everyone's health.
As we move into the new normal of having classroom within our homes, it has been proven that children with high background noise perform lower. This project is feet away from my front door, the noise will impact the education of the three students I have at home. The noise from the commercial buildings On Eucalyptus and Redlands Blvd are already impactful to our wellbeing. We are forced to keep windows shut in order to have peace, otherwise it feels as we a re actively involved in loading/unloading commercial trucks.
Thank you in advance for considering our request. I know that with your help we can prevent the proposal from moving forward.
Sincerely,
Nelly Meza
References:
https://www.env-health.org
F.2.v
Packet Pg. 2223 Attachment: Planning Commission - Public Comments Packet (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) ----------------------------------------- From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
James Hagen <[email protected]>
Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:50 AM
Mike Lee; Michele Patterson; Patty Nevins; [email protected]; Victoria Baca; Dr. Carla J.
Thornton; [email protected]; Dawn DuRocher
No Warehouse up against residential property
[warning: External E~;il - Wa!c~ for-E~ail Red ~l~~s!J
I am a homeowner in the Rancho Belago area.
It has come to my attention that land at Redlands/Eucalyptus is up for a zone change for purposes of the proposed Moreno Valley Trade Center. I want the zoning to remain residential. It has also come to my attention Adam's Nursery, who stands to make a lot of money from the sale of his land to the developer, is making political contributions to you for your support of the zone change for the proposed Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This is not okay.
I have lived in the Rancho Belago area for many years. I chose this newer upscale area Moreno Valley for its new stores, shopping centers and homes - not for a potential zone changing and warehouses. I am not the only homeowner upset and disappointed in what is going on in our community.
Please reconsider your position on the zone change. Please allow the land to remain residential and protect our community. No warehouses
1 F.2.v
Packet Pg. 2224 Attachment: Planning Commission - Public Comments Packet (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Joe Bunker
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:52 AM
To: Mike Lee; Michele Patterson ; Patty Nevins
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Warning: External Email- Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Community Development Team,
I am a 45 year resident of Moreno Valley currently living near this proposed project. Why would you even consider this project and the negative impact it will have on us as residents on a property currently zoned like ours and right next door? Doesn't Moreno Valley have enough warehouses already? As it is we have to live with the World Logistics Center coming at us. I thought your job was to oversee development in our community for the good of everyone? Thank you in advance for your response,
Joe Bunker
F.2.v
Packet Pg. 2225 Attachment: Planning Commission - Public Comments Packet (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mr. Gutierrez,
Denny Bunker <[email protected]>
Monday, September 21, 2020 6:31 PM
[email protected]
Victoria Baca; Dr. Carla J. Thornton; David Martinez; Ulises Cabrera; Mike Lee; Michele Patterson; Patty Nevins; Janae Bunker
Moreno Valley Trade Center
I have been a resident of Moreno Valley since 1980 and I currently live directly across the street from the site of this proposed project.
I-have lived in this location for approximately 14 years and have seen a lot of changes in this area during that time.
My question to you is, how would you like to have a giant concrete building built across the street from your house.
Not only does it block your entire view, now your family has to listen to trucks driving in and out all day and night, as well as breathing in all of the exhaust from the trucks.
Does that sound like a good environment for your kids to grow up in? Of course it doesn't.
I regret to say that I voted for you in the last election. I would NOT have had I known that you would later sell out me and everyone else that lives in this area.
It should be illegal for you and your city council members to make a decision like this without having to be accountable to the people that it really affects.
Even though it may not be illegal, it certainly is shameful. You and anyone else that wants this project will not be getting my support in the future.
This project will not make this city better. It will bring only low paying jobs, pollution, and unwanted traffic.
Please respond and let me know why you think this is good for the City of Moreno Valley.
Denny.
951-662-5115
1 F.2.v
Packet Pg. 2226 Attachment: Planning Commission - Public Comments Packet (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Dawn M DuRocher
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 10:31 AM
To: Mike Lee; Patty Nevins; Michele Patterson; Victoria Baca; [email protected]; Dr. Carla J. Thornton ; [email protected]
Subject: Proposed Zone Change for the Moreno Valley Trade Center Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am a homeowner in the Rancho Belago area. I live in the neighborhood across from the proposed zone change for the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
I discovered the land at Redlands/Encelia/Eucalyptus is up for a zone change for purposes of the proposed Moreno Valley Trade Center. I also discovered Adam's Nursery, who stands to make a lot of money from the sale of its land to the developer, is making political contributions to you for your support of the zone change for the proposed Moreno Valley Trade Center. I am appalled by the proposed zone change to accommodate even more warehouses.
I am against the proposed zone change. As a resident of this area, I am very concerned. This is my home. This is my community. I love my neighborhood. This is where I plan to live for many years to come. Don't let money talk. Think of our community. Stop the zone change. I fear this will have a negative impact, destroy our neighborhood's peace and tranquility, and greatly decrease the value of our homes.
I respectfully ask that you reconsider your position on the zone change. Please allow the land to remain residential and protect our community.
Dawn DuRocher
1 F.2.v
Packet Pg. 2227 Attachment: Planning Commission - Public Comments Packet (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Charles Ober
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 3:04 PM
To: Patty Nevins
Subject: Zoning Changes
Warning: External Email- Watch for Email Red Flags!
Mr. Mancha
I am writing you as our community development director, regarding a proposed zone change for the property at the southwest corner of Eucalyptus Ave and Redlands Blvd.
I understand that there is a proposal to change the residential zoning to industrial to permit the building of a 1,332,380 square foot warehouse.
I am a resident and home owner of district 3 Moreno Valley, I live less then a mile from this proposed project.
I want to make sure that you understand my position on this proposed zoning change. I AM 100% OPPOSED TO THIS CHANGE AND PROJECT.
Let me be clear,, at that intersection, across the street they are already building another massive industrial complex. Also a few feet down, they will eventually have the World Logistic Center. WE DO NOT NEED MORE CONGESTION, POLLUTION AND TRAFFIC!
I have heard from neighbors that live near Solaris Paper; that apparently the city did not perform due diligence to protect the local residence that live near them. I am told that the noise from the paper shredding machines disturb their sleep at night. If you have not heard from them, I am certain you will soon.
Finally, I know the city is trying to develop business and jobs for the City of Moreno Valley and that is great; BUT warehouses bring a low density of jobs per square foot of building.
We need more businesses that bring MORE jobs.
Do not permit the proposed zone change.
Charles A. Ober
[email protected]
1 F.2.v
Packet Pg. 2228 Attachment: Planning Commission - Public Comments Packet (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) ------- Original message --------
From: "Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez" <[email protected]>
Date: 9/24/20 9:01 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Charles Ober <caober4822l@,vahoo.com>
Cc: Mike Lee <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Zoning Changes
Good Evening Charles,
First, thank you for reaching out to me and of course for your support in the past elections. I appreciate you voicing your concerns and letting me know how you feel about this proposed project.
To clarify, no zone change has been approved nor the project.
The project proposal has not come to planning commission which would be the first step. If the item is denied or approved by the Planning Commission, either party can appeal to the City Council where they would hear the item. I don't anticipate the Planning Commission hearing this item until March or so. I would also encourage residents to email the staff and they provide an initial recommendation to the planning commission:
Mike Lee [email protected]
Marshall Eyerman [email protected] and [email protected] I have CC'd Mike Lee to this email so he can be aware of your concerns.
Again, I do appreciate you reaching out to me and voicing your concerns. If it does go to Planning Commission, I would encourage you to keep in contact with me at that time but also voice your concerns to the Planning Commissioners as well.
Kindest regards,
Yxstian
Dr. Yxstian Gutierrez
Mayor
City of Moreno Valley
Phone: 951.413 .3008
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez
Mayor
City Council
City of Moreno Valley
p: 951 .413.3008 I e: yxsti.-inc:@moval.ory w: v.ww.mo11:1I.Q.UI 14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley, CA 92553
l
F.2.v
Packet Pg. 2229 Attachment: Planning Commission - Public Comments Packet (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) On Sep 24, 2020, at 3:21 PM, Charles Ober <[email protected]> wrote:
Warning: External Email- Watch for Email Red Flags!
Mayor Gutierrez
I am writing you as our mayor, regarding a proposed
zone change for the property at the southwest corner of Eucalyptus Ave and Redlands Blvd. In previous elections I have voted for you, in the belief as our mayor the city has been very well run; but the warehouse issues are another matter.
I understand that there is a proposal to change the residential zoning to industrial to permit the building of a 1,332,380 square foot warehouse.
I am a resident and home owner of district 3 Moreno Valley, I live less then a mile from this proposed project.
I want to make sure that you understand my position on this proposed zoning change. I AM 100% OPPOSED TO THIS CHANGE AND PROJECT.
Let me be clear,, at that intersection, across the street they are already building another massive industrial complex. Also a few feet down, they will eventually have the World Logistic Center. WE DO NOT NEED MORE CONGESTION, POLLUTION AND TRAFFIC!
I have heard from neighbors that live near Solaris Paper; that apparently the city did not perform due diligence to protect the local residence that live near them. I am told that the noise from the paper shredding machines disturb their sleep at night. If you have not heard from them, I am certain you will soon.
Finally, I know the city is trying to develop business and jobs for the City of Moreno Valley and that is great; BUT warehouses bring a low density of jobs per square foot of building.
We need more businesses that bring MORE jobs.
Do not permit the proposed zone change.
Charles A. Ober
[email protected]
2 F.2.v
Packet Pg. 2230 Attachment: Planning Commission - Public Comments Packet (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Crys Tom <[email protected]>
Friday, December 4, 2020 8:52 PM
Gabriel Diaz
Trade Center
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
To Whom It May Concern,
The East side of Moreno Valley has already witnessed its share of warehouses and its purported beautification of our streets-the Rancho Belago signs and the signal lights are lovely. Aldi, Sketchers, Solaris Paper, The World Logistics Center. Now you want to add The Moreno Valley Trade Center right across the street from our homes? So we won't need landscape lighting is that it? Or so we can eat at these pop up food vendors that will pitch their tents in the field across the street all hours of the night? Funny how these make shift eateries can peddle their food but established restaurants that actually pay property taxes are forced to abide by the new Covid standards. The new apartment complex is going to flood our streets with traffic on Moreno Beach Drive. Now you want to flood it on Redlands Blvd with not only cars, but diesels as well? When will it end? Why don't you spare us and demolish all our homes and make the whole East side a big warehouse district like Los Angeles. Because we all know how beautiful that area is. I have been told many times by different school bus drivers how quiet our neighborhood is. I guess those days are gone.
You are leaving the residents of my once quiet and peaceful area no choice but to sell our homes and move. I can't see paying $9500 annually in property tax to live next to a bunch of warehouses. Very disappointed. Rezoning is not what this area ne!!ds.
1 F.2.v
Packet Pg. 2231 Attachment: Planning Commission - Public Comments Packet (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Catherine Kelley < [email protected] >
Sunday, November 21, 2021 9:22 PM
Gabriel Diaz
please no more warehouses!
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email -Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am writing as a long-time resident of Moreno Valley. My family has lived here since 1972, and we have seen gargantuan growth since then and the decimation of beautiful fields and orange groves with warehouses and strip malls.
Please have sympathy for those of us who want to continue living here. Please do not force more warehouses on us and please consider stopping most building projects. Don't we have enough buildings already? I would also like to ask that no more housing tracts be built. The city is already too crowded and our fields are home to wild animals who also need to live.
Thank you.
Catherine Kelley
Virus-free. www.avast.com
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2232 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
TOM HYATT <[email protected]>
Saturday, June 11, 2022 7:36 PM
Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher
MVTC and Truck Stop
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
This is to be shared at the council meeting if appropriate:
As an affected resident on Wexford Avenue with a family, I am opposed to this horrible project(s). Zoning shenanigans by the City enabled this bad project near our residential neighborhood that was zoned for 1/2 acre homes. Diesel pollution and truck traffic will be horrible. The round about was designed ooorly to accommodate so much truck traffic and was constructed way too small. I see trucks hopping the curb all the time to navigate the round about. It was done on a cheap budget and will be destroyed before you know it. The proposed changes the MVTC plan to eliminate traffic on to Encelia do not address the pollution!
Thank you,
Tom Hyatt
Wexford Avenue resident
Sent from my iPhone
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2233 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
To whom it may concern:
Walter Fus <[email protected]>
Saturday, June 11, 2022 8:25 PM
Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Dr. Yxstian A.
Gutierrez; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher
City Clerk
Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) warehouse
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
I have been a resident of Moreno Valley since 1977. I served as a pilot at March and Norton Air Force Bases until retirement. My wife worked as a teacher in Moreno Valley for 30 years until she retired. We have seen many changes in the valley over the years, some good and some bad. The approval of the MVTC warehouse would be the most egregious decision this council could ever make. The negative impacts on our city would be overwhelming and the positive results are minimal. As you are all well aware, our air, the condition of our roads, and our traffic conditions would become impossible to manage effectively. Also, since all of those trucks will need diesel fuel, the land where a truck stop would be built will be negatively impacted as well. If you were to approve this proposal at your meeting of 6/21, it would show an obvious lack of respect or caring for our community. This land was zoned for residences and it should remain so.
Lt. Col. Walter Fus, retired
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2234 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi,
Jeff Sims <[email protected]>
Monday, June 13, 2022 11 :27 AM
Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; [email protected]; Ulises Cabrera; Dr.
Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Sean P. Kelleher; Gabriel Diaz; City Clerk Comment Letter - MVTC (Appeal PAA21-0001)
06 11 22 Letter to Council.pdf; LAFCO MSR (MV portion).pdf Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
Attached for your review is a letter and attachment regarding the upcoming June 21 appeal hearing for the MVTC.
I apologize in advance for its length (5 pages) but I have written it absent much technical jargon. It should be a fairly quick read.
As one of your current appointed Planning Commissioners I voted no against this project and continue to believe that was a good decision. For full transparency I do live in the neighborhood directly adjacent to this project and confirmed with the City Attorney my eligibility to vote. I was very careful in the time leading up to the project going before Planning Commission on October 28, 2021 to avoid any actions that would compromise my ability to vote.
Likely supporters of the project call me hypocritical for voting no on this project as I have voted yes on most similar projects, including the World Logistic Center. The WLC when built will have impacts to the immediate area and affect traffic on a widespread basis. I voted yes though because WLC if built as approved has a plan to minimize impacts on the existing residential neighborhoods. Other warehouse/logistic projects I have voted yes on were either on property already zoned for the use, or not located directly adjacent residential. For example I voted yes on a warehouse on old 215 near the American Legion because 1) the land was zoned for that use, and 2) the existing residential adjacent thereto is consider a legal but non-conforming land use.
MVTC requires you to approve a putting an incompatible land use directly next to existing residential, and amend your recently approved General Plan Update.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to reading and considering this letter in your decisionmaking. If you'd like to discuss I can be contacted via email at this address or by phone at 951.809.3308.
Jeff Sims
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2235 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Moreno Valley
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Appeal PAA21-0001
June 11, 1022
The Moreno Valley Trade Center ("MVTC") was considered by your appointed Planning Commission on October 28, 2021 and unanimously denied entitlement approvals. On December 7, 2021 the Planning Commission's denial was appealed to this Council. After considerable input by interested stakeholders, Councrl Members deliberated. Deliberations appeared to be headed in a direction where three Council Members were in favor of upholding the Planning Commission's decision of entitlement denial. Mayor Gutierrez acknowledged this with his dellberatlve statement "It doesn't appear there is support for the project," and instead of calling for the vote, motioned for a continuance, which was approved.
Apparently, the continuance was to give the developer of the proposed MVTC time to address input heard at the Planning Commission and City Council Meeting.
Of note the developer heard the concerns and objections regarding the project at the Planning Commission Hearing where it was unanimously denied-but cavalierly a month later at the City Council Appeal Hearing addressed none of the concerns. A person could go down many paths on why. But an obvious non-controversial reason Is Hlllwood's motivation is profit driven with little to no concern of the impacts on the city, and especially for the existing residential neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed MVTC. Hillwood wants the project entitled to achieve their goal of maximizing profit.
What were some ofthe main concerns and objections raised regarding the MVTC?
1. Incompatible Land Use - The proposed MVTC land use is not consistent with the recent City of Moreno Valley General Plan Update. The General Plan Update indicates R-2 zoning for the property where the MVTC is proposed. The General Plan Update process and the entitlement review process for the proposed MVTC was happening concurrently over a two-year time frame.
It Is hard to believe city planning staff, city leadership, including the Council was not aware of the proposed MVTC during the processing of the General Plan Update. Why have an approved General Plan and not honor it? The General Plan process considered the need to retain compatible land uses adjacent one another and appropriately retained a residential land use adjacent the existing half and third acre residential lots directly adjacent to the proposed MVTC.
Your Planning Commission recognized the incompatibility of land uses and denied the MVTC entitlements for consistency with guidance of the City's General Plan as approved by this Council.
1. Traffic - MVTC proposed for maximization of their project functionality as a warehouse/distribution use to dump thousands of daily employee passenger car trips onto Encelia Avenue. Encelia Avenue is a residential street and one of the two main access points into the large existing rural residential area. The Developer indicated at hearings "they tried 1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2236 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) everything they could to mitigate, but the design as proposed was necessary so truck traffic in and out of their proposed project would not interface with their employee ingress and egress." Their proposed solution to the problem they are creating is to make it a forever problem on the existing neighborhood.
3. Air Pollution -Although I am a registered civil engineer, I am not technically versed in the details of air pollution. But it does not take an engineering degree to know regardless of what study says what, when thousands of daily car and truck trips are introduced Into an area where they previously were not, there will be a significant and immediate increase in air pollution in the vicinity. Hillwood in hopes to placate nearest residents offers band aid mitigation •..•. ask yourself, would I want that air pollution right next to my house so you and your family breathe it in 24/7- 365 for as long as you live there7
4. Noise Pollution- Like with air pollution, it does not take an engineering degree to know regardless of what .study .says what, when thousands of daily car and truck trips are introduced into an area where they prev1ously were not, there will be a significant and immediate increase in noise pollution In the vicinity. Hillwood in hopes to placate nearest residents offers same band aid mitisation ..... ask yourself, would I want that right next to my house? District 4 Councilmember cabrera during the appeal hearing stated his first-hand experience about noise Impacts from logistic/warehouse use near his home and indicated it was noticeable. There will be increased noise pollution happening all hours of every day.
It is my understanding MVTC representatives have made some modifications to the proposed project in advance of the June 21, 2022 appeal hearing. An area resident who has been in contact with Hillwood and reported Hillwood has shown plans with the building footprint reduced by 65,000 5F and redesigned the parking and access to eliminate traffic, both truck and employee, to and from Encelia Avenue. The updated proposal shows a large berm and drainage detention facility proposed along Encelia Avenue.
Eliminating traffic from the proposed MVTC to Encelia Avenue addresses some of the invasive, obtrusive, and irreparable harm the initial MVTC design would have on the adjacent neighborhood. As previously proposed several thousand passenger car equivalents would be generated by the project of which many would over time find their way through the neighborhood to avoid traffic congestion on Redlands Blvd. But this is just one part of the traffic harm created by the proposed MVTC.
For those of us who drive Redlands Blvd. daily to gain access to the 60 Freeway know the roundabout is challenging now in peak periods caused by the existing traffic. You don't have to be .i traffic engineer to know this will be exacerbated with the addition of the proposed MVTC. This problem will remain for decades until the Redlands/60 interchange is upgraded. I say decades because as a resident of the City of Moreno Valley living in the east end since 1994, I've seen how long the Moreno Beach interchange has taken to be improved, and it's still not done. The city is getting the cart in front ot'the horse approving major truck and traffic producing projecu where supporting road infrastructure is obviously deficient. The Redlands Blvd/60 interchange is deficient for more truck traffic and addition of the proposed MVTC will further degrade the quality of life of area resident's dependent on this interchange.
The daily drive in and out of Moreno Valley is already horrible. For example, I live off Redlands Blvd. just south of the 60 and work 17 miles away in Jurupa Valley. Everyday going to work I get the 60/215/91 experience. It regularly takes a minimum of 45 minutes leaving the house at 6:15 am to get to work. 2 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2237 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Coming home the traffic is worse and the same drive lengthens to 60 plus minutes. Absent an improved Redlands/60 interchange this project will add more time lost to sitting and slogging through added traffic congestion trying to get off 60 at Redlands and navigating through the roundabout. I am sure most, if not all, of the area resident who commute to work agree the proposed MVTC will degrade an already bad situation.
Attached is the Moreno Valley portion of the draft LAFCO Municipal Services Report. As you know LAFCO Is an unbiased governmental entity to monitor services provided by various municipalities within Riverside County. There are some interesting findings in this that you as elected leaders of this city should be mindful of:
1. The medjan household income in Moreno Valley is lower than the rest of the county of RiVel'Side
2. Moreno Valley's population grew slowly during the last decade at just 0.77%
3. Population growth over the next 15-25 years is not expected to keep up with county-wide growth rates
4. The City's land use profile "is disproportionately skewed towards industrial development with almost 75% of the City's commercial square footage designed for industrial users"
5. Largest employers are distribution centers
6. The City will not meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment 6th cycle (RHNA) in all income categories.
7. FY 2018/19 revenues= $171 M FY 18/19 expenses= $149 M
8. Major sources of income:
a. Property tax
b. Sales tax
c. Property tax in lieu of vehicle licensing fee
d. Utility tax
Supporters of large box distribution/logistic facllltles tout alleged benefits of "job creation", Increased ability to work near home, and "living wages". If this is true, why is the median income in Moreno Valley lower than the rest of the County of River~idei' Why is our population growth slow and expected to stay slow? Perhaps it Is because in truth, logistic/distribution jobs don't pay living wages sufficient to own and buy a home. Also, perhaps the word on the street now is Moreno Valley ls becoming an unattractive place to live and raise a family because of the disproportionately skewed land use of industrial development that creates traffic congestion, difficulty to get in and out of Moreno Valley, low paying jobs, and added air and noise pollution.
You Just approved the City's General Plan with this property planned for residential. At a minimum even if you can somehow find a way to justify the benefit c1f the proposed MVTC over the irreparable harm to the area residents, an approval in land use change from residential to industrial shows continued disregard by the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) metrics. Perhaps a more appropriate use for the property is a rezone from R-2 to residential zoning proposing a transition of R-2 along Encelia Avenue to apartments/PUD along Eucalyptus. At least there would be a buffer for the existing residential use with compatible uses. Under this scenario, people moving there would do so acknowledging/accepting the surrounding existing land uses; And with tran:sltional residential with higher densities, the city could indicate progress towards meeting RHNA metrics by providing more opportunity for affordable housing consistent with Moreno Valley incomes. 3 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2238 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) I urge the Council to not approve the MVfC. The area residents don't deserve their quality of life degraded by an out-of-town developer looking to make buck. We all know the city likes added tax increment revenues from development. Once this property is built the property tax increment will see a large increase (over current) that will remain fairly static as future property tax increment Increases are constrained by Prop 13 legislation. Other land uses could be built on this property and increase city property tax increment revenue in similar manner and if built as residential the added population will live, shop, and spend rn Moreno Valley. This would generate increased sales tax revenue and more utility tax revenue.
Saying no is hard especially on projects supported by entities sud! as LIUNA. LIUNA focuses on doing a good Job to keep their dues paying members employed. But how many of those LIUNA represented members live in Moreno Valley? And after a LIUNA project is built, LIUNA representatives will be at the next Planning Commission and Council Meeting In whatever town the next project is proposed. I certainly understand it takes quite an undertaking to get elected and re-elected. My hat off to all of you seeking office with the goal of doing good for those you seek to represent. It takes backing and money to get exposure. Maybe It's a bit na·1ve on my part, but it would be nice for those seeking elected office to remember the people who live, shop, and spend in Moreno Valley are the ones who are most impacted by the consequences of their decisions. Out-of-town and special interest campaign contributors who help with local city elections won't live with the negative impacts of the projects they seek appro11al. In the most recent Council District vote the win was not by significant margin which may be indicia people are taking note of the policies and stances of people seeking elected office here in Moreno Valley. As traffic in and out of Moreno Valley gets worse and neighborhoods are impacted by traffic, noise, and air pollution from these warehouse projects it is highly likely there will be lesssuppol't for leader.;hip who supports approving them.
Many cities are starting to push back on warehouse/logistics project being approved. With what Moreno Valley has already approved in this land use waiting to be built (World Logistics Center) perhaps tapping the brakes a bit would not be a bad decision.
In the event the Council makes findings and justifications indicating the proposed MVfC has more benefit to the city than harm despite Its Planning Commission denial and significant area opposition, it is requested Council consider the proposed MVTC be conditioned with the following:
1. An Irrevocable deed restriction or some other legally sufficient mechanism on the property forever disallowing any project traffic onto Encelia Avenue. The only exceptions would beaccess for emergency by Fire or Police, and if the property In the distant future was redeveloped into residential.
2. Addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of Redlands and Dracaea.
3. Full improvement of the west side of Redlands Blvd. between Encelia and Dracaea. It is anticipated the proposed MVTC is already conditioned to fully improve Redlands Blvd. along its frontage between Eucalyptus and Encelia and provide for adequate transition from full improvement on Redlands for southbound traffic to existing two lane roadway on Redlands between Encelia and Dracaea. This would complete Redlands Blvd. between Eucalyptus and Cottonwood and be an incremental add to the project conditions.
Items 2 & 3 are needed to provide area resident with easier access to Redlands Blvd. and ability to leave the area via Cottonwood to Moreno Beach or Alessandro to avoid congestion at the roundabout and unimproved GO/Redlands interchange. Instead of the Developer proposing to fund road improvements 4 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2239 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) in other areas of the city, this funding could be used to make these improvements to benefit those directly Impacted. To provide some equity to the proposed MVTC developer, the developer and the City could enter into a reimbursement agreement where MVTC would be reimbursed some proportionate amount from other developer5 within an identified Benefit Area who benefit from Redlands Blvd. street improvements. For example, there i$ undeveloped property along the west side of Redlands Blvd. between Encelia and Dracaea. The future developer of this property would likely be conditioned to build out this improvement if not already built. It would seem reasonable this developer would be required to contribute a proportionate share of the expense paid by MVTC for making the improvement.
As a Planning Commissioner I have participated in the approval of most warehouse/logistic projects in this city. This includes voting yes for the World Logistics Center (WLC) despite living close to it. What WLC has going for it is a plan for buffering the impacts of its project from the existing residential and eliminated truck and employee traffic from Redlands Blvd. with access from Theodore now WLC Parkway. Most other warehouse/logistic approvals in the city have been in areas where the existing underlying land use zoning allows for warehouse/logistic use, or the projects are located where there are existing non•residential land uses, and city approved truck routes.
The proposed MVTC even if modified to eliminate traffic on and off Encelia Avenue will create irreparable harm to the existing residential neighborhood. These r_esldents sought out and bought homes in this area with a reasonable expectation city elected would respect and protect these investments by not approving incompatible land uses. Prior Planning Commissions and City Councils have done that in the past. For example, when Pro•Logis was developing along Eucalyptus east of the auto center, they responsibly agreed with area resident and city leadership to maintain a buffer of their proposed industrial use to the existing residential and eliminated two buildings from their project.
Saying no is ha rd but needs to be done sometimes. This is one of those times. The harm the proposed MVTC creates far outweighs the tax revenue increase this project will generate. There is still around 2,800 acres of property approved for warehouse/logistics on the east side of the Redlands Blvd. This existing neighborhood does not deserve having this added incompatible use built right on top of it. A yes vote on the proposed MVTC benefits out-of.town developer5 who will enjoy profits at the expense of city residents.
Please do right by your citizens who have invested in homes, pay taxes, shop, spend, and vote in Moreno Valley. Vote no on approval of the proposed MVTC upholding your Plannlns Commission's decision and your recent General Plan approval.
I thank you for your time to read this letter as part of your dellberations coming to a decision. lfynu have any questions or would like to discuss, please feel free to contact me.
Jeff Sims
City of Moreno Valley Resident
Planning Commissioner - City of More no Valley
5 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2240 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) l.ocal Agency Formation Comm
ission for the Cour,ly of Rrvars1de
6216 Brocklcn P.venue, Sulle 111-B
Rlwrsid&, CA 92505
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2241 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - May 25, 2022
PREPARED FOR RIVERSIDE LOC·AL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS
Michael Vargas, Chair, City Member
Stephen J. Tomanelli, Vice Chair, Public Member
Steven Sanchez, City Member
Kevin Jefferies, County Member
Jeff Hewitt, County Member
Phil Williams, Special District Member
Nancy s. Wright, Special District Member
ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS
Ted Hoffman, City Member
V. Manual Perez, County Member
Steve Pastor, Special District Member
Jim Love, Public Member
STAFF
Gary Thompson, Executive Officer
Crystal Craig, Assistant Executive Officer
Melissa Cushman, Legal Counsel
Elizabeth Valdez, Commission Coordinator/Clerk
Michael Henderson, GIS Analyst
Rebecca Holtzclaw, Secretary
PREPARED B-Y RSG, INC,
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2242 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) CITY OF iORENO VALLE
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Se,vice Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riven;ide County
Public Review Drafl - May 25, 2022
The City of Moreno Valley incorporated in 1984 as a general law city in the County's Western Region.110 The City's northern, eastern, and the majority of the southern boundary is shared with unincorporated Riverside County territory. Most of the City's southern boundary is adjacent to the Lake Perris State Recreation Area. The City of Perris boundary is immediately south of a portion of Moreno Valley. The City's western edge is bound by the March Air Reserve Base, City of Riverside corporate boundary, and unincorporated territory. The City's incorporated boundary covers an area of 51.3 square miles and the City's SOI extends northwest and southeast to encompass an additional 15.5 square miles, for a combined 66.8 square miles.111 The City's demographic profile is presented in Figure 84.
Frgure 84: Demographic Profile • Moreno Vaflay
i't•Ji:.114, 11-:1'!:!f ilL ~,
Population as of 2020 208,838 150 2,442,304
Population as of 2010 193,365 105 2,189,641
Annual Pop. Growth Since 201 O 0.77% 3.63% 1.10%
Housing Units 57,523 55 867,637
Persons / Housing UnH 3.63 2.73 2.81
Land Area (sq r.i) 51.3 15.5 7,206.0
Persons/ Square Mile 4,071 10 339
Median Household Income $64,073 $93,293 $67,369
Projected Population in 2035 246,068 2,995,509
Annual Proj, Gro'Nth 2020-2035 1.10% 1.37%
Projected Population in 2045 266,814 3,251,705
Annual Pro·. Growth 2020-2045 1.65% 1.93%
Sources: Cslifornia Department of Finance, Southem Celifomia Association of Governments, US Census. ESRl Business Analyst Online (Growth rates are presented as annual growth rates)
UD Source; City of Moreno Valley
111 Source; Riwr..ide LJIFCO
226
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2243 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Mllnicipal Service Review and Sphere of fnRuence Upda!e Rive rs Ida County
P1.1blic Review Draft - May 25, 2022
Moreno Valley's population grew slowly during the last decade, increasing at just a 0.77 percent annual growth rate to a total population of almost 209,000. Moreno Valley is the second-largest city in the County of Riverside. Moreno Valley has large households (3.63 persons per household) and a high population density (4,071 persons per square mile) when compared to the County averages (2.81 persons per household and 339 persons per square mile). The population projections over the next 15 to 25 years indicate that population growth will increase, but growth is not expected to keep pace with County~wide growth rates.
The City's SOI contains a population of just 150, spread across 55 households. The City's median household income is slightly lower than the County-wide average, while the median household income in the SOI is about 38 percent higher than the County-wide average.
The City's land use profile is disproportionately skewed towards industrial development, with almost 75 percent of the City's commercial square footage designed for industrial users. During the last decade, the City added over 9.3 million square feet of industrial space, representing about half of the City's commercial development. While this is a significant increase in square footage, a lot of the City's development can be attributed to retail projects. The City's housing inventory is concentrated in single-family housing, representing more than 80 percent of the City's units.
Aligned with the City's land use profile, several of the City's largest employers are distribution centers, including Amazon (7,500 employees), Ross Dress for Less/DD's (2,400 employees), Sketchers USA (1,200 employees}, Harbor Freight Tools (788 employees), and Deckers Outdoor (700 employees). The remaining top ten employers include March Air Reserve Base (9,600 (Q}RsG 227
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2244 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City 0f Mereno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of lnnuem:e Update Riverside Counly
Public Review Draft-May 25, 2022
employees), Riverside University Health Systems Medical Center (3,400 employees), Moreno Valley Mall (1,500 employees), and Kaiser Permanent Community Hospital (1,457 employees}.m Moreno Valley's land use summary is presented in Figure 85.
Figure 85: land Use Summary - Moreno VaT/ey
1 1
a,,,:.4 ·,... •·-:ilr~- ·-• • • ...;.. • ~ • • w • • ~ • ,:_ Residential Units
Single FamUy
Multifamily
Mobile Home
Total Units
New Units Since 2010
Commercial
Retail
Industrial
Office
Other
Total
New Commercial Since 2010
Units
46,378
9,781
1,364
57,523
1,964
Gross SF
6,080,993
28,896,728
1,512,415
103 295
38,593,431
20,028947
%
80.6%
17.0%
2.4%
100.0%
20.9%
74.9%
3.9%
0.3%
100.0%
%
54.8%
43.6%
1.6%
100.0%
26.6%
61.8%
9.6%
2.0%
100.0%
Sources: California Department cf Finance (2020) and Costar (Other includes hospitality, healthcare, specialty, sports and entertainment)
CURRENT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, ISLANDS/POCKETS, AND OUCS
The City of Moreno Valley's SOI consists of three (3) noncontiguous areas, illustrated in Exhibit
12. The City's eastern SOI is the largest of the three (3) areas, stretching eastward into the hills along State Route 60 and southward along Gilman Springs to encompass the area known as Mystic Lake, which is a seasonal body of water. The City's northwestern SOI extends west to the City of Riverside's existing SOI in the hills north of State Route 60, in an area that is largely overlapping the Box Springs Mountain Reserve Park. The City's third and smallest SOI area 112 Source: City of Morena Valley, 2018·19 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 228
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2245 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of M0reno Valley
Cily Municipal Service Review ancl Spneie of lnOuence Update R~ide County
Public Review Draft-May 25, 2022
extends south from the City's southern boundary adjacent to Lake Perris State Recreation Area, east of Davis Road.
The SOI does not contain LAFCO-identified DUCs or unincorporated islal'lds and pockets.
Moreno Valley's boundary was previously reconfirmed in the September 2006 Central Valleys, The Pass Area and Southwestern Riverside County MSR (LAFCO 2005-49-3&5; LAFCO 2005- 48-5; LAFCO 2005-47-1&3) {the "2006 MSR").
229
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2246 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) N
(,>
Cl
City of Moreno Valley and Sphere of Influence
Oi.ad~an11ged Unll>i:orporalod Commuo111es
r-t (DUC:s)a& pnMOUSly ldilrdilll!d by LAFCO (ACS
..___. 2006-10); Slalowido Mod',:ir, HDUS4hold lr,comc
(Mlill of 500,883, 80'1, ol which Is $48,706
NGW OUC1 (ACS 2015-19) Sta1ewlde Median
Income al S75,235, 80'!1, of which Is S60.188
I Mt•®iR 4~NIQ- V!A'-6-~~y, --=-~-nm- ------
N
A
....--=",r=,• I I ..
PE:RRIS
:,
MIies
0 0.5 1 2
P31
SOUrce: RSG Inc. ~lvMJlde I.AFCO. RillfJl'lllde CO!mlr IT ;
&
-'I:
....
!'?
(
0..
Cl) Q
r
i a} i,,
0 l
0 s:::
C
::,
;;·
-a·
!!!.
en
Q
< l'i'
l9
;u
a,
<
"II ;;·
,:;
g: II: a, ,r :::,
f a. (ll "C ;;· :3'
II: ..
C iii (")
iii o= _..,
::z ;tJ - 0
I ,-~ -Pl
l al:;~ H: j;jiii N CD
.!" (")Co
N ri!X~ 0 :::::, = "' I\J ~<D~
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2247
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade
FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND STAFFING
City of Moreno Valley
City Muni<:ipal Service Review and Sphere of lnnuence Update Riverside County
Publi<: Relliew Draft - May 25, 2022
The City of Moreno Valley is a •council - Manager" form of government, with a City Council that includes five (5) members, including one Mayor elected at.large, and four (4) Councilmembers elected according to district boundaries. The Mayor serves a two (2) year term while Council members serve four (4) year terms. The City Council appoints a City Manager, who serves as the head of the administrative branch of the City government.113 The City Council also serves as the Housing Authority, Successor Agency, Moreno Valley Community Services District, Public Financing Authority, and Public Facilities Financing Corporation. Several boards, commissions, committees, and councils carry out assignments as directed by the City Council, including the Accessibility Appeals Board, Environmental and Historical Preservation Board, Senior Citizens Advisory Board, Arts Commission, Library Commission, Planning Commission, Traffic Safety Commission, Utilities Commission, Moreno Valley Citizens Public Safety Committee, Parks Community Services and Trails Committee, and the Emerging Leaders Council.114
The City Manager reports directly to the City Council and oversees a staff of 375 full-time equivalent personnel.115 The City's annual operating expenditures ranged from $118 to $150.3 million between 2016-17 2018-19.1
i,
SERVICES PROVIDED
City staff provide the community with building and planning, housing, code enforcement, animal control, parks and recreation, landscape maintenance, streets and road maintenance, lighting, utilities, stormwater drainage, and innovation and technology services. The following section describes municipal services provided within Moreno Valley and identifies the service provider. m Source: Cily of Moreno Valtey
114 Source: Cily of Moreno Valley
115 Sowee: Cily of Moreno Valley, 2018-19 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 116 source: Calirornia Slate C0n1roller·s Office, ·cilies Financial Data· 231
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2248 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Cily of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service ReYiew and Sphere of lnHuence Update Riverside Counly
Public Review Draft - May 25, 2022
Figure 86 summarizes the municipal services provided within the Moreno Valley city limits by the City or by other service providers.
Figure 00: Service Provider Matrix - Moreno Valley
~ ! .. il .. 1!! '.I: 0
.., 1l ,: tl ~1 ii i .. ii .. I . ,:. 1!! l ... _ .. 1o .. • J! i- !~ 0 .. ... ~g Ill :s~ Q~ .. u • i' ;;;;]! .. i .., Cl 11 -., . ., I ; 15 b :, ~ :ii •1: Jl " .,. 0 i~ l .,. -.. .. - 0 . ,i!o _ _ _. _ _ ...__,.,..1:-- i;i u ntt a, uiw ~ r,\ Shetiff
Fll'IIPralecllan Fire/CalFte
Emeraencv Medical Rres'C&IF"ire
Al-no/Placring Commt ...itv Oavelcpment
l-tl>u,;ho HDUSlno Au"""1ty
Code Enfarcement Colnmunilv Oev....,.,,,..nt
Arima1CClllb'ol Commooitv Oevekl""""'l
Pwi<s &11d Recr<aal!Gn Pa.t:o ""-d c.:.m.nunitv &.,nric..,. CSO. RegionafPa,k• U,rarv - Umuv. Li>rarv Svstem
Musal.lTI Hislorical Society
Landscape Maintenance Public Works, CSO, llMD. & CFO
_SlteelSIRoad Ma11tenance Public Works. CSA • S1ree\f!rlhts Ed11emont CSD, CSO, LLMD, & CFO Ligh~r,a Public WO<ils. CSD, l tcMD. & CFO
Ulilm Ele ctric Utiily, Edlson, So Cal Gas
Solic!Waste Waste Manaoemenl
S!ofmwa1er Dralnaae MSc Works, Flood Conlr0I & water Consl!MIIIOn k Innovation 811d Teehnolooo Finenc;i;,J & M1111agement Servke$ Speeln.lJn. AT&T Aiport NJA
Cem&terv • N.IA
Hea)),cara" NIA
\Valer·' Eestem Munlclpal Wallr Dl&tric:I, EdoamDnt CSD 1• W.SlvWaler' Ec!gemonl Ccmmun.ily SstVlces Ds11ict
' Nol.__...,_. in lhi,, IA~
Government Services
General government services in the City of Moreno Valley are provided by the elected City Council, and appointed staff like the City Manager and City Clerk. The City Manager serves as the Chief Executive of the City and is responsible to the City Council for the efficient management of all City business including implementation of Council policies and programs, providing direction to departments that administer City programs and services, coordinating intergovernmental relations and legislative advocacy efforts, and administering the outsourcing agreements through which Public Safety services are provided. The City Clerk is responsible for the administration of all municipal elections, access to and management of City records, preparation of agendas, recording and maintenance of all Council actions, maintenance of the Municipal Code, and serves as the official custodian of the City seal.
~
~ RSG 232
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2249 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Law Eniorcement
Clly of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of lnnuence Update Riverside County
Public ReYiew Draft - Ma~ 25, 2022
Moreno Valley receives law enforcement servi9es from the Riverside County Sheriff Department.
The Sheriff provides general policing services including, investigations, special enforcement, school resources, traffic enforcement and patrols, community services, crime prevention, and the administration of the volunteer program and the Explorer youth program.
The 2006 MSR presented the following determination:
• Law enforcement services were being provided at a level below t_he City's standard of 1 sworn officer per 1,000 people.
According to City staff, the recently adopted General Plan identifies City pollcles for providing responsive, efficient, and effective law enforcement services that promote a high level of public safety. Furthermore, City staff noted that the City no longer has a policy specifying a number of sworn officers per 1,000 residents.
Fire Protection
Fire Protection services are provided by Riverside County Fire DepartmentlCalFire In Moreno Valley. Since 1921, the Riverside County Fire Department hes been in a contractual relationship with CalFire to provide wildland fire protection services. In 1946, the contract between CalFire and Riverside County Fire Department was expanded to include fire protection services. Services provided by Riverside County Fire DepartmentlCalFire include fire protection and prevention, medical response, review of planning cases, review and inspections of construction and developments, fire and life safety inspections of state-regulated occupancies, information on ordinances and standards for construction, and information bulletins and standards for fire protection. Fire Stations 2, 6, 48, 58, 65, 91, and 99 are in the City.
The Riverside County Fire Department/CalFire provides fire protection services to 20 cities in Riverside County and the Rubidoux community services district. The Riverside County Fire DepartmentlCalFire also responds to calls for service in seven (7) additional Riverside County cities and the ldyllwild Fire Protection District through mutual and automatic aid agreements. 233
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2250 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Emergency Medical
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - Mey 25, 2022
Emergency medical services are provided by the Riverside County Fire Department/CalFire.
Please refer to the previous section for more information on the Department.
Building/Planning and Housing (Community Development)
Building, planning, and housing services are provided by the City's Community Development Department through the Planning and Building and Safety Divisions. The Planning Division informs the planning commission, ensures new developments fulfill the City's strategic priorities, and ensures new development is in line with CEQA. The Building and Safety Division conducts plan reviews, issues permits, conducts field inspections, and coordinates permit approvals with City departments and outside agencies.
Code Enforcement
Code enforcement services are provided by the Community Development Department's Code and Neighborhood Services Division. The Division responds to citizen complaints, proactively enforces the municipal code, provides parking control services, and runs the abandoned vehicle abatement program.
Animal Control
Animal control is provided by the Animal Services Division of the Community Development Department. The Division provides humane animal services, sheltering, rabies control, stray animal control, licensing, and public education. A shelter operated by the Division is located in the City at 14041 Elsworth Street.
Parks and Recreation
Parks and recreation services are provided by three (3) entitles: The City's Parks and Community Sentices Department, the Community Services District- Zone A, Community Facilities District No. 1, and the Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District. The Department provides 234
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2251 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Cily of Maeno \/alley
City Municlpal Service Review and Sphere of Influence UpdatA! Riverside County
Public Review Draft- May 25, 2022
maintenance and development of parks. trails and recreational facilities, maintains open space, administers an array of recreational programs, and enforces park rules and regulations. The Community Services District, known also as Zone A, services parks in the City with the Parks and Community Services Department. The District primarily provides funding to the Department for parks and recreation services. The Community Facilities District No. 1 also provides funding to the Department, but funding is reserved for maintenance of facilities. The Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District operates the Box Spring Mountain Reserve in the City.
The Reserve Is located on 3,400 acres of land that overlooks the cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley. The entrance is located at 9699 Box Springs Mountain Road in Moreno Valley.
The 2006 MSR Identified the following determinations:
• The City was providing parkland at a ratio that was below the City's standard and noted financing constraints that led to an increase in fee related recreational activities and a degradation of service provision.
According to City staff, the recently adopted General Plan identifies 671 acres of existing and planned parkland which could meet the parkland ratio within a 20-year period. City staff noted that the City also plans to evaluate park.land dedication fees and in-lieu parkland dedication fees to ensure that the City is adequately addressing the community need while maintaining regional competitiveness.
Library
The Moreno Valley Public Library provides library services to the City. The Library is owned and operated by the City. It has two (2) satellite locations in the Moreno Valley Mall and Iris Plaza.
The Library provides users of all ages with reading materials in electronic and traditional formats, educational support for students, and literacy programs. The City's Community Services District provides funding for the operations of the Library.
The 2006 MSR presented the following determinations:
235
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2252 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Revtew end Sphere or lnnuence Update River.;ide County
Public Review Draft - May 25, 2022
• The City's Library was too small to hold the City's entire inventory and the City had plans at the time to develop a larger facility.
The City has expanded library facilities to address this finding, adding two sateUite libraries that provide llbrary services throughout Moreno Valley. Museum There is no museum in the City of Moreno Valley.
Landscape Maintenance
Landscape maintenance is provided by the City's Public Works Department through funding from the Community Services District, Landscape Maintenance District 2014-2, and several other special funding districts in the City. The Department provides general landscape maintenance services to public property and oversees any landscape maintenance contracts.
Streets/Road Maintenance
Streets and roads maintenance is provided by the Public Works Department. The Department's responsibilities include the coordination, maintenance, and operation of traffic facilities and roadways, sidewalk and street maintenance, and the management of City capital improvements.
The 2006 MSR identified the following determinations:
• The City's roads and interaections operating below the City's level of service standard.
City staff indicated that streets and roads were in fair to good shape.
Streetlights
The Moreno Valley Community Services District, Zone C Arterial Streetlights, the Lighting Maintenance District 2014-01, the Community Facilities District 2014-01, end the Edgemont Community Services District all provide funding for streetlight maintenance In various parts of the City. The Edgemont Community Services District provides streetlight maintenance services to several neighborhoods in the western part of the City. The District was formed in 1957 to cover ~ ~ RSG 236
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2253 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Cily of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Jnnuenc;e Update Riverside County
Public Review Orall - May 25, 2022
the Edgemont area of Riverside County which straddles both the cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley. The other districts provide funding that is used by the Moreno Valley Public Works Department to service the rest of the City.
Utilities (Gas, Electric)
Utilities are provided by the Moreno Valley Electric Utility ("MVU"), Southern California Edison ("SCE"), and the Southern California Gas Company ("SoCal Gas"). The MVU is the primary public electric utility in the City and is run by the Public Works Department. Created in 2001, the utility now serves around 6,600 residents. The traditional regional utilities SCE and Socal Gas both still serve some residents in the City. In Fiscal Year 2018~19 the MVU entered into a financing agreement through Bank of America to acquire the City's streetlights from SCE. According to City staff, the streetlights then underwent an LED retrofit.
Solid Waste
The City has a franchise agreement In place with Waste Management for solid waste collection services. Waste Management is a private solid waste disposal company provides solid waste disposal and recycling services to Moreno Valley residences. Waste Management is one of the largest solid waste companies in North America with more than 45,000 employees serving over 20 million residential, industrial, municipal, and commercial customers.
The 2006 MSR presented the following determinations:
• The City was not disposing of the required amount of solid waste.
City staff indicated that the City has implemented a number of innovative source reductions, recycling, composting, and reuse programs to help meet State diversion goals. The City's current diversion rate is 65 percent, which elC'ceeds the current standard diversion rate of 50 percent.
Furthermore, City staff noted that an amendment to the City's municipal code will require a diversion rate of 75 percent by 2025 as required by State law. 237
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2254 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Storm Drainage
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Se1vice Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- May 25, 2022
Storm drainage services are provided by the Public Works Department. The Department is responsible for engineering, designing, and overseeing the construction of capital improvements for flood and storm-water management, and the operation and maintenance of City storm drains.
County Service Area 152 provides funding for the management of the City's NPDES permit program, which is aimed at reducing pollution to underground water tables.
The 2006 MSR presented the following determinations:
• The City's storm water drainage is inadequate.
City staff did not indicate that storm water drainage was inadequate in the City.
Innovation and Technology
Innovation and technology services are provided by the Financial and Management Services Department. The Department manages the City's technology assets, improves hardware, software, and telecommunications, and provides IT support.
Airport
There is no public or private airport in the City of Moreno Valley.
Extraterritorial Services Provided
The City of Moreno Valley does not provide services outside of the City's boundaries. Government Code Section 56133 requires LAFCO approval for extension of services outside a sphere of influence in response to an existing or impending threat to public health or safety.
RECENT AND PLANNED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The City prepares a Capital Improvement Plan that serves as a comprehensive planning document inclusive of rev.enues and expenditures for capital improvements within the City. The (Q)RsG 23B
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2255 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Cily of Moreno VeUey
City Municipal Sel""ice Review and Sphere of lnnuence Updat.e Riverside County
Public Review Draft- May 25, 2022
City's CIP is adopted every other year and coordinates with the City's two~year budget cycle. The City plans to make improvements in regard to pavement rehabilitation, street and road improvements, interchange construction, bridge maintenance and construction, drainage improvements, lighting improvements, and community center renovation.
According to City staff, all projects identified above, except for the March Community Center Renovation, are moving forward and funded.
HOUSING NEEDS AND HOUSING ELEMENT REPORTING
The City of Moreno Valley submitted its 51t1 Cycle Draft Housing element to HCD on February 19, 2021. As of the date on this MSR, HCD had not completed the review of the City's Housing Element.111 According to City staff, the City provided HCO with a second submittal end is in active discussion with HCD to have the 6111 Cycle Housing Element certified. During the 5th Cycle, the City submitted Annual Progress Reports between 2014 and 2019, but failed to submit an Annual Progress Report in 2013.118
The City's 5th Cycle housing needs are presented in Figure 87.
Figure 87: 5th Cycle Housing Bement Summery - Moreno Valley 111f.IT::f'i_t.!. ,.., I~ t,,1:.4•·•._r ' •·1'" ,,,
.iI, ~~ ~ro11i.-tr,1_L ,,,,.:.J,,E f.'ff"'J1tl=- •Vt• lr,(r. 01,•.,:.
RHNA Allocation 1,500 993
Permitted Units 0 0
Allocation Surplus/(Shortage 1,500) 993
Source: HCD Annual Progress Report Permit Surrmary, October 6, 2020 &'i' ,~\• t :.
1i•1•r:t.-< :. 1
1 1 llli_l ~ ·-;H:.
,,.,, .... 1, .. ~ 1~(u -~1·1R,:.
1,112 2,564
457 1,354
655) (1,210
The City permitted 457 moderate income housing units and 1,354 above-moderate income units during the 5th Cycle. The City did not permit any very low- or low-income housing units during the 117 Source: Callfbrnla Department of Housing and Community Development, "Housing Element lmplementalion Slalus Tracker" updated June 28,2019
118 Source: California Department or Housing and Community Development, "Annual Progress Report Pennil Summary; dated October 6, 2020.
(Q)RsG 239
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2256 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
Cily Municipal SefVice Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- May 25, 2D22
5th Cycle, and the City fell short of meeting its RHNA allocation in all income categories. With a shortage of 4,358 housing units, the City is not expected to meet its RHNA allocation in any income category.
The City's RHNA allocation increases by about 120 percent, or 7,427 units, to a total of 13,596 housing units for the 6th Cycle. In order to accomplish this, the City will need to permit 1,700 units every year during the eight (8) year cycle. City staff noted that the Courtyards at Cottonwood affordable housing project in Moreno Valley is currently under construction and will assist the City in meeting its RHNA goals for low and very low Income housing.
The City's 5th and 6th Cycle production goals and unit production is presented in Figure 88.
Figure 88: 5th and 6th Cycle RHNA Al/ocalion and Production - Moreno Valley 1,800
1.600
1,400
1.200
J9
·c:1.000
:::)
g1 800
-~ 600
0 l: 400
200
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 RHNA 5th Cycle RHNA 6th Cycle
- Markel Rate Built Affordable Built - Annual Goal
Moreno Valley is one of 289 California jurisdictions that have not made sufficient progress toward either moderate-income RHNA unit production or failed to submit the latest (2019) Annual Progress Report. As a result, the City is subject to streamlined ministerial approval process for proposed housing developments with at least 10 percent affordable units. The streamlined 24D
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2257 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Cily of Moreno Valley
Cily Municipal Service Review end Sphere of Influence Update Riverside Count)!
Public; Review Draft - M&y 25, 2022
ministerial approval process was introduced as part of Senate Bill 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) in 2017 .119
City staff noted that the City adopted a new General Plan in June 2021 and has lmplemented all of the Zoning amendments required to implement its 6111 Cycle Housing Element.
FISCAL HEALTH
The City of Moreno Valley's fiscal health evaluation, including audit findings, revenue sources, expenditure categories, long-term obligations, reserves, and California State Auditor assessment is presented in the sections that follow. The City's net position is presented as annual revenues less expenditures for fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19 in Figure 89. The City recorded surpluses in each year between 2016-17 and 2018•19.
Figure 69: Nel Position - Moreno Valley
,•,_(•_•:~~: ~ ~,~,11~:t---
Total General Tax Revenues
Other Tax Revenues
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Total Operating Expenditures
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
Total Expenditures
Net Position
Operating Revenues
'..(I ~·
$80,283,944
252,636
43,623,150
124.159, 730
102,604,217
4,326,445
11,013,480
117,9441142
$6,215,588
~· ,, . ' ·:
$95,664,565 $101,563,227
757,763 3,562
58,823,573 69,378,685
155,245,901 170,945,474
132,608,840 132,343,618
4,319,000 4,309,456
13,418,628 12,203,689
150,346,468 148,856,763
$4 899433 $22,088,711
As illustrated in Figure 90, the City had total revenues that ranged from $124.2 million in 2016- 17 to $170.9 million in 2018-19. Figure 90 outlines the City's revenue sources between 2016-17 and 2018-19.
11~ Source: California Department of Housing and Communil)I Developmenl, "SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary' 241
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2258 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Figure 90: Operating Revenue History - Moreno Valley
,
1,ro-~:::.f~t• ,·~111~f
General Revenues
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Property Tax in-lieu of VLF
Franchise Tax
Business License Tax
Property Transfer Tax
Utility User Tax
Other Tax Revenues
Total General Tax Revenues
Transportation Tax
Parking Tax
Voter-Approved Taxes
Functional Tax Revenues
Total Tax Revenues
Charges for Services
Special Benefit Assessments
Use of Money
Fines and Forfeitures
Licenses and Permits
lntergovern mental
Other Taxes in-Lieu
Miscellaneous Revenues
Total Revenues
Source: Callfornia State Controller's Office
City of Moreno Valley
City MuniCipal Service Review and Sphere of lnlluence Update Riv~m1ide County
Publlc Review Draft - May 25, 2022
$13,549,337 $19,681,234 $20,781,717
22,613,602 22,899,957 25,928,638
1,852,584 2,344,159 2.433,358
17,430,250 18,406,258 19,577,636
5,673,109 6,300,486 6,585,791
2,832,064 2,956,966 3,046,854
719,514 767,591 833,082
15,613,484 15,629,102 15,483,806
6,678,812 6,892,345
80,283,944 95,664,565 101,563,227
252,636 757,763 3,562
80,536,580 96,422,328 101,566,789
6,582,057 11,502,017 10,078,587
686,981 800,544 732,737
3,040,329 6,153,214 9,724,869
195,970 727,887 800,140
2,950,348 3,234,411 3,638,808
14,637,872 18,156,624 21,488,264
15,529,593 18,248,876 22,915,280
$124159 730 $155,245 901 $170 945,474
The City's general tax revenues, which were $101.6 million in 2018-19, account for 59.4 percent of the City's total revenues. The City has a diverse revenue base, with sales tax ($25.9 million), property tax ($20.8 million), property tax in-lieu of VLF (19.6 million), and utility user tax ($15.5 million) representing the largest revenue sources and collectively representing 80-5 percent of total general tax revenues.
When compared to all other Riverside County and California cities, the City's tax revenues are proportionate, except for utility user tax, which not all communities have adopted. Although sales tax is the City's largest general tax revenue source, accounting for 25.5 percent of the City's general tax revenues, it is proportionally lower than the average sales tax revenue for all ~ r,s,.... ~ r\ l..J 242
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2259 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of MOH!nO Valh!y
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of lnnuence Update Rlver$1de County
Public Review Oral'I. - May 25, 2022
Riverside County cities {39.9 percent), and more aligned with the average sales tax revenue for all California cities (24. 7 percent). Because sales tax can be susceptible to economic shifts, such as the results of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may be advantageous for the City to rely less on sales tax revenues.
The City's general tax revenues are compared to all Riverside County and California cities in Figure 91.
Figure 91: General Tax Revenue Comparison~ Moreno Valfey TOT 9.5%
---
Sales Tax 24.7%
Sales Telt 39.9%
Sales Tax 25.5%
/ - Property Tax 31.2%
Property Tax 20.5% Property Tax 19.0%
Maeno Valley Al Riverside Cles Al Cailomia Cities
Aside from tax revenues, City's largest non-tax revenue sources are miscellaneous revenues ($22.9 million) and intergovernmental revenues ($21.5 million}. The City's major revenue sources are described in greater detail in the sections that follow.
Sales Tax
Sales tax revenues are the City's single-largest tax revenue, accounting for 25.5 percent of general tax revenues or $25.9 million in 2018-19. Sales tax revenues are derived from one percent of gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold in Moreno Valley. Sales tax revenues increased by 7.1 percent annually between 2016-17 and 2018-19. 243
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2260 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Clly or MO!'ef'IO Valley
Cily Municipal Seivice Review and Sphere of lonuerice Update River.side County
Public Review Oran - May 25, 2022
Property Tax and Property Tax in-lieu of Motor Vehjcfe License Fees Property tax and property tax in-lieu of VLF were the City's second and third largest tax revenues in 2018-19, accounting for 20.5 and 19 .3 percent of general tax revenues respectively.
In 2018-19, the City collected almost $20.8 million in property tax. Property tax is assessed on land, improvements, and personal property, which amounted to about $15.6 billion in 2018-19.
Approximately $4.1 billion in assessed value was derived from land value and $11.8 billion from improvements.120 The City's property tax collections were approximately 15.6 percent of all property tax collected in Moreno Valley, which is one of the highest tax rates for a city In Riverside County.
The City's property tax revenues increased from about $13.5 million in 2016-17 to $20.8 miHion in 2018-19, 23.8 percent annual growth rate. While property assessed valuations can only increase by a maximum of 2 percent annually, property tax revenues can grow at a much faster pace as a result of new development adding new taxable value to the tax roll.
The City of Moreno Valley and County of Riverside have a mutually adopted Master Preperty Tax Exchange Agreement in place, which was adopted in 1985.121 Property tax in-lieu of VLF accounted for 19.3 percent of the City's general tax revenue in 2018- 19, equivalent to $19.6 million. Property tax in-lieu of VLF replaced vehicle license fees as a revenue source for cities in 2004, and increases based on assessed valuation growth in the jurisdiction.
Utility User Tax
A fourth significant revenue source for the City is utility user tax revenues. The City assesses utility user taxes on telephone use at a rate of 5. 75 percent, inclusive of intrastate residential and 120 Souit:e: California City Finance, "Assessed Valuation of Property by City" 121 Source: Riven;ide LAFCO @RsG 244
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2261 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of lnnuence Update Riverside Coonty
Public Review Draft- May 25, 2022
commercial calls, interstate residential and commercial cells, international residential and commercial calls, and all wireless residential and commercial calls. Additionally, the City taxes business end residential electricity, business and residential natural gas, business and residential cable television, business and residential water, and business and residential sewer fees at a rate of 6 percent.122 In 2018-19, utility user tax revenues amounted to $15.5 million, or about 15.2 percent of general tax revenues. Over the three (3) yeer period from 2016-17 to 2018-19, the City's utility user tax revenues were relatively flat, decreasing by a little more than $100,000 over that period.
Miscellaneous Revenues
The City's largest non-tax revenue source is classified as miscellaneous revenues. Miscellaneous revenues amounted to $22.9 million in 2018-19, or about 13.4 percent of an revenue-s. For the City, the primary sources of miscellaneous revenues includes development impact fees ($9.6 million in 2018-19), contributions from nongovernmental sources ($1.9 million), and other unclassified miscellaneous revenues ($11.3 million). According to City staff, the City is expected to begin preparation of a development impact fee study in 2021.
Intergovernmental Revenues
Intergovernmental revenues are collecied from County, State, and Federal sources and amounted to $21.5 million in 2018-19 for the City. The City's intergovernmental revenues are comprised of gas tax revenues ($8.0 million), community development block grants ($1.8 million) and several other State ($8.0 million) and Federal ($3.3 million) government sources. Intergovernmental revenues increased from about $14.6 million in 2016-17 to $21.5 million in 2018-19, a 21.2 percent annual growth rate.
m Source: Celil'ornie City Flnanc::e, "Utility User Tax by City" updated in February 2021 245
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2262 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Operating E,cpenditures
City of Mo!t!no Velley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Rive,side Counly
Public Review Draft- May 25, 2022
The City's operating expenditures ranged from $117.9 to $150.3 million between 2016-17 and 2018-19. The City's annual operating expenditures, categorized by use, are presented in Figure
92. Figure 02: Op9ra/ing Expenditures - Moreno Valley
111i•••~rH•. '1t:o1ft;.,,; ___ _
Operating Expenditures
Salaries and Wages
Employee Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Contract Seivices
Other Operating Expenditures
Total Operating Expenditures
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
Total Ex enditures
Source: California State Controller's Office
$31,577,627
9,756,381
4,749,004
56,321,004
200,201
102,604,217
4,326,445
11,013,480
$117 944142
$45,685, 127
12,363,241
2,974,431
57,844,737
13,741,304
132,608,840
4,319,000
13,418,628
$150 346468
$21,936,258
13,222,377
3,675,063
83,315,931
10,193,989
132,343,618
4,309.456
12,203,689
$148 856 763
Becsuse the City contracts with the County of Riverside for law enforcement and fire protection services, it is not surprising that the City's largest expenditure category is contract services, amounting to $83.3 million In 2018-19. Between 2016-17 and 2018-19, the City's contract services expenditures increased by 21.6 percent annually - over the same time frame all other operating expenditures increased by just 2.9 percent. In 2018-19, the City's contract service expenditures amounted to 56 percent of total expenditures.
The City's largest current expenditure category is associated with public safety, amounting to $63.3 million in 2018-19. Public safety expenditures grew at just 3.5 percent annually between 2016-17 and 2018-19 while total current expenditures increased by 12.3 percent annually. Most of the growth occurred in transportation, community development, and culture and leisure expenditure categories. The City's current expenditures by function between 2016-17 and 2018- 19 are presented in Figure 93.
246
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2263 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Figure 93: Current EJtpenditures - Moreno Valley
1'H•~(~s(, ~'-.•H~_;
General Government
Public Safety
Transportation
Community Development
Health
Culture and Leisure
Public Utilities
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
Total Current Ex enditures
Source: Calffornla State Controller's Office
Cily of Mereno Valley
City Municipal Service Raview and Sphere ol lnnuence Update Riverside County
$17,323,318
59,152,472
10,976,980
6,843,958
8,307,489
4,326,445
11,013,480
$117 944,142
Public Review Draft - May 25, 2022
'J_I • . ;
$18,982,549
63,992,529
18,441,708
12,717,384
18,474,670
4,319,000
13,418,628
$150,346,468
$19,669,398
63,305,321
19,286,980
11,128,467
18,953,452
4,309,456
12,203,689
$148 856,763
In most contract cities around Riverside County, the public safety costs are rapidly increasing at unsustainable paces - that is not the case in Moreno Valley. The fastest growing expenditure categories for the City were culture and leisure (51 percent annual increase between 2016-17), transportation (32.6 percent annual growth), and community development ($27 .5 percent annual growth), These three (3) categories represented $23.2 million in expenditure increases between 2016~17 and 2018-19.
Culture and leisure expenditures are entirely associated with parks and recreation costs (almost $19.0 million in 2018-19) while transportation expenditures include costs for streets, highways and storm drains {$18.1 million), and trees and landscaping ($1.1 million). Community development expenditures are associated with planning ($3.2 million), construction and engineering regulation ($373,000), and other unclassified community development expenditures ($7.5 million). Some of these costs are recovered via charges for services, and according to City staff, the City's fees are balanced and consistent with all fee studies. City staff also indicated that the City planned to prepare a new development impact fee study in 2021 because the previous fee study was prepared nine (9) years ago.
Reserve Fund Balance
The City has several reserve fund policies. The City's cash flow reserve aims to preserve 17 to 35 percent of General Fund expenditures. The Emergency fund policy requires 12 percent of 247
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2264 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Seniice Review and Sphera ol lnDuel'll;8 Update Riverskle County
Public Review Draft-May 25, 2022
General Fund expenditures and the Rainy Day Reserve policy requires an additional 10 percent of General Fund expenditures to be retained. The City's 2020-21 budget indicates that the City will retain $39.9 million in reserves and is in compliance with the City's reserve policies.123 Pension and OPEB Obligations
The City of Moreno Valley's pension and OPEB obligations are outlined in Figure 94.
Figure 94: Pension and OPEB Obligations• Moreno Valley
L
1 th(f;o;~ ''f-:_!:(~'j'.
Net Pens ion Liability/( Surplus) $72,410,028 $68,092,267 $72,896,273 Total OPEB Liabilit)'."'""' / -'-S--'- ur~ lu--'- s ,._ _____ 7_.0_9'--9 ....... 3""'"3""'"5 __ ___, 6 ._45.c..3~4_8_7 ___ 8'""' , 1--'-75=•c.c... 01-'--1'--l Total Benefit Liabilit1.1_/~S_u~r _lu_s~-- -~$7_9~.5_0_9~3_6_3_ ~ $_74~54_5~, 7_54 _ _ ~$_8~1,~0_71~._284___, Source: 201M8, 2018~19 and 2019-20 ACFR
Qualifying employees are eligible to participate in the City's Miscellaneous Pension Plan. The City does not have public safety employees and therefore does not offer a Safety Plan. The City also provides OPEB policies, which are defined benefit postemployment healthcare plans for retired persons, and benefits are extended to surviving spouses. As illustrated in Figure 94, the City has about $81.1 million in combined pension and OPEB liabilities.
The City established an irrevocable trust fund in June 2009 to begin prefunding the City's unfunded OPEB liability.
The City's pension indicators, which include the City's employer contribution compared to the actuarially determined contribution, the City's total covered payro 11, and the contribution rate as a percent of covered payroll, are presented in Figure 95. 123 Source: City cf Moreno VaHey. 2019-20 Budget
248
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2265 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Figure 95: Pension Indicators - Moreno Valley
1 1
11ol":.11'• -•~d1:.:,:
Actuarially Determined Contribution
Employer Contribution
Covered Pa roll
Em lo er Contribution Rate
Source: 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 ACFR
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of lnfluente Updale Riverside County
Public Review Drall - May 25, 2022
~· ~• ••; ... 4-,u-: ji
$6,385,610 $7,094,031 $7,972,616
6,385,610 7,094,031 7,972,616
$20 860,026 $21,783,847 $24175 227
30.6% 32.6% 33.0%
The City made employer contributions equivalent to the actuarially determined contribution between 2016-17 and 2019-20. During this time frame, the City's covered payroll increased at an annual rate of about 7. 7 percent. The City's employer contribution rate, which ranged from 30.6 to 33.0 percent between 2016-17 and 2019-20, is about average for the County of Riverside, which ranged from 26 to 32 percent over the same period.
Annual Audit Findings
RSG reviewed the City's Annual Audits from 2017~18 through 2019-20. The Annual Audits did not present any findings and the auditor stated that the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the businesstype activities, each major fund, and. the aggregate remaining fund information of the City.
Additionally, the City's Annual Audits between 2017-18 and 2019-20 were awarded Certificates of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association.
California State Auditor Fiscal Health Evaluation
The City of Moreno Valley ranked 281 out of 4 71 jurisdictions and received an overall risk rating of low. The City is considered higher risk than 190 peer cities in California, or about 40 percent of cities. The City received low risk ratings on six (6) indicators, including liquidity, general fund reserves, pension obligations, pension costs, future pension costs, and OPEB obllgations. Two 249
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2266 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Morerio Valley
City Municip.11 Service Review and Sphere of lnlluence Update Riversidt- County
Public Review Draft-May 25, 2022
(2) indicators were given moderate risk ratings, including debt burden and revenue trends. Two (2) indicators scored high risk ratings, including pension funding and OPEB funding. 124
MSR DETERMINATIONS
Requisite CKH determinations for the City of Moreno Valley are presented by topic below:
1. Population1 Growth, and Housing
Moreno Valley grew at a slower rate over the last decade, when compared to the County and most other incorporated jurisdictions in the Western Riverside Region. The Moreno Valley population is expected to grow et -a rate that is slightly lower than the County-wide growth rate over the next 15 to 25 years. The City did not build sufficient housing units to meet its 5lh Cycle RHNA allocation of 6,169 units, falling short by 4,358 units, and the City's 6th Cycle RHNA allocation increased by 120 percent to a total of 13,596 housing units.
2. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities in SOI
The City's SOI does not contain any DUCs.
3. Present and Pranned Capacity of Facilities
Many of the City's deficiencies identified in the 2006 MSR did not resurface during RSG's research, data collection, and city interview stages.
4. Financial Ability to Provide Services
The City's general tax revenue sources have increased to more than $101.6 million in 2018~
19. The City has identified issues with its pension and OPEB liabilities and began to take 124 Source: California Slate Audit0r, Finantia1 Data for Fiscal Year 2019-20 250
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2267 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Mo:eno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Spher11t of loOuenc:e Update Riveraide County
Public Review Drart - May 25, 2022
corrective action as early as 2008 with the introduction of an irrevocable trust fund. The City has maintained healthy reserve funds.
5. Opportunities for Shared Facilities
No opportunities for shared facilities were identified.
6. Accountability for Community Service Needs
The City Council is elected according to district boundaries. The City's plethora of boards, committees, and commissions indicates that the City residents are engaged with City government. The City is active across at least five (5) social media platforms and maintains an email list. The City also operates a television channel and has a dedicated media team.
7. Any Other Matter Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery as Required by Commission Policy.
The City did not identify any other matters related to effective or efficient service delivery as required by Commission Policy.
SOI RECOMMENDATIONS
RSG's recommendations related to the Moreno Valley SOI are presented by topic below. RSG is not recommending any changes to Moreno Valley's SOI.
1. Present and Planned Land Uses
Large portions of Moreno Valley's SOI overlaps difficult-to-develop and protected land and are unlikely to be developed in the foreseeable future. The southern and southeastern portions of the unincorporated Moreno Valley SOI present the best opportunities for future growth and development.
251
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2268 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Revfew and Sphere or Influence Update Riverside CountyPublic Rr.view Draft- Mey 25, 2022
2. Present and Probablo Need for Public Facility and Services City staff indicated that the ~ore no Valley SOI has adequate public facilities and services.
3. Presant Capacity of Public Facilities
City staff indicated that public facilities in the Moreno Valley SOI are sufficient to meet the community's needs.
4. Soclal or Economic Communities of Interest
The City did not identify any social or economic communities of interest in the Moreno Valley SOI.
5. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Present and Planned Need for Facflities and Services
The Moreno Valley SOI does not contain any DUCs.
~
~ RSG 252
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2269 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
George Hague <[email protected]>
Monday, June 13, 2022 1:15 PM
Gabriel Diaz
Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
II Children & Moreno Valley Trade Center's (MVTC) Tuesday June 21st Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good afternoon members of the Moreno Valley City
Council, June 13, 2022
Re: Your June 21st public hearing on the Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) and its health impacts on the neighborhood - especially the children.
While the 1.3 million sq ft Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) warehouse has made some changes in their project since December none of them significantly reduce the health impacts to children trying to play in their own backyard - assuming parents will even allow their children outside knowing the pollution copied below from the MVTC's own documents impact children more than adults.
EVEN THOUGH THE MVTC MAY HAVE TRIED TO SAFELY FIT A VERY LARGE WAREHOUSE ON LAND ZONED FOR HOMES,
ACROSS THE STREET FROM HOMES, AND ADJACENT TO LAND ZONED FOR HOMES THE FOLLOWING ARE IMPORTANT AREAS THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO COME CLOSE TO MITIGATE ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN FINAL EIR:
"5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT
IS IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR disclose the significant environmental effects of a project which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b)). As described in detail in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance after the consideration of Project design features, compliance with applicable federal, State and local regulations, and the application of the feasible mitigation measures identified in this EIR. The significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below thresholds of significance consist of the following:
o Aesthetics: Implementation of the Project would mostly or completely block views ofReche Canyon and the Badlands (and the San Bernardino Mountains beyond) from the segment ofEncelia Avenue that abuts the Project site on the south (west of Shubert Street). Also, implementation of the Project would mostly or completely block scenic views of Mount Russell and its foothills from the segment of Eucalyptus A venue that abuts the Project site. This would be a significant and unavoidable direct impact. 1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2270 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) o Air Quality (Air Quality Management Plan Conflict): The Project would emit air po11utants (NOx) that would contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State ozone standards in the SCAB. Because the Project requires a General Plan Amendment, it also would exceed the growth projections contained in SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP. As such, the Project would conflict with and could obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Project impacts due to a conflict with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMPwould be significant and unavoidable on both a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis. o Air Quality (Criteria Pollutant Emissions): After the application of Project design features, mandatory regulatory requirements, and feasible mitigation measures, Project-related NOx emissions during long-term operation of the Project would remain above the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. Accordingly, Project-related emissions would not meet SCAQMD air quality standards and contribute to the non-attainment of ozone standards in the SCAB. Therefore, Project operational-related impacts due to NOx emissions would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis. o Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG Emissions ~neration): Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold for GHG emissions and would result in a cumulatively-considerable impact to the environment." (page 5-1 inMVTC Final EIR) Sincerely,
George Hague
2 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2271 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Sharon Stokes <[email protected]>
Saturday, June 11, 2022 8:48 PM
Sean P. Kelleher
Subject: Fwd: MVTC Warehouse
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Sent from my iPhone 13 PRO MAX
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sharon Stokes <[email protected]>
Date: June 11, 2022 at 8:44:07 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: MVTC Warehouse
I am writing this email to voice my objection to the proposed MVTC Warehouse ... This property was originally zoned for homes ... This development will be located directly adjacent to a housing tract! WTH are you people thinking? Would YOU want this built right next to your home? Furthermore, the freeway and off ramp areas near that area are already a cluster $&@$ of traffic!!! STOP before you make our community a place where no one wants to be because of traffic, air quality and warehouses everywhere ... no thanks for all the homelessness we are already dealing with! Don't forget the people who you represent and who voted for you! Quit being manipulated by developers and money ...
Sharon Stokes
34 year Moreno Valley resident
Sent from my iPhone 13 PRO MAX
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2272 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Debbie Walsh <[email protected]>
Monday, June 13, 2022 2:03 PM
Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; George Hague; Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; City Clerk; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera Moreno Valley Trade Center Project
MVtradeCenterletter June 13.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Please find the attached letter regarding the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project for the upcoming Council Meeting Tuesday, June 21st.
Please make this a part of the public record.
Thank you.
Debbie Walsh
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2273 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) June 13, 2022
Rural Association of Mead Valley (RAMV)
PO Box 2244
Perris, CA 92572
Moreno Valley City Council
Attn: Gabriel Diaz, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
RE: Moreno Valley Trade Center Project including Final Environmental Impact Report {SCH No 20210039038), GPA PEN19-0191, Change of Zone PEN19-0192, Plot Plan PEN19-0193, and Tentative parcel Map 37836.
Honorable Council Members:
The Redlands Amazon Warehouse along the 1-215 Freeway is a Prime example of why this warehouse SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED.
,...,,.,,1,.,. - ou!frilia,1111roJ1~.Ju"eSete .,· 1, c~ ·• _,, o ,_ t • Pe~, whici'shuttue:iportclU,e lOF·H,•,o) P • caurlesyo!l~t l=!e-JllJl'l:l!I. Fd't! ~pa•trntn"
This recently built state of the art Redlands warehouse burned to the ground just two years ago. It was 600,000 square feet along the 1-10 freeway. Operated by Amazon, this recently built F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2274 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) warehouse caught on fire and burned to the ground quickly. Those driving along the freeway could feel the heat from the fire.
The Redlands warehouse was 600,000 sq. ft. and 45 feet in height. The Proposed warehouse is 1,328,853 sq. ft. in size and at least 100 feet in height.
Even though this recently constructed warehouse had the state of the art sprinkler system, it went up in flames quickly and was completely destroyed according to the Redlands Daily news.
There were about 100 people working inside when the fire was reported about 5:30 a.m., and they all got out safely, city spokesman Carl Baker said. "It went up really fast, and the whole building was involved," Baker said. He described the damage as a total loss. The damage was estimated at "hundreds of millions of dollars," Baker said.
One focus of the investigation will be why what Baker called "a state-of-the-art" sprinkler system failed to limit the fire's spread. "Obviously, the suppression system didn't work as intended," he said.
Redlands Daily News Article
Redlands City does not have the equipment necessary to fight this type of warehouse. A large number of agencies from other cities and counties were brought in with ladder trucks to fight this Redlands City fire.
Will the fire trucks be tall enough to put water on top of a building 100 feet or more? That is much taller than the 45-foot warehouse that burned down in Redlands. Will there be enough ladder trucks to fight this type of fire with a building 100 feet tall or more? Will there be F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2275 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) enough of a setback from the residential neighborhoods if the walls over 100 feet tall collapse during a fire?
How does the City of Moreno Valley plan to fight a fire if one were to break out if this massive warehouse were to be built?
The Rural Association of Mead Valley is opposed to the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project for this and the following reasons. This Project is for a proposed 1,328,853 square foot Industrial warehouse building up to 100 feet in height on a 72.5-acre site and adjacent to existing singlefamily homes within a rural animal keeping overlay. The change in the Project Site's Land Use Designation would result in a total increase of approximately 80.04-acres of the Business Park (BP) General Plan Land Use Designation and a corresponding reduction of approximately 80.04- acres of the Residential 2 (R2) General Plan Land Use Designation. 1) a General Plan Amendment (PEN19-0191) to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation of the Project Site from Residential 2 (R2} to Business Park (BP); 2) a Change of Zone (PEN 19-0192) to amend the City's Zoning Atlas to rezone the Project Site from Residential Agriculture 2 (RA2) to Light Industrial (LI) and remove the Primary Animal Keeping Overlay (PAKO) district; 3) Tentative Parcel Map (PEN19-0234) to merge 11 parcels into 1 parcel; and 4) a Plot Plan (PEN19-0193) for an approximately 1,328,853 square foot Warehouse/Distribution Building. The Project Site is located south of Eucalyptus Avenue, north of Encelia Avenue, west of Quincy Street and west or Redlands Boulevard comprising Assessor Parcel Nos. 488- 340-002 through 012.
The Project requires a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Single Family Residential land with animal keeping, a rural land use, to Industrial Zoning. This massive Industrial Project is not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The General Plan that was just updated includes the Project site as Residential housing. No indications were made during the General Plan update that this area would be changed in the near future from residential to industrial land uses. The MVTC is inconsistent with the recently approved 2040 General Plan which points out that industrial is incompatible with residential zoned areas. Policy LCC.3-2 directs.the City to use "development standards to ensure smooth transitions for areas that border one another so that neighborhoods and districts maintain their unique qualities while being compatible with one another". The 2040 General Plan approved in June also requires the city to screen and buffer nonresidential projects to protect adjacent residential property when necessary to mitigate noise, glare and other adverse effects on adjacent lands.
The World Logistics Center and numerous other massive logistics warehouses are set to open nearby this Project location. This Project will add to the tens of thousands of additional truck trips approved on the already gridlocked 1-60 Freeway. The unrealistic analysis of job creation assumes that there is a need for additional warehouse workers. The facts are that the current logistics and e-commerce warehouses cannot fill their positions.
Where will these tens of thousands of additional workers come from? The best use of this land will be for single-family homes.
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2276 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) If the Project is constructed and used as an e-commerce fulfillment center the amount of vehicle trips is projected to be more than 5,000 vehicles per day. The MVTC's plan as a warehouse is to allow the southern entrance of the project to allow 1,000's of vehicles to access Encelia Street.
The project is located 118 feet away the nearest family homes. Building height 100 feet or more.
This Project is for a proposed 1,328,853 square foot Industrial warehouse building up to 100 feet in height on a 72.5-acre site and adjacent to existing single-family homes within a rural animal keeping overlay.
Moreno Valley Municipal Code
9.05.040 Industrial site development standards.
A. General Requirements.
B. Special Site Development Standards.
1. When any industrial district abuts a property in any residential district, a minimum building setback equal to the building height, but not less than twenty (20) feet shall be required from such residential district. Further, the then (10) feet of such setback nearest the district boundary line shall be landscaped.
9. In the LI district, industrial and warehouse, structures greater than fifty thousand (50,000) square feet in building area shall be separated from any residential district as determined by an air quality and noise impact analysis. The minimum separation distance for such uses shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet between the residential district and the truck court or loading area.
The developer does not have a tenant for the building.
The Project is proposed to be built under speculation.
The developer has the option of developing this Project as a fulfillment/e-commerce center or logistics warehouse.
The following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts have been identified in the Final EIR and will require mitigation but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance:
1) Aesthetics: Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista; 2) Air 2 Quality: Air Quality Management Plan Conflict; 3) Air Quality: Criteria Pollutant Emissions; and 4) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: GHG Emissions Generation. Details of these significant unavoidable adverse impacts are discussed in the Final EIR and are summarized, or were otherwise provided in Section 5.3, Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation and Findings, in the Statement of Facts and Findings. (Page 11).
Moreno Valley is one of the areas designates as a Disadvantage Community under SB 535.
Adding thousands of additional logistics trucks to this community will greatly impact the health of over 100,000 residents living in your community.
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2277 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) The Environmental Justice Element is now required by the State to be a part of all General Plans. The City must "minimize any potential health risks" of new development on adjacent sensitive receptors and "designated truck routes that avoid sensitive land uses" (Policies EJ.1-3 and EJ. 1-9}. The City must create a substantial buffer between homes and the warehouse. Screening must be installed along the southern and western boundaries of the Project. All truck parking and docks must be located on the north side and east side of the Project away from residential neighborhoods.
Although the Project has a number of entrances most warehouses use just one driveway for trucks to enter and exit, thereby reducing staffing to one gate. The Project does not have sufficient room at any of the entrances to prevent trucks from backing up onto Eucalyptus Ave.
The Project must include a substantial amount of solar power, especially if used as an ecommerce business. The current power grid is not sufficient to produce enough electricity for the current customers. The drain on the power grid during summer months produces frequent brown outs throughout Southern California.
A large warehouse in the City of Perris recently had a large explosion from a large propane tank.
This warehouse is next to residential homes. The blast from the explosion could be seen and heard from miles away. No propane tanks should be installed and used on warehouse sites. All forklifts, Goats, and equipment should be electric powered.
The Project is located in an area with the worst smog in the nation.
This Project will increase greenhouse gas levels that are already impacting Communities in Western Riverside County. Mead Valley is also a disadvantaged community, The impacts warehouses in Moreno Valley and Perris are having negatively impacts to the entire region. The 1-215 Freeway is congested for most of the day. The 1-60 Freeway is congested with thousands of trucks. This backs up traffic throughout the region. Trucks are now using residential streets to avoid the congested freeways. Cajalco Road is backed up bumper to bumper during the day.
Trucks are using Van Buren, Alessandro and Cajalco to get to the 1-91 to get to the Ports. Our freeways cannot add tens of thousands of additional trucks and cars from any new warehouses without severe gridlock to our freeways.
5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS
IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR disclose the significant environmental effects of a project which cannot be avoide~ if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b)). As described in detail in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this E1R, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance after the consideration of Project design features, compliance with applicable federal, State and local regulations, and the application ofthe feasible mitigation measures identified in this EIR. The significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below thresholds of significance consist of the following:
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2278 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) • Aesthetics: Implementation of the Project would mostly or completely block views of Reche Canyon and the Badlands (and the San Bernardino Mountains beyond) from the segment of Encelia Avenue that abuts the Project site on the south (west of Shubert Street). Also, implementation of the Project would mostly or completely block scenic views of Mount Russell and its foothills from the segment of Eucalyptus Avenue that abuts the Project site. This would be a significant and unavoidable direct impact.
• Air Quality (Air Quality Management Plan Conflict): The Project would emit air pollutants (NOX) that would contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State ozone standards in the SCAB. Because the Project requires a General Plan Amendment, it also would exceed the growth projections contained in SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP. As such, the Project would conflict with and could obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Project impacts due to a conflict with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP would be significant and unavoidable on both a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis.
•Air Quality (Criteria Pollutant Emissions}: After the application of Project design features, mandatory regulatory requirements, and feasible mitigation measures, Project-related NOX emissions during long-term operation of the Project would remain above the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. Accordingly, Project-related emissions would not meet SCAQMD air quality standards and contribute to the non-attainment of ozone standards in the SCAB.
Therefore, Project operational-related impacts due to NOX emissions would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG Emissions Generation): Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold for GHG emissions and would result in a cumulatively-considerable impact to the environment." (page 5-1 in MVTC Final EIR) RAMV is opposed to the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project that will impact the entire region.
We cannot afford to turn anymore of our residential zoned areas into Industrial zoned areas.
Our freeways are already at capacity, our air quality is already the worse in the nation, and our local roads are already being destroyed by truck traffic. Please consider all of the impacts that this Project will bring to not only Moreno Valley, but the entire region.
I urge the City Council to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny this Project.
Sincerely,
Debbie Walsh
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2279 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Joe Bunker <[email protected]>
Monday, June 13, 2022 2:56 PM
Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Edward A. Delgado; Elena BacaSanta Cruz; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher Alvaro Valdivia; Andre Moye; Antonio Hoggins; [email protected]; Brian Jackson; Carolyn Valencik; Ceci Yahoo; Charles Ober; Cindy Ramos; Crys Tom; 'DAMON FOREMAN'; [email protected]; David McAbee; Don McNicholas; Edna White; Ericka Partida; Eugene Wright; Jackie McGee; James Hagen; Jean Mims; [email protected]; Jesus Flores; John Hubbs; Jose Garcia; [email protected]; Karie Woodward; Ken Morin; [email protected]; Lisa Tuy; Liz Anderson; [email protected]; Margarita Valdivia; Maritza Torres; Mark & Donna Montgomery; Merrick; Nancy Altamirano; [email protected]; Pierre Overton; Ramona Zuniga Morales; Randy Thomas; Ray; Renee Smith; Richard Moreno; Richard White; [email protected]; Sharilyn Bankole; Shelly Mesa; Terry Scheschy; [email protected]; VERONICA Ramos Moreno Valley Trade Center Public Hearing on June 21, 2022 Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers;
Please include these comments as part of the record for the above mentioned public hearing. I represent the Valley Springs HOA which borders Encelia Ave., the southern border of this proposed project. We again ask you to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of entitlements for this project for the same reasons that were voiced on December 7, 2021 during the applicants appeal of their decision. While it is true that the developer has reached out to me with some proposed changes that will eliminate the traffic exiting onto Encelia Ave., the environmental impact has not changed. There will still be the same amount of pollution to our neighborhood as described in the FEIR, the same truck and employee traffic congestion at the round-about of Redlands and Eucalyptus, and the same property devaluation to our homes if this project is approved.
Mr. Marquez, Cabrera, and Delgado, you were ready to vote no on December 7 th after listening to us. We ask that you
again vote no on June 2l5t
. Again, please revisit the location of the project and visualize the magnitude of a 1.3 million sq. ft. building and what it will do to our neighborhood.
Thank you,
Joe Bunker
Valley Springs HOA
Warehouse Chairperson
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2280 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
To whom it may concern,
Lindsay Robinson <[email protected]>
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 1:10 PM
David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Edward A. Delgado; City Clerk; Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Sean P. Kelleher; Gabriel Diaz
MV Trade center concerns
June 14 MV Trade Center.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Please accept my attached document regarding my opposition to the MV Trade center that is being brought forward again.
This project does not belong next to our homes and needs to be denied.
Thank you.
Lindsay Robinson
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2281 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) June 14, 2022
Moreno Valley Trade Center Round 2
To whom it may concern,
Please enter this into the Moreno Valley Trade Center Packet along with the additional documents as the previous concerns still apply.
I still believe that the mayor was allowed to act inappropriately when he tabled the discussion prior to voting when he saw he was not going to get his way.
The developer lied when he said that our school superintendent Kedzoira provided a letter of support for the project. Many of us were in disbelief and Mr. Kedzoira confirmed that he did NOT support this project or other warehouses. He thanked them for their donation (bribe) to the school wellness center. This should remind you all of the felony conviction Alex Ramirez received for the fraudulent letters of support for the Ironwood Village project. Superintendent Kedzoira is very well respected and this lie tarnished his reputation for many people and a public apology is warranted. The magnitude of this lie should be reason enough to vote no and black list Hillwood from the city.
Mr. Gutierrez sent out many glossy mailers as well as inundated residents with campaign calls. One such call stated that he does not approve of warehouses near homes/residential areas. That's great news for the residents as it means he will not approve this project.
Campaign mailers from most of you all say you're going to bring better businesses and high paying jobs yet what we see are warehouses, gas stations and fast food. Once elected the promises fade away. Let's start honoring your promises and bring those high paying jobs and better businesses. Moreno Valley could be so much more than what it's been doomed to.
Our General Plan Update has recently been completed and rezoning projects should not be coming forward to soon especially one as hypocritical as this that takes residential land away. The city's excuse for destroying the community character of the NE by letting Chung rezone R2 to R1 O was that we needed more homes to meet state mandates therefore residential land should not be rezoned to warehouses.
Why hasn't Hillwood said where the residential R2 PAKO homes will be relocated as required by law?
Hillwood's presentation admitted they have no tenant thus all of the estimates could be way off regarding traffic, noise, pollution. It's a spec building and thus needs to be denied.
Have any of you sat and watched trucks navigating Benzeevi's absurd roundabout? It was clearly not designed for large trucks so now more trucks are heading west thru the auto mall to Moreno Beach which could be a violation of the Prologis agreement that all F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2282 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) trucks go east to Redlands. This roundabout will not be able to handle trucks from this project as well as wlc so where will these trucks illegally drive? We aren't getting sufficient truck enforcement nor traffic patrols in the east end as it is.
Has our municipal code for noise been amended yet to require warehouses shut down from 10 pm to 7 am if they're next to homes? If not, this project needs to be denied.
This project's EIR has too many significant negative impacts that severely harm the residents' health and quality of life. For too long the city flippantly over rides these severe impacts. There are laws that are supposed to protect us from these travesties.
For too long now the city staff have wantonly used the "overriden to approve too many projects with significant negative impacts in a manner that I believe is illegal. For too long, staff have incorrectly asserted that the City may simply adopt a statement of override when a project results in impacts.
Not so - procedurally, the lead agency can only approve a project with significant environmental impacts if: (1) the adverse environmental effects of a project have been substantially mitigated, or (2) mitigation measures or alternatives are infeasible and overriding considerations exist which allow approval of the project. (PRC§ 21081; Guideline§§ 15091, 15093.)
Overriding considerations do not come into play unless there are no feasible project a ltematives. ( City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, 2006, 39 Cal.4th 341,368.) The lead agency, therefore, cannot merely adopt a statement of overriding considerations and approve a project with significant impacts; it must first adopt feasible alternatives and mitigation measures. "CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant, unmitigated effects on the environment, based simply on a weighing of those effects against the project's benefits, unless the measures necessary to mitigate those effects are truly infeasible. (Id. at 376.)
5 .1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS TIIAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF
THE PROJECT IS
IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR disclose the significant environmental effects of a project which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b)). As described in detail in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance after the consideration of Project design features, compliance with applicable federal, State and local regulations, and the application of the feasible mitigation measures identified in this BIR. The significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below thresholds of significance consist of the following:
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2283 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) o Aesthetics: Implementation of the Project would mostly or completely block views of Reche Canyon and the Bad.lands (and the San Bernardino Mountains beyond) from the segment ofEncelia Avenue that abuts the Project site on the south (west of Shubert Street). Also, implementation of the Project would mostly or completely block scenic views of Mount Russell and its foothills from the segment of Eucalyptus Avenue that abuts the Project site. This would be a significant and unavoidable direct impact.
o Air Quality (Air Quality Management Pion Conflict): The Project would emit air pollutants (NOx) that would contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State ozone standards in the SCAB. Because the Project requires a General Plan Amendment, it also would exceed the growth projections contained in SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP. AB such, the Project would conflict with and could obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Project impacts due to a conflict with the SCAQMD 2016AQMP would be significant and unavoidable on both a direct and cumulativelyconsiderable basis. o Air Quality (Criteria Pollutant Emissions): After the application of Project design features, mandatory regulatory requirements, and feasible mitigation measures, Project-related NOx emissions during long-tenn operation of the Project would remain above the applicable SCAQMD .regional thresholds. Accordingly, Project-related emissions would not meet SCAQMD air quality standards and contribute to the non-attainment of ozone standards in the SCAB. Therefore, Project operational-related impacts due to NOx emissions would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis. o Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG Emissions Generation): Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold for GHG emissions and would result in a cumulatively-considerable impact to the environment." (page 5-1 in MVTC Final EIR) The wlc is 10% of our city's land due to Benzeevi's ability to buy off our former council/pc members. Any future warehouses need to be placed on wlc land and not next to homes. Let Hillwood negotiate with Benzeevi to place his warehouse there perhaps next to Alessandro that they wish to pave. Other warehouses near homes have already been approved. Please ask how much total land is now warehouses in our city and say enough is enough. None of you would enjoy living next to a warehouse so don't inflict this on the established residents. Other cities have imposed moratoriums on warehouses and it's time Moreno Valley does the same. Put the residents health and quality of life first!
Dear Council members,
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2284 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Please respect the residents and the planning commission decision and vote NO on the Moreno Valley Trade Center. The 2006 general plan as well as the current mayor appointed planning commission realized that warehouses do not belong next to our residential homes.
This area of Moreno Valley was renamed to Rancho Belago and it was touted as the "Beverly Hills" of Moreno Valley complete with matching signs. Unfortunately thru less than ethical processes the warehouses to the east of these homes were approved. These residents do not deserve to now be surrounded on two sides with warehouses and 24/7 noise, traffic, light and air pollution.
The Hill wood presentation tries to depict a rosy picture but the reality is that the warehouse does not belong there. They have no tenant so all the data on traffic and noise they are providing is irrelevant.
Redlands south of Eucalyptus is not a truck route yet they have a truck entrance near the south end of the building near Encelia. There is no proposal to change the truck route, so they will be breaking the law.
An incredible amount of traffic will be using Encelia to exit the project during shift changes yet no street light was proposed. If it becomes an Amazon distribution center their vehicles will be invading the residential streets to reach Redlands.
Some of the houses will receive air filtration systems therefore they acknowledge the severe negative impact of their pollution. If air filtration is needed in the homes how will they protect the kids/adults who are playing and working outside? A yes vote means you really don1t care about the health of the residents.
Titls project has a long list of money they're "donating" to different causes. Sure looks like Pay to Play if not bribery.
Unless there is a point of sale, the revenue the city may get is not worth the damage they will do.
Jobs- there will be many more jobs associated with building the 148 homes and more long tenn jobs. 148 homes will need upgrades, repairs, landscape maintenance etc for many years to come and will employ a large variety of tradesmen.
This warehouse hopes to remove approximately 148 half acre principal animal keeping homes at a time when the city claims we need more homes. The pandemic has shown us that people and especially children need space and yards to play thus the R2 P AKO zoning must remain especially as your new GPU allowed Nelson Chung to rezone our R2 P AKO land north of the freeway to his preferred Rl0 (Pay to Play goes full circle).
The Hillwood presentation talked about moving the 148 P AKO homes to another area but did not say where. It's my understanding they are supposed to show the new location for the displaced residential land. Where else in the city will they put those homes? F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2285 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Noise- the city needs to amend their municipal noise ordinances to include warehouse noise.
Warehouses in or near residential homes need to cease operation from 10 pm to 7 am. Just as loud parties, construction, yard equipment noise is restricted so must the warehouse noise. A perfect example is the horrib1y designed paper company building that the city approved that disrupts sleep and forces residents to keep their doors and windows shut all day to avoid the obnoxious droning. Would any of you want to have a generator running in your front yard all night? I don't think so and the excuse that it's "within acceptable limits" is absurd. None of you would find it acceptable so don't force it on us. Beeping trucks all night long is also disruptive and needs to cease.
One of the items they bragged about was paving Alessandro thru the wlc property- something :Mr. Benzeevi is responsible for and won't help the city since Mr. Benzeevi intends to close Alessandro east of Merwin thru his property and the city signed off on it. Cactus wil I become the through street.
This warehouse appeared as a done deal on the maps shown during the public GPU meeting. An astute resident noticed it as the project had not come forward yet. The GPU consultant stated that city staff infom1ed him it was already approved. So once again the city promoted a project that had not come before them yet just as was done years ago for wlc.
There is not sufficient data regarding the compounding effect that residents will suffer if both the wlc and the trade center are developed. The wlc will be bad enough, don't compound it. Vote NO on the mv trade center.
The 2006 general plan and the current planning commissioners did the right thing. They protected the residents from a warehouse next to their homes. They chose to value the residents' health and quality of life over a quick profit for a developer.
People choose to live in areas that suit their interests and income levels. No one I've met chooses to live next to a warehouse and no city should rezone residential property near existing homes to warehouses. The city has made many horrible decisions with regard to warehouses don't let this be one of them.
T doubt any of you (council, staff, and developers) live next to a warehouse nor would you choose to do so. The negative impacts are too detrimental and can't be mitigated so please vote NO on the MV Trade Center- wrong location and it's your responsibility to make the residents' health and quality of life a priority!
Thank you,
Lindsay Robinson
Moreno Valley Trade Center dEIR concerns
To whom it may (or may not) concern,
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2286 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Please include this in the public record to voice my concerns on the inadequacy of the draft EIR related to the Moreno Valley Trade Center proposed at a location on Redlands Blvd. south of Eucalyptus.
As with the other warehouse projects, the city staff and developers make light of the significant negative impacts that can't be mitigated and they unethically continue to override them without adequately addressing the cumulative effect of all the previous projects who also had their significant negative impacts unmitigated (pollution, noise, traffic etc.). Some of these projects that directly affect the residents south of Encelia include the wlc, Aldi, Prologis warehouses and the sleep disrupting Solaris paper company and now commercial zoning just north of them. The developers and staff that promote these obscene projects do not live here and leave us to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions and yes outright false data in order to get their projects approved.
Many at city hall have forgotten who they work for- it's the residents not the developers and our health and quality of life should be their priority, not the financial enrichment of developers. Would the city staff and developers want this to happen where they livehave their views blocked, breathe bad air, have non-stop truck traffic 24/7 disrupting their sleep with beeping and brakes noise etc.? People moved out here for the larger lots, animal keeping, quiet, night skies, low crime to name a few. We poured our life savings into purchasing our homes in an area we researched and thought was the right place for our families. Warehouses were never intended out here and especially the encroachment into residential areas as the MV Trade Center intends to do. The 2006 comprehensive general plan protected the residents, the new plan does not.
This project was already included on the general plan update as a done deal. It was on the map and consultant thought it was already approved. How did that happen when it hadn't even come forward yet? Again underhanded action at city hall just like when the city promoted the wlc prematurely. This warehouse does not belong here and needs to be eliminated.
The land that this abomination intends to rezone is resident R2 with animal keeping rights. The city keeps whining about losing control if they don't meet certain housing numbers yet they want to remove residential land in favor of another warehouse. They just allowed Chung/Benzeevi committee to remove more animal keeping residential land so we need to preserve what is left. The city needs to stop contradicting themselves and using RHNA when it suits them. DO NOT ALLOW THIS LOSS OF
RESIDENTIAL LAND FOR ANOTHER WAREHOUSE ENCROACHING INTO AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD!
Their traffic studies and analysis contain many areas that need to be addressed more completely and false data/info removed. Encelia is not a high traffic street and is not a truck route and should never become one. Why have the traffic numbers been F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2287 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) inflated for Encelia to make it seem Oke all the project driveways won't impact the residents??
This project intends to direct a huge amount of traffic onto a quiet street and onto Redlands. Redlands Blvd south of Eucalyptus is NOT a truck route although large numbers of trucks break the law daily.
This study seems to assume that Encelia and Redlands will be ok for their trucks when they are not truck routes. Why hasn't this study adequately addressed the illegal trucks using Redlands Blvd south of Eucalyptus? Will this project pay for additional police patrols to stop the Ulegal truck traffic? The trucks going south on Redlands to Cactus will have severe negative impacts on the other housing tracks along Redlands and Cactus so why isn1
t this addressed satisfactorily?
These large trucks also destroy our roads much quicker than passenger vehicleswill this project (and wlc) be held accountable in paying for the damage to our roads? It has been mentioned that this will be another Amazon distribution center, if so is their adequate parking and law enforcement for all their small delivery trucks? We have Amazon in our city already and do not need another. Their drivers are dangerous and invade neighborhoods parking their vehicles off the premises. Again, all these neighborhoods will suffer compounded health and quality life issues associated with adding another warehouse to their already affected community.
Will this project finance the addition-al police we will heed to protect our residents from all these negative impacts associated with our res'idential road use? Employee traffic- we all know that people look for quicker routes to and from their destinations. How will you protect the existing residents from excessive employee/truck traffic through their quiet neighborhoods? Non-residential traffic is much more dangerous than residential. How will you stop employees from parking in our residenUal neighborhoods? Where are the safe guards and the nonresidential traffic noisei dangerous driving, pollution needs to be addressed not over ridden.
Why have the safe equestrian trails been eliminated from this study? Our master planned trail system includes a safe equestrian overpass at Theodore and it should be down Redlands (and Theodore) to connect with Lake Perris. Only pedestrian and bikes get mentioned.
Aesthetics-The 2006 general plan included many more protections to our residents that this project will destroy. The wlc high cube warehouses will obstruct the resident's wonderful views to the east and now this project will obstruct their views to the north.
Just another severe negative impact that is compounded by other projects that have already been approved. Loss of the substantial views to east is bad enough so do not allow this project to obstruct their remaining views. Why isn't the city protecting the residents better rather than over riding this compounded severe negative impact? F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2288 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Pollution- the city and out of town developers continue to play Russian roulette with our health by approving unlimited warehouses to encroach into our residential areas. There are so many studies already done that show the damage done to our lungs from diesel and other fuels- especially the young and seniors. Why didn't this EIR address the.
NOx pollution that will be associated with the project operation? Along with air pollution there will be substantial noise and light pollution 24/7 that are not adequately addressed- will the truck noise and lights be stopped at 10 pm as other activities need to? Will the city finally address this issue and amend our noise ordinance to include warehouses in residential areas? The beeping trucks at skechers all night have disrupted sleep of those who live north of it and since it opened they haven't been able to sleep with their windows open. Since the paper company opened the noise has disrupted both daytime and night time sleep and that should not be allowed to occur with any more warehouses. Why hasn't the compounded effect been addressed adequately to include the injustice that this neighborhood will suffer from with the already approved wlc? Do NOT claim it doesn't need to be addressed!
Water- I don't believe that the EMWD is being truthful on being able to supply water to all these projects coming forward- wlc and the commercial north of the freeway will suck up so much water. I was appalled to read that they will dig a well for their project and suck out the aquifers which aren't getting adequately replenished during so many years of drought. The Festival also dug a well recently and will also be taking aquifer water.
We have residents whose property relies on well water that these projects may deplete.
Where are the safeguards for these residents? Why was there no research and data collected on what happens when excessive underground water is removed? How much water will they be pumping from their well? When the underground water is pumped out, the ground will settle anq homes could start sinking and sink holes could develop on our roads. Will this project be responsible later down the road for all the damage they've done? This well pumping by warehouses should NOT be allowed and certainly without safe guards and restrictions.
Jobs- once again the promise of jobs is bandied about to entice people to like this project. The 2006 and 2021 general plans as well as city propaganda every year promise to bring high paying jobs to Moreno Valley so people don't have to commute.
Warehouses do not bring those high paying jobs promised. This project like the wlc will swallow up in huge amount of valuable land for a small number of jobs that are not high paying. What guarantee is there that there will be 2000 permanent high paying jobs?~Why hasn't the city learned from past lies from developers in order to get their project approved (skechers/benzeevi promised thousands and did not deliver)? Warehouses and even trucks are becoming more automated, therefore less jobs and most are temporary. Why do you keep bringing up the commuting issue when it's been shown that our resident commute times are on average or less than surrounding communities? In fact the majority of city staff commute into Moreno Valley to work so it is a non-issue intended to instill fear. Why does the city staff F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2289 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) continue to condemn our residents to low paying warehouse jobs? We deserve better.
For too long now the city staff have wantonly used the "override" to approve too many projects with significant negative impacts in a manner that I believe is illegal. For too long, staff have incorrectly asserted that the City may simply adopt a statement of override when a project results in impacts.
Not so - procedurally, the lead agency can only approve a project with significant environmental impacts if: (1) the adverse environmental effects of a project have been substantially mitigated, or (2) mitigation measures or alternatives are infeasible and overriding considerations exist which allow approval of the project. (PRC§ 21081; Guideline§§ 15091, 15093.)
Overriding considerations do not come into play unless there are no feasible project alternatives. ( City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, 2006, 39 Cal.4th 341,368.) The lead agency, therefore, cannot merely adopt a statement of overriding considerations and approve a project with significant impacts; it must first adopt feasible alternatives and mitigation measures. "CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant, unmitigated effects on the environment, based simply on a weighing of those effects against the project's benefits, unless the measures necessary to mitigate those effects are truly infeasible. (Id. at 376.)
Now with CEQA in play, the city/developer try to claim that rejecting the project and leaving the zoning as is will result in the same if not more severe negative impacts that just leave me speechless. With RHNA in play we need these residential homesespecially as the pandemic has shown kids and adults need larger yards to play in to remain safely distanced. Our large lot neighborhood home sell quickly and are in demand so we need to keep our R2 designation. The NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE is the correct selection and the MV TRADE CENTER needs to be denied.
Our city has been overwhelmed by warehouses and at this point there needs to be a moratorium. No more warehouses and we need more open space per the law. The compounded effects are real and dangerous and should no longer be ignored.
As residents we don't have investor money to afford legal services and PR staff the way developers do. Our hard earned money went into purchasing our homes in a place chosen that suited our life styles. We moved further out of town to larger lots, space, low crime, night skies, views etc. and trusted that our city government would actually work to protect us as city governments were set up to do. Staff and elected officials take ethics training and oaths of office to do so. Unfortunately developer money has completely corrupted our system of government and the residents have not been protected. Rejection of the Moreno Valley Trade Center will be the start to reverse prior environmental injustices inflicted on the tax paying residents of Moreno Valley.
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2290 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Thank you,
Lindsay Robinson
Resident of Moreno Valley
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2291 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern:
Eric Esquer <[email protected]>
Monday, June 13, 2022 6:43 PM
Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Dr. Yxstian A.
Gutierrez; Sean P. Kelleher
Moreno Valley Trade center concern
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
My name is Eric Esquer. I am concerned about the rising inflation and its effects on government cost for the public improvements and wages. The Consumer Price Index shows an inflation rate of almost 6% per year, and the costs of public improvements is up almost 9% according to the Engineering News Record. And based on my personal household expenses I expect the inflation rates are even higher.
While I think President Biden is trying to slow the inflation rates, it's likely won't be slowing down anytime soon. Even the Federal; Reserve Board recently admitted they were wrong when they said inflation was "transinary" and would go away in 2022. Admittedly, it has been here for some time.
This inflation will result in higher payroll cost and the cost of pavement, storm drains, irrigation lines, and general repairs for the city.
One way to pay for the added costs is to support development like the project before you. One that will provide hundreds of high paying union jobs during construction, and over a thousand jobs after its in operation. One that will also pay extreme property taxes, and even sales tax revenue if it is developed for a retail operation.
I hope that the council will consi9er these factors in their deliberations.
Thank you for your time,
Eric Esquer
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2292 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mike Lee
City Manager
City Manager's Office
City of Moreno Valley
Mike Lee
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 10:14 AM
Sean P. Kelleher; Aldo Schindler; Manuel A. Mancha
FW: Vote Yes for the (MVTC) Moreno Valley Trade Center Project June 21st 2022 p: 951.413.3020 I e: [email protected] w: www.moval.org
14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley, CA, 92553
From: Amanda Kirby <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 6:43 PM
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez <[email protected]>; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz <[email protected]>; Edward A. Delgado <[email protected]>; Ulises Cabrera <[email protected]>; David Marquez <[email protected]>; Mike Lee <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote Yes for the (MVTC ) Moreno Valley Trade Center Project June 21st 2022 Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Council Members,
I strongly support the above Project and ask you to vote YES on June 21st , 2022. We need the additional Jobs and City
Revenues so you don't have to raise our TAXES ! ! The Developer has more than addressed the adjacent neighborhood to the South's concerns and is spending more money on Community Benefits to the entire City than the WLC did (World Logistics Center) and it is 40 times larger than this project.
Thank you,
Amanda
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2293 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mike Lee
City Manager
City Manager's Office
City of Moreno Valley
Mike Lee
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 10:14 AM
Sean P. Kelleher; Manuel A. Mancha; Aldo Schindler
FW: Vote Yes for the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project June 21st 2022 p: 951.413.3020 I e: [email protected] w: www.moval.or
14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley, CA, 92553
From: adam stephens <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 10:13 AM
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez <[email protected]>; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz <[email protected]>; Edward A. Delgado <[email protected]>; Ulises Cabrera <[email protected]>; David Marquez <[email protected]>; Mike Lee <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote Yes for the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project June 21st 2022 Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Council Members,
I strongly support the above Project and ask you to vote YES on June zist , 2022. We need the additional Jobs and City
Revenues so you don't have to raise our TAXES ! ! The Developer has more than addressed the adjacent neighborhood to the South's concerns and is spending more money on Community Benefits to the entire City than the World Logistics Center and it is 40 times larger than this project.
Thanks,
Adam
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2294 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Linda M Castellano <[email protected]>
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:52 PM
Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Ulises Cabrera; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Elena BacaSanta Cruz Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher
Proposed Moreno Valley Trade Center
Warning: External Email -Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good evening Mayor Gutierrez, Council Members Ulises Cabrera, David Marquez, Ed Delgado and Elena Baca, I send this email to implore you to vote NO on the proposed Moreno Valley Trade Center. The land is zoned for homes, not warehouses. We have enough warehouses in Moreno Valley along with already heavy diesel truck traffic on the freeway and not to mention up and down Ironwood Blvd! Building this massive warehouse will only bring more truck and more pollution! We already have an air pollution problem with the existing diesel truck emissions. Building the MVTC would bring thousands more diesel trucks and even more pollution that is not good for us that live here and the children that go to schools here.
Vote your conscience and vote NO on the MVTC!
Northeast Moreno Valley Resident,
Cipriano and Linda Castellano
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2295 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Gabriel,
Jerry Stephens <[email protected]>
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:21 PM
Gabriel Diaz
Steve Quintanilla; Aldo Schindler; Manuel A. Mancha; Sean P. Kelleher; Mindy Davis; Julia Descoteaux
RE: VOTE YES ON MVTC (MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER) JUNE 21ST Warning: External Email -Watch for Email Red Flags!
Thanks for responding ! Yes, the revenues and extra sales tax generated from this project and its employees shopping in MV will help maintain the City Staffing levels at City Hall and Public Safety. It would be a disaster to have to cut City Staff/Public Safety levels if we cant keep up with the inflationary spiral we are witnessing now. We don't want to become another San Bernadine. I am very proud of the 20,000 new jobs and industrial tax base that has come to MV in recent years from the hard work of the City Staff and developers. I am very proud to have been a part of that effort ! Lets approve this great project and keep moving forward. We cant let those with no vision or common business sense bankrupt our great City. Vote YES for the MVTC !
Thank you,
Jerry Stephens
Diversified Realty, Inc
Land/Development
Cell-Text# (951) 567-3849
Email: [email protected]
From: Gabriel Diaz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 3:49 PM
To: Jerry Stephens <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve Quintanilla <[email protected]>; Aldo Schindler <[email protected]>; Manuel A. Mancha <[email protected]>; Sean P. Kelleher <[email protected]>; Mindy Davis <[email protected]>; Julia Descoteaux <[email protected]>; Gabriel Diaz <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: VOTE YES ON MVTC (MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER) JUNE 21ST Hello Mr. Stevens,
Thank you for your email. We also received your previous email. Would you like to add or intended to add anything additional to this new second email?
Thank you,
1 RSIFIED llu,I.-, I •
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2296 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel
Gabriel Diaz
Associate Planner
Community Development
City of Moreno Valley
p: 951.413.32261 e: yabrield@)mo\,al.urn w: 'WIW mQ'@).i;i q 14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley, CA. 92553
NOTICE
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED.
HIS MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL, AND MAY BE EXEMPT OR PROHIBITED F
IF YOU RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, DO NOT FORWARD OR OTHERWISE SHARE THIS MESSAGE INSTEAD, IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND OUR OFFICE OF THE ERROR.
From: Jerry Stephens <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 2:08 PM
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez <[email protected]>; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz <[email protected] ; Edward A. Delgado <[email protected]>; Ulises Cabrera <[email protected]>; David Marquez <[email protected]>; Mike Lee <[email protected]>; Gabriel Diaz <[email protected]>; Sean P. Kelleher <sea [email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: VOTE YES ON MVTC (MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER) JUNE 21ST Thank you
Jerry Stephens
Diversified Realty, Inc
Land/Development
Cell-Te>ct # (951 ) 567-3849
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Email: [email protected]
2 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2297 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Mike Lee
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Sean P. Kelleher; Aldo Schindler; Manuel A. Mancha
Subject: FW: Vote Yes for the (MVTC) Moreno Valley Trade Center Project June 21st 2022 Mike Lee
City Manager
City Manager's Office
City of Moreno Valley
p: 951.413.3020 I e: [email protected] w: www.moval.org
14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley, CA, 92553
From: Jerry Stephens <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 5:16 PM
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez <[email protected]>; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz <[email protected]>; Edward A. Delgado <[email protected]>; Ulises Cabrera <[email protected]>; David Marquez <[email protected]>; Mike Lee <[email protected]>
Cc: Jerry Stephens <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote Yes for the (MVTC ) Moreno Valley Trade Center Project June 21st 2022 Warning: External Email -Watch for Email Red Flags I
DearCouncil Members,
I strongly support the above Project and ask you to vote YES on June 21st , 2022. We need the additional Jobs and City
Revenues so you don't have to raise our TAXES ! ! The Developer has more than addressed the adjacent neighborhood to the South's concerns and is spending more money on Community Benefits to the entire City than the WLC did (World Logistics Center) and it is 40 times larger than this project.
Thank you,
Jerry Stephens
Diversified Realty, Inc
Land/Development
Cell-Text# (951) 567-3849
Email: [email protected]
1 l>l\ii'R.SIFIF.O 11m1n ,,..
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2298 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Catherine Losee <[email protected]>
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:52 PM
Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; City Clerk
Gabriel Diaz; [email protected]
Our concerns of the Moreno ValleyTrade Center
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
With great respect, I want to remind you that you were elected to serve your district and the people of those respected communities. I find it disappointing that you don't respect the voices and the values of the folks you are supposed to serve. I'm talking about warehouses, changing the general plan to put warehouses in and near schools and neighborhoods. With an infrastructure that can barely support the terrible traffic that exists currently. Yes we live in the northeast, yes, yes we opposed the Benzeevi plan(WLC) to put 700 football fields in warehouses. encroaching on neighborhoods, so it's scaled down HA! The city did not do its research and gave everyone false information and had to spend lots of taxpayer money on lawsuits. But you still want more warehouses ! I have done my research . The Inland Empire is already saturated with warehouses many not even filled We have warehouses right across the freeway, the Solaris paper company and signage that lights up at night shining down on our neighborhood ( yes we also have the Moreno Valley Auto Center signage too) Solaris the paper company has this drone noise that disturbs sleep. Folks bought here in our particular area for the big lots and larger homes and the quiet lifestyle. We, my husband and I as well as other residents( I have been told don't want changes) are Not opposed to changes. We have a nice shopping area, Stoneridge and Moreno Beach shopping area, the University Health Systems on Nason just to name a few. Are you all so unimaginative that you can only think about developers' money and warehouses on the beautiful empty land that surrounds us, or is it politics as normal like Councilmen Co,.our city was on the national news for all the wrong reasons. Why not developers that could build parks in the neighborhoods for the children and libraries, tech schools for young people that want to learn different life skills. The promise of jobs from the warehouses is very misleading and the city doesn't make a dime unless the point of sale is in our city and empty warehouses a blight on our city
DO NOT USE OR CHANGE THE RESIDENTIAL LAND THAT SURROUNDS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS WITH ANOTHER WAREHOUSE/ MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter
Respectfully,
Catherine & Richard Losee
12433 Prairie Wind Trail.
Moreno Valley, CA. 92555
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2299 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Sean P. Kelleher
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 3:57 PM
Gabriel Diaz
Cc: Steve Quintanilla; Mike Lee; Aldo Schindler; Manuel A. Mancha; Mindy Davis; Julia Descoteaux
Subject: FW: MVTC warehouse proposal
Gabriel,
Please add this to the record you are creating. I have already responded to Ms. Blua as she emailed me directly.
Thank you
Sean
Sean P. Kelleher
Planning Division Manager/Planning Official
Community Development
City of Moreno Valley
p: 951.413.32151 e: [email protected] w: www.moval.ory
14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley, CA, 92553
NOTICE
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED.
HIS MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL, AND MAY BE EXEMPT OR PROHIBITED F
IF YOU RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, DO NOT FORWARD OR OTHERWISE SHARE THIS MESSAGE INSTEAD, IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND OUR OFFICE OF THE ERROR.
From: biancablua <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 3:44 PM
To: Sean P. Kelleher <[email protected]>
Subject: MVTC warehouse proposal
Warning: External Email -Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Mr. Kelleher,
Please include my concerns on the June 21st City Council Agenda.
I am contacting you in regards to the MVTC proposal. I have a I ready expressed my concern to this project in front of the city planning committee, which voted it down. I am now expressing my concerns to you.
With a Ph.D. in Environmental Toxicolgy I know that increasing the amount of diesel trucks on our roads will increase the amount of air pollution in the area. Diesel trucks spew out particulate matter which causes asthma, cancer, and brain damage. By voting for this proposal you are sentencing Moreno Valley residents, and children in particular, to an unhealthy life.
Please vote NO on the MVTC proposal to allow our dreams to soar.
With Gratitude,
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2300 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Bianca Blua, Ph.D.
Retired Educator
11580 Steeplechase Dr.
Sent from my Metro by T-Mobile SG Device
Sent from my Metro by T-Mobile SG Device
2 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2301 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Marcia Narog <[email protected]>
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 2:38 PM
[email protected]; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Dr. Yxstian A.
Gutierrez; City Clerk; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher
MV Trade Center
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
Just STOP this insanity and stop approving more warehouses!!!!! I don't have the time or desire to keep telling all of you that we hate the warehouses that we already have for many good reasons. We have more warehouses than any sane community needs. And surely we don't need more! We had the "planned" warehouse district designated in the southern part of the city. Then the council approved the WLC on the East side of the city because of the whims of ONE developer. Warehouses are now popping elsewhere too (e.g the center of town--Heacock & Hwy 60). Enough already!!!! What is wrong with you all thinking this is a good thing for our city! They are ugly, poor investments, unhealthy for our residents in many ways and have already negatively impacted our lives, our quality of life , our vistas, etc. When are you going to start to represent the best interests of your voters and citizens? DON'T keep torturing us like this!!! VOTE NO to the MV Trade Center!!!! Sincerely and disgustedly,
Marcia Narog
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2302 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
George Hague <[email protected]>
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 5:00 PM
Gabriel Diaz
Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Moreno Valley homes/families/streets & SR-60 & 1-215 are already impacted by warehouse diesel trucks & their harmful pollution --Why add the MVTC? Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good afternoon City Council members, June 14, 2022
Re: Moreno Valley homes/families/streets & SR-60 & I -215 are already impacted by warehouse diesel trucks & their pollution.
Moreno Valley residents are having their Homes and Families Streets impacted by diesel Trucks and their Harmful Pollution
Local Streets and SR-60 and 1-215 are re becoming more and more impacted/clogged by Diesel Trucks and Their Harmful Pollution.
The following are some of the city's approved warehouses which have not been built.
The World Logistic Center 40 million sq ft warehouse= across the street from homes is approved with more than 11,000 Daily Diesel Truck Trips and more than 50,000 other Daily Vehicle Trip The Moreno Valley Business Center warehouse/diesel truck traffic is approved= across the street from homes will be impacted by Harmful Diesel Pollution & Traffic.
The Compass Danbe Centerpointe warehouse is approved= across the street from a school, homes and apartments where Diesel Truck Trips/Traffic and their Harmful Pollution will impact Families.
Our City IS NOW PROCESSING THE FOLLOWING THREE WAREHOUSES NEAR HOMES WHERE DIESEL TRUCK TRAFFIC WILL CLOG OUT STREETS AND IMPACT THE HELATH OF OUR FAMILIES- all require changes in our new General Plan to allow warehouses.
The 1.3 million sq ft Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) is across the street from an existing neighborhood and adjacent to land zoned for more homes. All of the changes in the project's changes since December have not significantly reduced its toxic pollution which will impact the health of many families and the impacts to Redlands Blvd roundabout/traffic. Vote No on this poorly placed Warehouse. 1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2303 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) The Heacock Commerce Center warehouse is only 20 feet from homes and across the street from others. Their Diesel Truck traffic and its Harmful Pollution will impact these families and our City's roads.
The Edmont commerce Center Warehouse is only 10 feet from homes and across the street from others. Their Diesel Truck traffic and it Harmful Pollution will impact these families and our City's roads.
PLEASE DENY THE MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER (MVTC). OUR FAMILIE~AND LOCAL STREETS AND SR-60/I-21S CANNOT HANDLE THE IMPACTS FROM THIS POORLY PLACED WAREHOUSE.
Sincerely,
George Hague
2 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2304 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
George Hague <[email protected]>
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 7:13 AM
Gabriel Diaz
Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Impacts to children & their families & those using Redlands Blvd by the MVTC Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good morning city council members, June 15, 2022
Re:lmpacts to children & their families & those using Redlands Blvd caused by the Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) - even with revisions.
THE AIR POLLUTION CAUSED BY THE DIESEL TRUCKS FROM THE 1.3 MILLION SQ FT MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER (MVTC) WILL STILL IMPACT THE NEARBY FAMILIES. REMEMBER IT IS NOT HOW FAR THE BUILDING IS AWAY, BUT THE PATH THAT DIESEL TRUCKS USE AND IDLE. THE RECENT REVISIONS TO THE WAREHOUSE PLANS STILL ALLOW THE POLLUTION TO EASILY REACH THE CHILDREN - ESPECIALLY IF THEY TRY TO PLAY OUTSIDE IN THEIR YARDS. THE EXISTING ZONING FOR HOMES WOULD NOT CAUSE THESE PROBLEMS.
THE MVTC'S DIESEL TRUCKS WILL ADD TO THE INCREASING CONGESTION AT THE INADEQUATE ROUNDABOUT ON REDLANDS BLVD AS WELL THE POORLY DESIGNED AND OUTDATED SR-60 INTERCHANGE. THERE COULD BE A DIESEL TRUCK TRYING TO USE BOTH AT LEAST EVERY MINUTE DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS. THE RECENT REVISIONS WILL DO VERY LITTLE TO REDUCE TRAFFIC. THE EXISTING ZONING OF HOMES WOULD NOT CAUSE THESE PROBLEMS.
THE DEVELOPER STILL WANTS THIS PROJECT TO BE A FULFILLMENT CENTER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A BUILDING OF MORE THAN 100 FEET. IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET IN SUCH BUILDINGS, BUT THE NUMBER OF CUBIC FEET. THEREFORE THE PROPOSED VERY SMALL REDUCTION IN SQ FOOTAGE MEANS VERY LITTLE, BUT INCREASING HEIGHT ADDS MANY MORE CUBIC FEET.
TO PROTECT FAMILIES AND THEIR CHILDREN'S HEALTH FROM THE PROJECT'S DEISEL POLLUTION, TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN MORENO VALLEY STREETS/SR-60 EXASPERATED BY THIS MASSIVE PROJECT
YOU MUST SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS UNANIMOUS VOTE TO DENY THIS POORLY PLACED PROJECT.
THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSED REVISIONS DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE OR ELIMINATE
SOME OF ITS MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS/IMPACTS TO MORENO VALLEY RESIDENTS, BUT ALLOWING THE EXISTING ZONING FOR HOMES TO REMAIN WOULD. 1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2305 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Sincerely,
George Hague
2 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2306 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
George Hague <[email protected]>
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 5:30 PM
Gabriel Diaz
Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Diesel Truck Traffic in Moreno Valley vs the City of Perris Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good evening/morning city council members,
Why does our city continue to bring diesel trucks into our city near homes and on truck routes past schools? The Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) brings toxic diesel pollution very near an existing neighborhood with children. The elderly and children are the most impacted by diesel pollution.
The City of Perris leadership is finally realizing the danger they bring to their residents by allowing diesel trucks into and through their city on the approved Mid County Parkway. if you scroll down to the sections just above the picture, you we see they wrote they will "support the parkway - only if trucks weren't allowed on it" The City of Moreno Valley needs to deny the MVTC because it brings diesel trucks very near an existing neighborhood and all the changes made in the project since December will still allow its health impacting pollution to easily reach families - especially those trying to use their yards.
Sincerely,
George Hague
After 20 years and $150 million, will Mid-County
Parkway ever be built in Riverside County?
•
•
•
•
By JEFF HORSEMAN I [email protected] I The Press-Enterprise 1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2307 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) PUBLISHED: April 25, 2022 at 6:04 p.m. I UPDATED: April 25, 2022 at 6:15 p.m.
It's taken almost 20 years and more than $150 million to build a parkway between Perris and San Jacinto.
Despite that, most of the Mid-County Parkway remains on the drawing board - unhelpful to drivers whose limited east-west options include an expressway notorious for fatal crashes.
It's unclear when the 16-mile parkway will ever be finished. Officials with the city of Perris and the Riverside County Transportation Commission are trying to resolve the city's concerns about the project's impact on the city, a situation that frustrates commissioners who thought the parkway was a done deal. "This is pretty much the big punch in the eyeball when you come back at this stage, $150 million into it and decide now is the time to raise a bunch of issues," Jurupa Valley City Council Member Brian Berkson, a commission member, said at a March 28 meeting.
Perris officials contend the current version of the parkway isn't what the city agreed to, and the city wasn't told of the changes until work started on the first phase, an interchange being built at the 215 Freeway and Placentia Avenue in Perris.
"The concerns related to traffic, air quality, and noise impacts on nearby residential areas, city streets, a fire station, and a local park, remain of great concern for us," Perris City Manager Clara Miramontes wrote in an April 18 letter to the commission, the county's main transportation-planning body. Earlier, Perris raised concerns about the parkway cutting off access to a nearby high school.
On Monday, April 25, a subcommittee of the 34-member transportation commission, which has elected leaders from every city in Riverside County, agreed to delay work on the parkway's Perris segment "until such time that the project is financially and technically feasible," a commission report states. It's not clear when that might be.
Money and staff time for the parkway would be shifted toward another segment of the project as well as work to improve safety on the Ramona Expressway, one of the east-west linkages between the San Jacinto Valley and the county's western half and the subject of heightened traffic enforcement after a series of deadly crashes, including at least four in the past three months.
The subcommittee's vote must be approved by the full commission. That might happen in May.
Home to 2.4 million people, Riverside County is the 10th most populated county in the United States and one of California's fastest growing counties.
Infrastructure has struggled to keep pace with that rapid growth, leading to gridlock as residents lured by the county's cheaper housing commute to jobs beyond the county line.
A longtime challenge has been adding another link between the San Jacinto Valley and the county's western half.
Right now, drivers' main options between Hemet/San Jacinto and the 215 are Highway 7 4 and the Ramona Expressway.
RELATED ARTICLES
• Truck lanes open on 60 Freeway east of Moreno Valley
• 60 Freeway closures canceled in Riverside County's Badlands • What lanes can semi trucks legally drive in on Southern California freeways? • Westbound 60 Freeway to close three nights in Riverside County's Badlands • Temecula's Winchester Road to close three nights at 15 Freeway The parkway concept sprang from a regional planning effort in the late 1990s that developed a long-term blueprint for growth in the county's unincorporated areas, including a network of reserves to protect endangered species and a 2 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2308 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) vision for new and expanded transportation arteries. At first, the parkway would have one or two lanes in each direction but eventually would have three lanes each way, a commission fact sheet states.
Originally, the parkway would have stretched from the 15 Freeway in Corona to Highway 79 in San Jacinto. But facing rising costs and concerns about building in Lake Mathews and Gavilan Hills, the transportation commission in 2009 cut the parkway from 32 to 16 miles. That meant it would run between the 215 and the 79 and the portion between the 15 and 215 would be scrapped.
The parkway project also required an extensive environment impact report and settled two lawsuits challenging the project on environmental grounds. In all, more than $150 million has been spent so far on the parkway, which includes the cost of getting permits and buying land to offset environmental impacts.
In all, it could cost $1.1 billion to finish the project. The Placentia interchange, which is 70% complete, will cost $42 million.
The commission was set to move forward with the parkway when it received a Feb. 28 letter from Perris.
In it, Perris officials expressed concern the parkway would send traffic through residential streets to connect with the 215, Officials also worried the parkway would sever access to Orange Vista High School, which opened in 2016 after the parkway's environment study wrapped up.
Commission staff agreed to build a bridge undercrossing so students could get to Orange Vista, preserve a local trail and guide trucks to Perris' preferred truck routes, commission Executive Director Anne Mayer said at the March 28 meeting of the commission's subcommittee dealing with road projects in western Riverside County.
But in a March 23 letter to the commission, Perris officials said they would support the parkway - only if trucks weren't allowed on it.
Previous
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Next
1of3
Riverside County Transportation Commission Rxecutive Director Anne Mayer, seen in 2016, tolcl commissioners that "it would be very difficult" to build the Mid-County Parkw;iy without the city of Perris' support (File photo by Kurt Miller, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG) "That is certainly not something that is within the purview of (the commission)," Mayer said.
At the March subcommittee meeting, officials recommended stopping all work on the parkway, except for the Placentia interchange, and shifting parkway funding to other projects. "At this point, I don't see a path forward given the city of Perris' requirements and issues related to truck traffic," Mayer said. "So it is a difficult recommendation and not one that we make lightly. But we do not believe that we should continue to expend funds on the project if there's not going to be support within the community for it" Commissioners urged the staff to continue talking with Perris to find a solution. "To not build what we've spent this amount of money on is crazy," commissioner and Eastvale Mayor Clint Larimore said. "It is unconscionable to walk away from the investment of $150 million in taxpayer money." 3 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2309 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) In letters sent to the commission since March, Perris - as a condition of supporting the parkway- wants either a series of improvements to Placentia Avenue or upgrades around Redlands, Morgan and Indian avenues.
Commission staff said it could cost $25 million to $40 million to make the improvements Perris wants. Twelve homes would have to be bought from willing sellers - they likely couldn't be acquired through eminent domain - and Perris' option for diverting truck traffic could require more environmental studies, officials wrote in a report to commissioners.
As a result, the commission should focus on other "(parkway) construction packages along the 16-mile corridor to determine if a less complex, less controversial, and less expensive option is feasible," the commission report read, noting the Ramona Expressway's safety problems.
In order for the project to keep its environmental approvals, work must start on a new portion of the parkway every five years, Mayer said Monday.
Berkson, the Jurupa Valley council member, asked last month if the parkway could be built without Perris' permission. Mayer said that the commission could move forward with the parkway because of the project's environmental report, but the commission eventually would need Perris permits to connect to city streets. "With this level of opposition, it would be very difficult to proceed without the city of Perris' support,'' she said.
Miramontes and Perris Mayor Michael Vargas, who sits on the commission, said Perris supports the parkway and that measures the city is seeking, such as walls, traffic barriers and landscape signals, are typical for such projects. "The bottom line is that this project has changed. It's not the original," Vargas said in a telephone interview Friday, adding the city continues to work with the commission.
Last month, Vargas told fellow commissioners: "Times have changed. The high school's now in place. We were able to mitigate that issue. We're basically just stumped with the trucks." When the parkway was first designed, no one anticipated the Inland Empire would have the truck traffic it has today, Vargas said Monday. He also has noted the project started when most of the current Perris City Council was not in office.
RELATED LINKS
• Perris bridge over 215 Freeway to close 10 months in first phase of new freeway construction • Riverside County's first new freeway in years could break ground in 2020 • TRANSPORTATION: Mid County Parkway moves fotward
• 15 Freeway, Railroad canyon Road expansion project wraps up in Lake Elsinore • Temecula 'smart freeway' project could improve 15 Freeway commute Commissioner and Riverside County Supervisor Karen Spiegel on Monday said she was "very disappointed and frustrated that after 20 years ... this project was moving forward and there was never a comment made until recently."
"You can't because of city council changes and new people .... take a regional project and change the whole direction ofit," Spiegel said, adding that without the parkway, the Placentia interchange, which was meant to benefit the region, instead will mainly benefit Perris.
If the parkway is scrapped, Berkson and Spiegel last month raised the prospect of whether Perris could be forced to reimburse the commission for money spent on the project. Mayer replied the commission "doesn't have any mechanisms" to force reimbursement
The possibility of the parkway not being built "comes as a real shock," Hemet City Council Member Linda Krupa said in March.
4 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2310 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) "Moving fmward, we do need increased access and safer access (for) traffic into the San Jacinto Valley," she said. " ...
And we're growing. And we are growing. And we are growing. And everything that's happening in Winchester, in Hemet, in Menifee, in San Jacinto, all brings more traffic onto two-lane roads." Staff Writer David Downey contributed to this report
5 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2311 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Good morning Council member,
George Hague <[email protected]>
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 10:32 PM
Gabriel Diaz
Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Would you like to raise your children near the 1.3 million sq ft Moreno Valley Trade Center with all its diesel polluting trucks?
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email -Watch for Email Red Flags!
IF YOU BOUGHT A HOME A FEW YEARS AGO FOR YOUR GROWING FAMILY KNOWING THE GENERAL PLAN SHOWS THE LAND VERY NEARBY IS ZONED FOR HOMES, WOULD YOU SUPPORT A 1.3 MILLION SQ FT WAREHOUSE LIKE THE MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER WITH ALL ITS DIESEL TRUCKS IN PLACE OF THOSE HOMES YOU EXPECTED TO BE BUILT?
HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT THOSE WHO WOULD WANT YOUR GROWING FAMILY TO ACCEPT THE MASSIVE
WAREHOUSE AND ENCOURAGE DECISION MAKERS TO VOTE FOR IT AND ALL ITS HEALTH-IMPACTING DIESEL POLLUTION?
PLEASE VOTE TO DENY THE MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER JUST AS IF YOUR FAMILY WOULD LIVE ACROSS FROM IT BECAUSE THE CHILDREN OF REAL FAMILIES WILL IF IT IS APPROVED!!! Sincerely,
George Hague
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2312 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Cristina Rivera <[email protected]>
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 8:36 PM
Moreno Valley Mayor; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera
[email protected]; City Clerk; Gabriel Diaz
Vote Yes on MVTC and Ironwood Sports Park
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email -Watch for Email Red Flags!
Council member;
I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote. This project will bring a new desperately needed sports park to the City of Moreno Valley.
We need more parks with soccer and baseball fields to accommodate our youth and teach them the critical skills of teamwork and respect.
Please vote yes on the Moreno Valley Trade Center so Ironwood Sports Park can become a reality.
Thank vou very much.
Cristina Rivera
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2313 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Good afternoon,
Candice Ulibarri <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 12:43 PM
Moreno Valley Mayor
Gabriel Diaz; Mike Dea
Support The Moreno Valley Trade Center
doc02930120220616095635.pdf
High
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Please be advised of the attached letter in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Thank you
Candice Mae Ulibarri
Executive Assistant/
Office Manager
Laborers Local 1184
1128 East La Cadena
Riverside, CA 92507
SERVING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ARIZONA
Labore<>'
lnltfn•lioni.1
Uhlonol
'1ortli Amtrita
LOCAL
1184
Feel the Power
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2314 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) June 14, 2022
Laborers'
International
Union of
Narth America
Moreno Valley City Council
Attn: Mayor Yxstian Gutierrez
Local No.1184
Subject: Please support the Moreno Valley Trade Center
Mayor Yxstian Gutierrez,
I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote. This project will create over 1,500 local jobs, as wel I as $4 million in road improvements and over $6 million annually in revenue to support critical City services.
Moreover, the developer has gone above and beyond in community outreach to neighbors and has modified the project to address comm unity concerns.
The addition of a landscaped berm will not only block neighbors from any noise or views of the project, but it will also block existing views of other industrial facilities. The project will also create a sports park, including a baseball field and 2 full-size soccer fields.
As your constituent, I respectfully request you support the Moreno Valley Trade Center to bring jobs and a desperately needed new park to our community. Thankv~Jv Michael S. Dea
Business Manager
Secretary-Treasurer
Feel the Power
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2315 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Council member,
Mike Dea <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 12:51 PM
Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; Ulises Cabrera; David Marquez; Mike Lee; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk Vote Yes on the Moreno Valley Trade Center -June 21
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote. This project will create over 1,500 local jobs, over $6 million annually in revenue to support critical City services, and a new sports park.
As your constituent, I respectfully request you support the Moreno Valley Trade Center to bring jobs, better roads, and a new park to our community.
Thank you very much.
Michael S. Dea
Business Manager Secretary-Treasurer
LiUNA#1184
Serving Southern California and Arizona
1128 E. La Cadena Drive
Riverside, CA 92507, USA
{951) 684-1484 office
{951) 779-1445 Fax
[email protected]
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2316 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Morquone Jackson <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:44 PM
Edward A. Delgado; Gabriel Diaz
Moreno Valley trade center
Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am full support the Moreno Valley trade center because they are going spin of millions dollars on my community and they go to build much need it park for my children to play in.
Morquone Jackson
MoVal resident
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2317 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Abe Rojas <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:44 PM
Edward A. Delgado
Gabriel Diaz
moreno valley trade center
Warning: External Em ail -Watch for Email Red Flags!
i am in full support of the more no valley trade center project because they are apending millions in my community and they are going to built a much needed park for my children to play in. a bra ham rojas jr,
moreno valley resident
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2318 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
gabriel madrigal <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:50 PM
David Marquez; Gabriel Diaz
The Moreno Valley trade center project
Warning: External Email -Watch for Email Red Flags!
I support This projects is for roads that I drive on parks for somewhere I can take my kids to enjoy them selves keep them out of trouble and jobs for me to work close to home 1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2319 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
carlos hernandez <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:51 PM
David Marquez; Gabriel Diaz
Moreno Valley trade center project
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
Hi my name is Carlos Hernandez and I am in full support of the new project that is upcoming in Moreno Valley. 1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2320 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Frijoles 16 <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:52 PM
Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz
Moreno valley trade center project
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am in full support of this project .I live in the area and this project could not o ly help me but the others around the community!
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2321 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
[email protected]
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:51 PM
David Marquez
Gabriel Diaz
The Moreno Valley Trade Center Project
Follow up
Flagged
I Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags! I I am full support of this project because is a win win situation for all of us as residents. It will be creating a new opportunities for our kids. It will help with their sports activities keeping our kids busy and out of trouble. This will also bring a bright light to moreno valley. People from all over the county will be bringing new money and opportunities.
I am a mo reno valley resident.
Lionel Altamirano
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2322 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Matthew Herron <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:55 PM
Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz
Moreno Valley trade center project
Follow up
Flagged
~ ~g: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am in full support of the Moreno Valley trade center project. I am a union worker that lives in the area. We are working towards fixing the roads, adding baseball fields, soccer fields and much more. The only goal is building a better area for the residents.
- Matt Herron
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2323 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Raul Mendez <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:55 PM
David Marquez; Gabriel Diaz
Moreno Valley trade center project
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email -Watch for Email Red Flags!
Im aware & on board with the Moreno Valley trade center project, & fully support this project. - RAUL MENDEZ
Moreno Valley Resident
Local 951 Union Carpenter
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2324 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Ald,o Garibay <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:55 PM
David Marquez; Gabriel Diaz
Moreno Valley Trade Center Project
Follow up
Flagged
[warning: External Email- Watch for Email Red Flag~
I am in full support if this project, this project will bring many jobs and will fix a much needed road work.
Plus a park that's much needed.
Miguel Aldo,
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2325 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Jack Huggins <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:55 PM
Ulises Cabrera; Edward A. Delgado
Gabriel Diaz
Moreno Valley trade Center project
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email -Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good afternoon,
I'm writing today to voice my full support for the Moreno Valley trades center project. It is come to my attention that this project will fund repairs to our much damaged roadways and also build a soccer and baseball park. I live close to the project so my children will definitely be playing at that park, and I'm a trades person so there's a good chance I could work in the city I pay taxes in. I urge you to support this project it will benefit me and through me it will benefit Moreno Valley!
Thank you
J
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2326 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Daniel Flores <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:57 PM
Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz
the moreno valley trade center project
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
i am in full support of this project because we don't really have parks in our city. it would be great for the community. having soccer fields, baseball fields, basket ball courts and just a place to get away from the city would be awesome. we also need road repair the streets are really bad they have pot holes and cracks and even weeds coming out of them. this project would also bring hundreds of jobs to our community who work here.
Sent from my iPhone
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2327 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Brian Aguilar < [email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:57 PM
Edward A. Delgado; Gabriel Diaz; Ulises Cabrera
Moreno Valley trade center project full support!!!
Follow up
Flagged
I Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags! I Hi my name is Brian Aguilar Uribe I'm in full support of the new Moreno Valley project and road repair here in Moreno Valley and it going to allow me to work closer to home.
Sincerely,
Brian Aguilar Uribe
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2328 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Moises Benitez <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:57 PM
Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz
The Moreno Valley trade center project
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email- Watch for Email Red Flags!
I support this project, it will bring many jobs and raid repair us a much needed park to my city.
Thank You,
Moises Benites
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2329 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Gabriel Diaz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
jose murillo <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:00 PM
Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz
Moreno valley trade center project
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
Hello I'm a Moreno valley resident near the area Redlands Blvd and I live here most my child hood I haven't seen a new built park in 15 years plus that I've been here I highly recommend you approve this we need more soccer and baseballs fields for our community for our younger generation and heard u guys will be repairing the roads which we've been needing deeply in that area lots of cracks and potholes which would be a plus for our community please recommend on approving this project it could really help our younger generation escape alot of violence and allows them to change and be with there families more sincerely a resident from Moreno Valley Jose murillo 1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2330 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Dear Council members,
Ricky Castillo <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:09 PM
Gabriel Diaz; Ulises Cabrera
Moreno Valley Trade Center
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email - Watch for Email Red Flags I
My name is Ricky Castillo out of local 951 and I am a proud union carpenter. I am in support of the Moreno Valley trade center project. As a resident of the Inland Empire I believe it is essential that we continue development and make sure that it is done union. The project will benefit not just those who are able to work on said projects but every single person who lives and visits the community.
Best Regards,
Ricky Castillo
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2331 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Gustavo Barraza <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:31 PM
Gabriel Diaz
Moreno Valley Trade Center Project
Follow up
Flagged
Warning: External Email-Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am in full support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project because of the fact that I live in the city of Moreno Valley along with my spouse and four small children. It has come to my attention that this project will fund repairs to our much damaged road ways, a baseball field, soccer field, and also a tilt up project witch will provide many jobs for our community & union benefit. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Gustavo Barraza
1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2332 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: [email protected]
To: David Marquez
Cc: Gabriel Diaz
Subject: The Moreno Valley Trade Center Project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:53:02 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am full support of this project becauseis a win win situation for all of us as residents. It will be creating a new opportunities for our kids. It will help with their sports activities keeping our kids busy and out of trouble. This will also bring a bright light to moreno valley. People from all over the county will be bringing new money and opportunities.
I am a moreno valley resident.
Lionel Altamirano
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2333 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Matthew Herron
To: Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz
Subject: Moreno Valley trade center project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:55:08 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am in full support of the Moreno Valley trade center project. I am a union worker that lives in the area. We are working towards fixing the roads, adding baseball fields, soccer fields and much more. The only goal is building a better area for the residents. - Matt Herron
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2334 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Raul Mendez
To: David Marquez; Gabriel Diaz
Subject: Moreno Valley trade center project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:55:09 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Im aware & onboard with the Moreno Valley trade center project, & fully support this project. - RAUL MENDEZ
Moreno Valley Resident
Local 951 Union Carpenter
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2335 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Aldo Garibay
To: David Marquez; Gabriel Diaz
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center Project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:55:09 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am in full support if this project, this project will bring many jobs and will fix a much needed road work.
Plus a park that’s much needed.
Miguel Aldo,
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2336 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Jack Huggins
To: Ulises Cabrera; Edward A. Delgado
Cc: Gabriel Diaz
Subject: Moreno Valley trade Center project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:55:13 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good afternoon,
I’m writing today to voice my full support for the Moreno Valley trades center project. It is come to my attention that this project will fund repairs to our much damaged roadways and also build a soccer and baseball park. I live close to the project so my children will definitely be playing at that park, and I’m a trades person so there’s a good chance I could work in the city I pay taxes in. I urge you to support this project it will benefit me and through me it will benefit Moreno Valley!
Thank you
J
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2337 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Daniel Flores
To: Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz
Subject: the moreno valley trade center project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:56:42 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
i am in full support of this project because we don’t really have parks in our city. it would be great for the community. having soccer fields, baseball fields, basket ball courts and just a place to get away from the city would be awesome. we also need road repair the streets are really bad they have pot holes and cracks and even weeds coming out of them. this project would also bring hundreds of jobs to our community who work here.
Sent from my iPhone
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2338 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Brian Aguilar
To: Edward A. Delgado; Gabriel Diaz; Ulises Cabrera
Subject: Moreno Valley trade center project full support!!! Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:57:12 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Hi my name is Brian Aguilar Uribe I’m in full support of the new Moreno Valley project and road repair here in Moreno Valley and it going to allow me to work closer to home.
Sincerely,
Brian Aguilar Uribe
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2339 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Moises Benítez
To: Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz
Subject: The Moreno Valley trade center project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:57:17 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I support this project, it will bring many jobs and raid repair us a much needed park to my city.
Thank You,
Moises Benites
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2340 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: jose murillo
To: Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz
Subject: Moreno valley trade center project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:00:14 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Hello I'm a Moreno valley resident near the area Redlands Blvd and I live here most my child hood I haven't seen a new built park in 15 years plus that I've been here I highly recommend you approve this we need more soccer and baseballs fields for our community for our younger generation and heard u guys will be repairing the roads which we've been needing deeply in that area lots of cracks and potholes which would be a plus for our community please recommend on approving this project it could really help our younger generation escape alot of violence and allows them to change and be with there families more sincerely a resident from Moreno Valley Jose murillo
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2341 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Ricky Castillo
To: Gabriel Diaz; Ulises Cabrera
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:09:07 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Council members,
My name is Ricky Castillo out of local 951 and I am a proud union carpenter. I am in support of the Moreno Valley trade center project. As a resident of the Inland Empire I believe it is essential that we continue development and make sure that it is done union. The project will benefit not just those who are able to work on said projects but every single person who lives and visits the community.
Best Regards,
Ricky Castillo
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2342 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Gustavo Barraza
To: Gabriel Diaz
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center Project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:30:54 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am in full support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project because of the fact that I live in the city of Moreno Valley along with my spouse and four small children. It has come to my attention that this project will fund repairs to our much damaged road ways, a baseball field, soccer field, and also a tilt up project witch will provide many jobs for our community & union benefit. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Gustavo Barraza
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2343 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Randall Witt
To: Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz
Subject: Moreno trade center project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:38:56 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Hello this is Randall Witt this would be a great opportunity for work to be closer to home. I would really enjoy a new park for my family to enjoy. I am full support for this project to happen.
Thank you!
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2344 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Christopher Schmidt
To: Edward A. Delgado; Gabriel Diaz
Subject: Moreno trade center project
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:39:00 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Hello this is Christopher Schmidt this would bring work for me close to home. I am in full support for this project thank you for the opportunity to hear from me.-- null
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2345 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Ruth Li
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; Ulises Cabrera; David Marquez; Mike Lee; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Subject: VOTE YES ON MVTC (MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER)
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:52:54 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Council Members,
I strongly support the above Project and ask you to vote YES on June 21st , 2022. We need the additional Jobs and City Revenues so you don’t have to raise our TAXES !! The Developer has more than addressed the adjacent neighborhood to the South’s concerns and is spending more money on Community Benefits to the entire City than the WLC did (World Logistics Center ) and it is 40 times larger than this project.
Ruth Li
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2346 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: DSW Corp
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; Ulises Cabrera; David Marquez; Mike Lee; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Subject: Re: VOTE YES ON MVTC (MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER) Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 4:16:26 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Council Members,
I strongly support the above Project and ask you to vote YES on June 21st , 2022. We need the additional Jobs and City Revenues so you don’t have to raise our TAXES !! The Developer has more than addressed the adjacent neighborhood to the South’s concerns and is spending more money on Community Benefits to the entire City than the WLC did (World Logistics Center ) and it is 40 times larger than this project.
Thank you,
Douglas Whitney
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2347 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Luis D Garcia Lopez
To: Moreno Valley Mayor; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera Cc: [email protected]; City Clerk; Gabriel Diaz Subject: Vote Yes on MVTC and Ironwood Sports Park
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022 4:23:53 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
> Council member;
>
> I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote. This project will bring a new desperately needed sports park to the City of Moreno Valley. > We need more parks with soccer and baseball fields to accommodate our youth and teach them the critical skills of teamwork and respect.
>
> Please vote yes on the Moreno Valley Trade Center so Ironwood > Sports Park can become a reality.
> Thank vou very much.
Luis Damián Garcia
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2348 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: patricia uchytil
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; Ulises Cabrera; David Marquez; Mike Lee; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Subject: VOTE YES ON MVTC (MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER) JUNE 21ST Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 9:32:22 AM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Thank You!
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2349 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) June 14, 2022
Laborers'
International
Union of
North America
Moreno Valley City Counci l
Attn : Councilmember Elena Baca Santa Cruz:
Local No. 1184
Subject: Please support the Moreno Valley Trade Center
Councilmember Elena Baca Santa Cruz,
I urge you to support the Mor
eno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a
vote . This project will create over 1,500 loca l jobs, as well as $4 million in road improvements and over $6 million annually in revenue to support critical City services.
Moreover, the developer has gone above and beyond in community outreach to neighbors and has modified the project to address community concerns.
The addition of a landscaped berm will not only block neighbors from any noise or views of the project, but it will also block existing views of other industrial facilities. The project will also create a sports park, including a baseball field and 2 full-size soccer fields.
As your constituent, I respectfully request you support the Moreno Valley Trade Center to bring jobs and a desperately needed new park to our community.
Thank you very much,
Mlchael~rY
Business Manager
Secretary-Treasurer
Feel the Power
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2350
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) June 14, 2022
Laborers'
International
Union of
North America
Moreno Valley City Council
Attn: Councilmember Ed Delgado
Local No. 1184
Subject: Please supp,ort the Moreno Valley Trade Center Councilmember Ed Delgado,
I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote. This project will create over 1,500 local jobs, as well as $4 million in road improvements and over $6 million annually in revenue to support critical City services.
Moreover, the developer has gone above and beyond in community outreach to neighbors and has modified the project to address community concerns.
The addition of a landscaped berm will not only block neighbors from any noise or views of the project, but it will also block existing views of other industrial facilities. The project will also create a sports park, including a baseball field and 2 full-size soccer fields.
As your constituent, I respectfully request you support the Moreno Valley Trade Center to bring jobs and a desperately needed new park to our community. Thanky¼7~ Michael S. Dea Business Manager
Secretary-Treasurer
-·-=:-.
,.
Feel the Power
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2351
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) June 14, 2022
Laborers'
International
Union of
Nor th America
Moreno Valley City Council
Attn: Counci lmember David Marquez
L.ocal No. 1184
Subject: Please support the Moreno Valley Trade Center
Councilmember David Marquez,
•
I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote. This project will create over 1,500 local jobs, as well as $4 million in road improvements and over $6 million annually in revenue to support critical City services.
Moreover, the developer has gone above and beyond in community outreach to neighbors and has modified the project to address community concerns.
The addition of a landscaped berm will not only block neighbors from any noise or views of the project, but it will also block existing views of other industrial facilities. The project will also create a sports park, including a baseball field and 2 full-size soccer fields.
As your constituent, I respectfully request you support the Moreno Valley Trade Center to bring jobs and a desperately needed new park to our community.
Thank you very much,
Micha~}< Business Manager
Secretary-Treasurer
Feel the Power
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2352
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) June 14, 2022
Laborers'
l11temational
Union of
North America
Moreno Valley City Council
Attn : Councilmember Ulises Cabrera
Local No. 1184
Subject: Please support the Moreno Valley Trade Center
Councilmember Ulises Cabrera,
I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote. This project will create over 1,500 local jobs, as well as $4 million in road improvements and over $6 million annually in revenue to support critical City services.
Moreover, the developer has gone above and beyond in community outreach to neighbors and has modified the project to address community concerns.
The addition of a landscaped berm will not only block neighbors from any noise or views of the project, but it will also block existing views of other industrial facilities. The project will also create a sports park, including a baseball field and 2 full-size soccer fields.
As your constituent, I respectfully request you support the Moreno Valley Trade Center to bring jobs and a desperately needed new park to our community.
ThankyWJv
Michael S. Dea Business Manager
Secretary-Treasurer
Feel the Power
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2353
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) June 14, 2022
Laborers'
International
Union of
North Ame1ica
Moreno Valley City Counci l
Attn: City Clerk
Local No. 1184
Subject: Please support the Moreno Val ley Trade Center City Clerk,
•
I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote. This project will create over 1,500 local jobs, as well as $4 mil lion in road improvements and over $6 million annually in revenue to support critical City services.
Moreover, the developer has gone above and beyond in community outreach to neighbors and has modified the project to address community concerns.
The addition of a landscaped berm will not only block neighbors from any noise or views of the project, but it will also block existing views of other industria I facilities. The project will also create a sports park, including a baseba ll field and 2 full-size soccer fields.
As your constituent, I respectfully request you support the Moreno Valley Trade Center to bring jobs .and a desperately needed new park to our community.
Thankyou¼7' y
Michael S. Dea Business Manager
Secretary-Treasurer
Feel the Power
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2354
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) June 14, 2022
Labo1en'
International
Union of
North America
Moreno Valley City Council
Attn: City Planner ([email protected])
Local No.1184
Sub)ect: Please support the Moreno Valley Trade Center
City Planner,
' •
I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote. This project will create over 1,500 local jobs, as well as $4 million in road improvements and over $6 million annually in revenue to support critical City services.
Moreover, the developer has gone above and beyond in community outreach to neighbors and has modified the project to address community concerns.
The addition of a landscaped berm will not only block neighbors from any noise or views of the project, but it will also block existing views of other industrial facilities . The project will also create a sports park, including a baseball field and 2 fu ll-size soccer fields.
As your constituent, I respectfully request you support the Moreno Valley Trade Center to bring jobs and a desperately needed new park to our community.
Thank~~
M ichael S. Dea Business Manager
Sec reta ry-T reasu re r
Feel the Power
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2355
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) June 14, 2022
Laborers'
International
Union of
North America
Moreno Valley City Council
Attn : Mayor Yxstian Gutierrez
Local No. 1184
Subject: Please support the Moreno Valley Trade Center
Mayor Yxstian Gutierrez,
' •
I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote. This project will create over 1,500 local Jobs, as well as $4 million in road improvements and over $6 million annually in revenue to support critical City services.
Moreover, the developer has gone above and beyond in community outreach to neighbors and has modified the project to address community concerns.
The addition of a landscaped berm will not only block neighbors from any noise or views of the project, but it will also block existing views of other industrial facilities. The project will also create a sports park, including a baseball field and 2 full-size soccer fields.
As your constituent, I respectfully request you support the Moreno Valley Trade Center to bring jobs and a desperately needed new park to our community.
Thanky¼7Y
Michael S. Dea
Business Manager
Secretary-Treasurer
Feel the Power
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2356
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Patrick Clifton
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; Ulises Cabrera; David Marquez; Mike Lee; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Subject: Vote Yes on the Moreno Valley Trade Center - June 21 Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 11:00:03 AM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Councilmember,
I urge you to support the Moreno Valley Trade Center when it comes before you for a vote.
This project will create over 1,500 local jobs, over $6 million annually in revenue to support critical City services, and a new sports park.
As your constituent, I respectfully request you support the Moreno Valley Trade Center to bring jobs, better roads, and a new park to our community.
Thank you very much.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2357 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Jason Lo
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Ulises Cabrera; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Mike Lee; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Vote Yes for the (MVTC ) Moreno Valley Trade Center Project June 21st 2022 Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 9:22:12 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Members,
As a home owner and owner of additional property in Moreno Valley, I strongly support the above Project and ask you to vote YES on June 21st, 2022. It will bring much needed jobs and revenues to our city.
The Developer has more than addressed the adjacent neighborhood to the South's concerns and is spending more money on Community Benefits to the entire City than the WLC did (World Logistics Center ) and it is 40 times larger than this project.
Thank you.
-Jason Lo
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2358 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Jason Lowe
To: Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; Mike Lee
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center Warehouse
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2022 11:56:49 AM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Hello City Council,
My name is Jason Lowe and I have been a Math Teacher and Head Wrestling Coach at Canyon Springs School for the last 19 years. I am emailing you to let you know I am in support of the 1,300,000 sq ft Moreno Valley Trade Center. I support this massive project because it will bring so many new jobs, allow our current Moreno Valley residents to work close to home, bring in tax revenue for much needed road improvements, police and fire departments, schools and parks, and future community projects.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Jason Lowe
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2359 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Tom Thornsley
To: Ulises Cabrera
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center Appeal
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2022 1:01:36 PM
Attachments: Council Member Cabrara Letters.pdf
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center Appeal
Dear Councilman Cabrera,
Once again you will be taking up the MVTC warehouse appeal of the Planning Commission's denial. You expressed major concerns with the project that could not be rectified and I hope that position has not changed. You will likely hear a lot of reasons why the appeal should not be approved and thus make the decision to deny as the community expects. There are so many potential warehouses to build just east of this project site and elsewhere in the city, that employment for construction workers and warehouse workers should be set for a very long time.
I am unable to attend the meeting Tuesday evening and have attached a letter expressing only a few the many concerns that arise from this project. Please give what write serious consideration and vote NO on the appeal of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Sincerely,
Tom Thornsley
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2360 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Tom Thornsley
[email protected]
June 19, 2022
To: District 4 Councilman -Ulises Cabrera (Via email: [email protected]) Subject: Reject Moreno Valley Trade Center Appeal
Dear Councilman Cabrera,
You are once again about to consider the Moreno Valley Trade Center’s project denial appeal, that was destine for denial by you and two other council members that would have upheld the Planning Commission’s denial and the communities interest. It was conferred by three council members as a good proposal in the wrong location. Despite the changes made this warehouse is still in the wrong location and if approved will start a domino effect for other undesirable development in the area. If you approve the appeal you will then be considering the Truck Stop denial which combined will drastically impact the Redlands/Eucalyptus/SR-60 intersections beyond any acceptable level in the community. I will leave the complete listing the litany of concerns to all the others speaking/writing against this project – most of which you heard at the first hearing.
Late last year, at the conclusion of the public hearing for the Campus Danbe warehouse, on Alessandro, you implied that you would be approving the project with the belief the Sierra Club would sue the developer and thus make it a better project. This philosophy is wrong on so many levels and really quite embarrassing to be heard from a council member. It indicates that you believe the project could be better but you are not willing to put forth those improvements yourself. Nor is it a good reflection on the city staff that seemed to fail at bringing forth a worthy project with all impacts addressed to the fullest. Additionally, the comment and staff’s shortcomings do not make us look business friendly.
Think about it; shove a project through with flaws, approve it, and let outside forces sue for a better project at greater expense to the developer. Ouch!
Let us not forget the Moreno Valley Business Park approval in 2020 that proposed a warehouse on the southeast corner of Ironwood and Nasson. It had a flawed Initial Study that failed to address the actual project. It is so bad that staff should have been reprimanded, and so bad that the developer knows they cannot correct the errors without the need to prepare an EIR. Thus they have requested to have their project rescinded and to date staff has not brought forth this request to the council.
So let us consider the Moreno Valley Trade Center. Several months ago three of the four council members deemed this project inappropriate for multiple reasons. The best concluding comment was “it’s a good project but in the wrong location.” Now that it has returned with modifications, that staff should have required, it is still a warehouse taking away residential land in a city that fails to meet its F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2361 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) housing needs and has more than enough warehousing opportunities immediately to the east and on the southwestern edge of town. Do we need more warehouses? NO! The land upon which it is proposed is intended for residential use as is the land immediately west of it and to the southwest. Good planning policy has always advocated keeping industrial uses away from residential. However, city leaders and planning staff have failed to maintain this policy for the protection of the existing and potential residential areas. Nor have they embraced their General Plan’s objectives. Environment impacts from industrial uses, such as warehousing, impose significant harm to residential areas. In many instances you will be lead to believe that air, noise, traffic, and lighting impacts are minimal. Playing up impacts as minimal detracts from the ultimate reality of putting a warehouse adjacent to existing homes. The complexities of these impacts will way heavy on adjacent residents and degrade their standard of living. This also devalues their homes and will hinder development of adjacent and nearby vacant residential land, further limiting the City’s required housing count.
I expect/hope you are aware of the draft Municipal Services Review finding from LAFCO about Moreno Valley’s make up. They point out that we are now over saturated with warehousing, we are failing to meet our housing needs, and we are classified as a disadvantage community. In their perspective, and that of many others, we need to go in a new direction. Developers prey on disadvantaged communities because they are hungry for any kind of development and they don’t care about the members of the community they are impacting. This is why it should be easy to say NO to the Moreno Valley Trade Center and look to more promising development and growth for Moreno Valley.
So what should be done? Compliance with the City’s General Plan should be maintained, not only here but throughout the Moreno Valley. At this time the city has reached its saturation point for megawarehouses and should be looking to establish higher goals for residential development and employment diversity and opportunities. Just east of this project site is an approved specific plan that will develop the equivalent of 40 one-million square foot mega-warehouses. This alone should be enough for us to just say NO to any other mega-warehouses, including NO to the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Sincerely,
Tom Thornsley
Attachment: Moreno Valley Warehouse Approvals 2009-2022 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2362 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Moreno Valley Warehouse Approvals 2009-2021
Since 2009, Moreno Valley has approved, or is reviewing, at least the following industrial warehouse projects that serve as “distribution” or “logistics” centers for consumer goods, and as such, they are part of the “goods movement” network totaling 53,070,835 square feet:
- March Business Center (2009) – General Plan Amendment to allow 1,484,407 square - feet of industrial warehouse space on 66.9-acres.
- Master Plot Plan PA07-0035 (2010) - 409,598 square foot industrial warehouse - West Ridge Commerce Center (2011) - 937,260 square foot warehouse distribution - building
- VIP Moreno Valley Project (2012) - 1,616,133 square foot warehouse space - First Inland Logistics Center II Project (2013) - 400,130 square feet warehouse space - First Nandina Logistics Center Project (2014) - 1,450,000 square feet warehouse space - Prologis Eucalyptus Industrial Park Project (2015) - 2,244,419 square feet of warehouse uses including a General Plan Amendment from residential to Light Industrial - World Logistics Center (2015) - 40.6 million square feet of warehouse logistics development on 3,918 acres in eastern Moreno Valley
- Indian Street Commerce Center Project (2016) - 446,350 square feet of warehouse space - Moreno Valley Logistics Center (2016) - 1,736,180 total square feet of warehouse space - Brodiaea Commerce Center (2017) - 262,398 square foot warehouse including a rezone from Business Park-Mixed Use to “Light Industrial”
- Moreno Valley Business Park (2021) - 220,390 square feet of warehouse logistics development including a General Plan Amendment to from commercial to light industrial - Heacock Commerce Center (2021) – application for a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone for two high cube industrial buildings totaling 873,967 square feet - Compass Danbe Center Point (2021) – application for a General Plan Amendment to allow for the development of two light industrial buildings of 389,603 square feet F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2363 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Tom Thornsley
To: Edward A. Delgado
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center Appeal
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2022 12:54:08 PM
Attachments: Council Member Delgado Letters.pdf
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Councilman Delgado,
Once again you will be taking up the MVTC warehouse appeal of the Planning Commission's denial. You made great points previously that could not be rectified and I hope that position has not changed. You will likely hear a lot of reasons why the appeal should not be approved and make the decision to deny and the community expects. There are so many potential warehouses to build just east of this project site and elsewhere in the city that employment for construction workers and warehouse workers should be set for a very long time.
I am unable to attend the meeting Tuesday evening and have attached a letter expressing only a few the many concerns that arise from this project. Please give what write serious consideration and vote NO on the appeal.
Sincerely,
Tom Thornsley
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2364 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Tom Thornsley
[email protected]
June 19, 2022
To: District 2 Councilman -Edward A. Delgado (via email: [email protected]) Subject: Reject Moreno Valley Trade Center Appeal
Dear Councilman Delgado,
You are once again about to consider the Moreno Valley Trade Center, a project you stated was a good proposal in the wrong location. Despite the changes made this warehouse is still in the wrong location and if approved will start a domino effect for other undesirable development in the area. I will leave listing the litany of concerns to all the others speaking against this project – most of which you heard at the first hearing.
One must question the purpose of a land owner who contributes campaign funds to council members outside of their council district. What do they want? One must question the purpose of a developer offering to pay for city improvements beyond the scope of these necessarily required for their projects approval. Why would they? Both of these appear as requests to curry favor for the land owner and the developer. Any offer to improve city roadways or build ballfields by an outside developer looking for project approval is nothing more than an incentive (some consider a bribe) to get approval of their project. Making this same offer well after development has occurred and their business is established would be a philanthropic investment in their community. Think about the precedence this sets for others seeking project approval.
You have cited your mother’s livelihood as a warehouse employment on a few occasions to justify considering and approving land use changes to permit development of more warehouses. One has to wonder if even you mom would approve of only providing one narrow range of employment opportunities over an entire city. In the past decade, the city has processed land use changes to permit in excess of 53,000,000 square feet of large warehousing opportunities. During this time the city has done away with available land for housing, commercial, and business park opportunities. Now it seems little value is being placed on the city’s newly adopted general plan which intended to establish a stable, balance of growth for the foreseeable future.
Several months ago you seemed sound in your point of view that this warehouse was a good project but in the wrong location. Even though the developer has made some changes to the project, it is still a massive warehouse next to residential, and still in the wrong place. The land upon which it is proposed is intended for residential use as is the land immediately west of it and to the southwest. Good planning policy has always advocated keeping industrial uses away from residential. However, city leaders and F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2365 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) planning staff have failed to maintain this policy for the protection of the existing and potential residential areas. Nor have they embraced their General Plan’s objectives. Environment impacts from industrial uses such as warehousing impose significant harm to residential areas. In many instances you will be lead to believe that air, noise, traffic, and lighting impacts are minimal. Playing up impacts as minimal detracts from the ultimate reality of putting a warehouse adjacent to existing homes. The complexities of these impacts will way heavy on adjacent residents and degrade their standard of living.
This also devalues their homes and will hinder development of adjacent and nearby vacant residential land, further limiting the City’s required housing count.
I expect/hope you are aware of the draft Municipal Services Review finding from LAFCO about Moreno Valley’s make up. They point out that we are now over saturated with warehousing, we are failing to meet our housing needs, and we are classified as a disadvantage community. In their perspective, and that of many others, we need to go in a new direction. Developers prey on disadvantaged communities because they know you are hungry for any kind of development and they don’t need to care about the members of the community they are impacting. This is why it should be easy to say NO to the Moreno Valley Trade Center and look to more promising development and growth for Moreno Valley.
So what should be done? Compliance with the City’s General Plan should be maintained, not only here but throughout the Moreno Valley. At this time the city has reached its saturation point for megawarehouses and should be looking to establish higher goals for residential development and employment diversity and opportunities. Just east of this project site is an approved specific plan that will develop the equivalent of 40 one million square foot mega-warehouses. This alone should be enough for us to just say NO to any other mega-warehouses, including NO to the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Sincerely,
Tom Thornsley
Attachment: Moreno Valley Warehouse Approvals 2009-2022 r 1 F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2366 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Moreno Valley Warehouse Approvals 2009-2021
Since 2009, Moreno Valley has approved, or is reviewing, at least the following industrial warehouse projects that serve as “distribution” or “logistics” centers for consumer goods, and as such, they are part of the “goods movement” network 53,070,835 square feet:
- March Business Center (2009) – General Plan Amendment to allow 1,484,407 square - feet of industrial warehouse space on 66.9-acres.
- Master Plot Plan PA07-0035 (2010) - 409,598 square foot industrial warehouse - West Ridge Commerce Center (2011) - 937,260 square foot warehouse distribution - building
- VIP Moreno Valley Project (2012) - 1,616,133 square foot warehouse space - First Inland Logistics Center II Project (2013) - 400,130 square feet warehouse space - First Nandina Logistics Center Project (2014) - 1,450,000 square feet warehouse space - Prologis Eucalyptus Industrial Park Project (2015) - 2,244,419 square feet of warehouse uses including a General Plan Amendment from residential to Light Industrial - World Logistics Center (2015) - 40.6 million square feet of warehouse logistics development on 3,918 acres in eastern Moreno Valley
- Indian Street Commerce Center Project (2016) - 446,350 square feet of warehouse space - Moreno Valley Logistics Center (2016) - 1,736,180 total square feet of warehouse space - Brodiaea Commerce Center (2017) - 262,398 square foot warehouse including a rezone from Business Park-Mixed Use to “Light Industrial”
- Moreno Valley Business Park (2021) - 220,390 square feet of warehouse logistics development including a General Plan Amendment to from commercial to light industrial - Heacock Commerce Center (2021) – application for a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone for two high cube industrial buildings totaling 873,967 square feet - Compass Danbe Center Point (2021) – application for a General Plan Amendment to allow for the development of two light industrial buildings of 389,603 square feet F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2367 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: brooke hall
To: Gabriel Diaz; David Marquez; Edward A. Delgado; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Sean P. Kelleher; Ulises Cabrera; Dr.
Yxstian A. Gutierrez
Subject: Vote YES for the MTVC Moreno Valley Trade Center Project June 21st 2022 Date: Sunday, June 19, 2022 9:47:45 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Council Members,
I want to voice my support for the MVTC Moreno Valley Trade Center Project on June 21st 2022. I am asking you to vote YES to help us improve our city. This project is such a benefit to Moreno Valley and it’s citizens. It will allow for the creation of increased jobs and reduced taxes. Enacting this project will also help keep from our taxes being increased. I believe that the developers have addressed all of the necessary concerns for the community. As a resident of Moreno Valley and a voter in this city I feel it is imperative we support this project.
Thank you,
Brooke
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2368 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: morgan hall
To: Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2022 9:50:39 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I support this project on June 21st, 2022. As a voter and resident of Moreno Valley, I understand this projects intentions and agree to the additional Jobs and City Revenue this will bring. I’ve lived in the city of Moreno Valley my whole life, young people like myself need more jobs and opportunities and that is what this project will develop.
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2369 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Michelle Hall
To: Gabriel Diaz; David Marquez; Edward A. Delgado; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Sean P. Kelleher; Ulises Cabrera; Dr.
Yxstian A. Gutierrez
Subject: Vote YES on Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2022 10:01:33 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear council member
As a 25 year voting resident of Moreno Valley I strongly support the above project to vote yes. The project will help our community in many ways without hindering us financially. The revenue will improve Moreno Valley such as a much need park and road ways located near the project.
This project will help with revenue for the support of our police, fire, schools, and other city employees.
I strongly support this and see only positive outcome from this project
Sincerely
Michelle Hall
--
Michelle Hall
Adam Hall's Plant Nursery
12925 Redlands blvd
Moreno Valley CA 92555
951-538-2732
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2370 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Dakota Hall
To: Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher
Subject: VOTE YES Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2022 10:04:08 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear council members
As being a voting resident of Moreno Valley my whole life, whom supports and loves this community, I feel strongly about the Moreno Valley trade center project getting approved and the benefits it will add to our amazing community. This project will not only provide many jobs for the hard working people of Moreno Valley, but it will also bring new residents and business to our community that will only help us further flourish. I have adored and loved this city since I was born and as a voting resident I strongly feel the need for this project to occur for the benefit and growth of our community. We are in need of the revenue this project will provide in order to insure that our taxes don’t increase. This project will provide necessary proceeds in order to better our police, fire department, parks, after school programs, and recreational centers for our entire community as a whole. These are the ideals that make Moreno Valley the incredible community that it is. Let’s allow that to flourish and grow.
Sincerely,
Dakota Madison
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2371 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Rachel Ogulnick
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; Ulises Cabrera; David Marquez; Mike Lee; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Subject: VOTE YES ON MVTC (MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER) JUNE 21ST Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:23:57 AM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Thank you!
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2372 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Rachel Flanagan
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; Ulises Cabrera; David Marquez; Mike Lee; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Subject: VOTE YES ON MVTC (MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER) JUNE 21ST Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:24:38 AM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Thank you.
--
RACHEL FLANAGAN
[T] 310.571.8227
[C] 323.333.0855
..........................................................................................
This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. Thank you.
..........................................................................................
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2373 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Ryan Ogulnick
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; Ulises Cabrera; David Marquez; Mike Lee; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Subject: VOTE YES ON MVTC (MORENO VALLEY TRADE CENTER) JUNE 21ST Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:24:54 AM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Thank you.
--
VDC
RYAN OGULNICK
President/CEO
[T] 310.571.8227
[C] 310.508.4083
.....................................................................................................................
This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. Thank you.
.....................................................................................................................
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2374 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Sharon Stokes
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: MVTC
Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:17:00 AM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
For someone who professes to love Moreno Valley, I don’t know how you still have a job! WHAT are you trying to do?
You need to come out here and checkout this round about when there’s traffic… especially with the landscape that grows taller everyday! In my car I can barely see over the tops of it… and half the vehicles just barrel through without yielding It ought to be a nightmare when we have a ton of diesel trucks utilizing it….
I really believe all of you are either clueless OR you really just don’t care WHAT you approve as long as you get perks and recognition to feed your egos….
You are increasing pollution exponentially… you’re building this crap right next to a housing tract… do you guys have ANY common sense?! ♀
I hope there is enough opposition that you can possibly reconsider this project.
Sincerely
Sharon Stokes
34-year east end resident
Sent from my iPhone 13 PRO MAX
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2375 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Darric
To: Joe Bunker
Cc: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Edward A. Delgado; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; Alvaro Valdivia; Andre Moye; Antonio Hoggins; [email protected]; Brian Jackson; Carolyn Valencik; Ceci Yahoo; Charles Ober; Cindy Ramos; Crys Tom; DAMON FOREMAN; David McAbee; Don McNicholas; Edna White; Ericka Partida; Eugene Wright; Jackie McGee; James Hagen; Jean Mims; Jeff Sims; Jesus Flores; John Hubbs; Jose Garcia; [email protected]; Karie Woodward; Ken Morin; [email protected]; Lisa Tuy; Liz Anderson; [email protected]; Margarita Valdivia; Maritza Torres; Mark & Donna Montgomery; Merrick; Nancy Altamirano; [email protected]; Pierre Overton; Ramona Zuniga Morales; Randy Thomas; Ray; Renee Smith; Richard Moreno; Richard White; [email protected]; Sharilyn Bankole; Shelly Mesa; Terry Scheschy; [email protected]; VERONICA Ramos Subject: Re: Moreno Valley Trade Center Public Hearing on June 21, 2022 Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 12:28:38 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers;
Please include these comments as part of the record for the above-mentioned public hearing. I am a resident of the Heritage Ranch community, the southern border of this proposed project.We again ask you to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of entitlements for this project for the same reasons that were voiced on December 7, 2021 during the applicant's appeal of their decision. While it is true that the developer has reached out to me with some proposed changes that will eliminate the traffic exiting onto Encelia Ave., the environmental impact has not changed. There will still be the same amount of pollution to our neighborhood as described in the FEIR, the same truck and employee traffic congestion at the round-about of Redlands and Eucalyptus, and the same property devaluation to our homes if this project is approved.
I believe that the people in the affected community should have the most credibility because we also represent the children to be affected by the decisions of people and interests that do not hold or care about the well-being of our community. There are always paid workers that claim to live amongst us or live in Moreno Valley at large to lobby for destructive and irreversible policy prescriptions for our neighborhood in the name of revenue and personal gain or greed. It is frustrating to listen to and deal with knowing those very people who are for projects in our community do not live here. If the same questionable projects were dropped in their community they would not approve. It is shocking to us that some of the things that people believe are "Good for Moreno Valley". Really? Good for who? These outside interests wanting and praising this project as a net positive for the Moreno Valley do not live in this community. This is not a good project... If you approved this project then you will want to approve the Pilot Truck stop next... I would like to not assume that you care more about city revenue than the health and well-being of the people in your community.
Mr. Marquez, Cabrera, and Delgado, you were ready to vote no on December 7th after listening to us. We ask that you again vote no on June 21st. Again, please revisit the location of the project and visualize the magnitude of a 1.3 million sq. ft. building and what it will do to our neighborhood.
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2376 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Thank you,
Darric V. Williams
Heritage Ranch HOA
Affected Resident
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 2:56 PM Joe Bunker <[email protected]> wrote:
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers;
Please include these comments as part of the record for the above mentioned public hearing.
I represent the Valley Springs HOA which borders Encelia Ave., the southern border of this proposed project. We again ask you to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of entitlements for this project for the same reasons that were voiced on December 7, 2021 during the applicants appeal of their decision. While it is true that the developer has reached out to me with some proposed changes that will eliminate the traffic exiting onto Encelia Ave., the environmental impact has not changed. There will still be the same amount of pollution to our neighborhood as described in the FEIR, the same truck and employee traffic congestion at the round-about of Redlands and Eucalyptus, and the same property devaluation to our homes if this project is approved.
Mr. Marquez, Cabrera, and Delgado, you were ready to vote no on December 7th after listening to us. We ask that you again vote no on June 21st. Again, please revisit the location of the project and visualize the magnitude of a 1.3 million sq. ft. building and what it will do to our neighborhood.
Thank you,
Joe Bunker
Valley Springs HOA
Warehouse Chairperson
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2377 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) --
Darric V. Williams
Cell 951.634.9143
Fax 810.963.0303
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2378 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: George Hague
To: Gabriel Diaz
Cc: Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk Staff_DG
Subject: PE Article on the Moreno Valley Trade Center .... "Moreno Valley warehouse — larger than city’s mall " Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 1:34:26 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
https://www.pe.com/2022/06/19/moreno-valley-warehouse-larger-than-citys-mall-is-back-for-consideration/ Same as the Press-Enterprise (PE) article found below with all pictures.
Good afternoon city council members,
The developer of the 1.26 million sq ft Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) has done very little since December to reduce its pollution impacting the health of nearby residents — especially on children and the elderly. Even their 18 acre sports park is adjacent to Redlands Blvd which north of SR-60 is a city designated diesel truck route for the MVTC and other warehouses which will again impact the health of children trying to use the park.
BOTH THE MVTC AND SPORTS PARK ARE IN THE WRONG LOCATION BECAUSE OF DIESEL POLLUTION AND HOW THEY WILL BOTH RESULT IN HEALTH IMPACTS TO CHILDREN AND OTHERS.
PLEASE DENY THEIR APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S UNANIMOUS NO VOTE OF THIS WAREHOUSE Sincerely,
George Hague
P.S. Please read the Press-Enterpise (PE) article found below .
Moreno Valley warehouse — larger than city’s mall — is back for consideration
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2379 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) By DAVID DOWNEY | [email protected] | The Press-Enterprise PUBLISHED: June 19, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. | UPDATED: June 19, 2022 at 7:01 a.m.
A plan to build a warehouse larger than the Moreno Valley Mall across the street from houses on half-acre lots is returning to the Moreno Valley City Council.
The council is set to decide Tuesday, June 21, whether to greenlight a 1.26-million-square-foot logistics project called the Moreno Valley Trade Center, on 80 acres south of the 60 Freeway.
The developer, Dallas-based Hillwood Investment Properties, has said the warehouse would stand 48 feet tall. The project’s final environmental impact reportstates that the building could reach 100 feet if occupied by a fulfillment center filling the orders of online shoppers.
In advance of Tuesday’s meeting, letters from people on both sides of the issue have poured in to the city.
Walter Fus, saying he has been a Moreno Valley resident since 1977 and is a retired Air Force pilot, wrote Saturday, June 11, that approving the project “would be the most
egregious decision this council could ever make.”
Cristina Rivera, in a Wednesday, June 15, email, urged
approval in praising an amenity the developer promised, if allowed to build. The project “will bring a new desperately needed sports park to the City of Moreno Valley,” Rivera wrote.
Union carpenters submitted letters of support, saying the project would create construction jobs.
A decision was postponed
In October, the Moreno Valley Planning Commission rejected the project on a 4-0 vote, with one commissioner not participating due to a potential conflict of interest, concluding the center was incompatible with a neighborhood to the south. Hillwood Investment Properties appealed the decision to the council, which discussed the project in December but postponed a decision.
Now the project is back.
City planners are recommending the council approve it, by certifying the environmental impact report, approving a general plan amendment, changing the zone and making a determination that the project won’t “result in a net loss in residential capacity.” In changing the property designation, the city would eliminate the potential for 145 single-family houses to be built, according to an environmental report.
Project proponents are seeking approval at a time when some Inland Empire communities are pushing back against warehouses.
For example, the Redlands City Council recently enacted a moratorium on industrial projects on the city’s west side. Earlier, Jurupa Valley limited warehouses to its Mira Loma and Agua Mansa areas, and adopted rules for other types of businesses that generate heavy truck traffic. And Pomona is considering a 45-day moratorium on new warehouses.
At the same time, online shopping is soaring and continues to drive a regional explosion in the logistics industry.
The Moreno Valley Trade Center arrived on the dais of the Planning Commission in fall, a few months after the city completed an overhaul of its general plan, a guide for future growth.
That document designated the 80-acre project site, west of Redlands Boulevard between Eucalyptus and Encelia avenues and mostly empty except for an 8.5-acre plant nursery, as a place for houses on half-acre lots.
Silvia Flores, seen Friday, June 17, 2022, with children, Jillian Flores,13, at right, and Slater Flores, 11, opposes a 1.26-million-square-foot warehouse in her neighborhood. They are standing in the middle of Mozart Way, with Encelia Avenue behind them, where the proposed warehouse could rise. (Photo by Terry Pierson, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG) Silvia Flores, seen Friday, June 17, 2022, w
1 of 2
A 1.26-million-square-foot warehouse is proposed to be built on this land, seen Friday, June 17, 2022, across the street from Moreno Valley homes. (Photo by Terry Pierson, The PressEnterprise/SCNG) II
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2380 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Massive Moreno Valley warehouse
project still alive
RELATED LINKS
Hillwood is seeking permission to deviate from that new growth guide. In part because of that, Planning Commission member Jeff Sims called on the council to kill the project in a Saturday, June 11, letter. “Why have an approved General Plan and not honor it?” Sims wrote.
Two other projects in pipeline
There are two other warehouse projects in the early stages.
One is called Edgemont Commerce Center, a proposed 142,345-square-foot warehouse distribution building on approximately 7 acres southwest of Bay Avenue and Day Street.
The other is Heacock Commerce Center, a pair of industrial buildings totaling 874,000 square feet on 46 acres southeast of Gentian Avenue and Heacock Street.
City spokesperson Matthew Bramlett said in email Thursday that environmental reports are being prepared for both projects and it’s not known when they will be completed.
Like Moreno Valley Trade Center, the Heacock project can’t be built unless the city lets the developer deviate from the general plan. Warehouses are allowed at the Edgemont site, though a zone change is required to build one bigger than 50,000 square feet.
George Hague, conservation chair for the Moreno Valley Group of the Sierra Club, said those projects are also in the wrong place because they are near homes and schools.
The California Air Resources Board submitted letters to the city warning that each project has the potential to “expose nearby communities to elevated levels of air pollution.”
In separate letters, Robert Krieger, chief of the California Air Resources Board’s Risk Reduction Branch, wrote that both projects are “in census tracts that score within the top 1 percent of State’s most impacted from air pollution from an environmental hazard and socioeconomic standpoint.” Truck traffic, air pollution concerns
As for the Moreno Valley Trade Center, since the December hearing Hillwood has made changes.
The warehouse footprint has been reduced by 65,582 square feet to approximately 1,263,271 square feet, a city report states. A 35-foot-tall earthen berm, landscaped with trees and shrubs is to be built along Encelia Avenue. Truck access is to be limited to Eucalyptus Avenue. The number of loading docks is to be reduced by four, to 117, on the south side of the building, and by seven, to 97, on the north side.
Also, Hillwood has offered to build an 18-acre park at Redlands Boulevard and Ironwood Avenue that features two lighted soccer fields, a lighted baseball field, a playground, concession stand and exercise equipment.
Manuel and Arminda Del Alto, who live near Encelia Avenue, said improvements such as the berm don’t alleviate concerns. They moved to Moreno Valley 14 years ago from Ontario because they wanted to escape the warehouses going up there. “My main concern is what the trucks and cars will put in the air,” said Manuel Del Alto, who has had a lung transplant.
Arminda Del Alto said they enjoy hearing birds and coyotes in the distance, and worry they will disappear.
Silvia Flores, who lives nearby with her husband, Joe, and two children ages 13 and 11, said she worries about pollution and traffic. “It’s going to be terrible to have all these trucks,” Flores said.
The environmental report states that the logistics center would generate about 2,320 vehicle trips per day, including 1,436 by passenger vehicles and 885 by trucks. Under the fulfillment center scenario, the total would be 6,607 daily vehicle trips, including 5,750 passenger vehicles and 857 trucks.
Hillwood made several proposals earlier to soften the project’s impact on the neighborhood, including setting aside:
Despite the offers, Sims, the planning commissioner, said, “you can’t negate the smog, the traffic and the noise.”
The warehouse building also would eclipse neighbors’ views, he said. $125,000 to establish an account to purchase of at least five electric-powered heavy trucks that drive the 60 Freeway corridor through Moreno Valley
$64,000 to create an account for defraying up to 90% of neighbors’ costs of purchasing and installing noise-insulation equipment, with a per-home limit of $8,000. Eleven homes on Galino Court, Essen Lane, Gershwin Way, Mozart Way, Strauss Lane and Shubert Street would be eligible for the payments.
$40,000 to establish an account to pay up to 90% of a homeowner’s cost of purchasing and installing air filtration systems, with a per-home limit of $5,000. The same 11 households would be eligible for such payments.
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2381 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Has Moreno Valley reached its
warehouse saturation point?
Pushback against warehouses in the
Inland Empire gains momentum
$47 million settlement reached in World
Logistics Center lawsuit
Moreno Valley council says yes — again
— to World Logistics Center
On most days, they can see foothills.
“On a clear day you can see the mountains looking up toward the Big Bear area,” Sims said. If the project goes in, he said, “all we will be able to see is a big wall looking to the north.”
IF YOU GO
What: The Moreno Valley City Council will meet and consider a 1.26-million-square-foot logistics project called the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
When: 6 p.m. Tuesday, June 21
Where: City Hall Council Chamber, 14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley Staff writer Monserrat Solis contributed to this report.
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2382 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Jeff Sims
To: Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher; Manuel A. Mancha
Subject: MVTC
Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:58:53 PM
Attachments: doc10414020220620172327.pdf
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Hello,
Now that the agenda packet has been posted, looking at the modified site plan is possible. Sorry for additional comments at this late time.
Hillwood now proposes a large landscaped berm 35' high relative to Encelia Avenue about 167' wide for about 2,000 feet along the length of Encelia (almost a half mile).
On the project side of the berm there is a 40' wide private driveway that is 15 to 25 feet below the top of the berm. Apparently this allows the truck traffic to circulate from east to west and vice versa to move between the north and south loading docks and access points to Eucalyptus.
The 14 foot screen wall is between the private driveway and south facing loading dock area.
This raises some concerns if the project is approved:
1. No perimeter security fencing is proposed along Encelia Avenue. I confirmed this via call with Sean Kelleher, Manny Mancha, and Michael Lloyd this morning. This means the entire area between Encelia to the 14' wall is open.....basically there will be an open space and a private road parallel the length of Encelia. Given this is going to be an unfenced, shaded, landscaped area of around 7.5 acres, this area may become a prime location for people to hang out and set up camp. Further with Encelia being a wide and relatively low traffic street, it may also become a spot for motorhomes and cars to park for an extended period while using the unfenced landscaped area. If the Pilot Travel Center is also approved on appeal, the potential for this increases. The unsheltered like being able to locate where there is some privacy and opportunity for easy property theft, panhandling, and getting places.
2. With the private drive running parallel to Encelia for close to a half mile there will be ongoing truck traffic at all times of the day and night grinding through their gears driving around on the project property. This road is only 250 feet from the existing homes on the south side of Encelia. The 14' wall does nothing for this traffic and noise. The private drive ranges from 15 to 25 feet below the top of the berm. Truck exhausts are at around 12 feet. Instead of all the noise, air pollution from trucks being on Encelia, they will be masked a bit from site due to the berm, but the berm will do nothing to prevent the ongoing noise and diesel soot coming into the neighborhood.
I have attached the overall site plan and the cross sections from the agenda package.
This project is not compatible with the existing neighborhood and should be built in the WLC. I highly doubt you would vote to put this on top of your house regardless of the "benefits" Hillwood offers.
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2383 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Jeff Sims
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2384 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) .. ti
)A\,,_
~-=__....,
_'.
KEY MAP •
tcCN: "°' ro SCALC
HPA
architecture
""- re.
l88J1_,,_.Sla.11DO
inn.Cl
92612
IEI: !14!l-1163-1770
tax:9"19-1163-CJIISI
....a:llpa@~
Owner:
1:1 HILLWOOD
!ltj10,! co, ..... ,,
!IOIVial'lan-clffle.SWllS
Ore,,;,, CA 9176'
1et{909)382-00.13
lax:(909)3SH!l73
Project:
MORENO VALLEY
TRADE CENTER
EUCALYPTUS AVE.
AND REDLANDS BLVD.
Tdle:
Consultants:
-~
5!eSedions
1!1137
JC
1003/19
L~~~~ ...
~ ========+
,,. ="""'-"•>OU= 169'-f" 40' CF'[N SP-'Cl: "-"· .,.:-:;_ ' -• -• ROSS SECTION AT ENCELI~~~ 8 ._, 60" 0An(W4T AISl( ~ --
PEN19-0193
Sheet
DAB-A4.2
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2385
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) __, - -....:;: ,,
.,-,f.-- ~
------:: '1i
' ;, / - 11 .,
,. ,r_.,,
,) II
,' :.
/ /'O r~ ,,r
' II
•~ r
/-"s.u... ,
t:"'-l'-
.- . ~,--
..,.
r
(/ '/
'\'
"'
;,
- '
:!!=l-·-
~a-
~=--=-
~-
-.,.~---
l';:.~•- r,,,
.... .,.·-~ -- ~-
~ 7.•··
x,&:,,>-"1.C)
"'-11.C ~ N,j l{
SECTION A-A
~!:~
~ !Jo::
,
~
.......
--
.__ __
Eucalyptus Ave and Redlands Blvd.
._ .,. ___ _
·-~ ........ ·---- ·---- ··--~- ---- ·---
fB ::::::---~------
......
I .-...,4,~~'l' H..NICl!ll:O«),.,._-....
crcon.An,,; ~,1i,u.r.
:, _ _!. A.~f.0?::"D CO PI_,\~
Hillwood
••:,9;-0~7;.5;-------------------------:-------------------------------------------------------- (n.16.19 12.2:L'"O
tt.05.lf 07~C:O oultl:n Moreno Valley, California
OJ,31!10 "3.16-:11>
II
EB
HUNTER LANDSCAPE
{1 H(L JJ~
m:m rutulll"-. CA YJ!)O
IH.11..¼.2- 1.U
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2386
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Darric
To: Gabriel Diaz
Cc: Joe Bunker; Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Edward A. Delgado; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Sean P. Kelleher; Alvaro Valdivia; Andre Moye; Antonio Hoggins; [email protected]; Brian Jackson; Carolyn Valencik; Ceci Yahoo; Charles Ober; Cindy Ramos; Crys Tom; DAMON FOREMAN; David McAbee; Don McNicholas; Edna White; Ericka Partida; Eugene Wright; Jackie McGee; James Hagen; Jean Mims; Jeff Sims; Jesus Flores; John Hubbs; Jose Garcia; [email protected]; Karie Woodward; Ken Morin; [email protected]; Lisa Tuy; Liz Anderson; [email protected]; Margarita Valdivia; Maritza Torres; Mark & Donna Montgomery; Merrick; Nancy Altamirano; [email protected]; Pierre Overton; Ramona Zuniga Morales; Randy Thomas; Ray; Renee Smith; Richard Moreno; Richard White; [email protected]; Sharilyn Bankole; Shelly Mesa; Terry Scheschy; [email protected]; VERONICA Ramos; Steve Quintanilla; Aldo Schindler; Manuel A. Mancha; Mindy Davis; Julia Descoteaux
Subject: Re: Moreno Valley Trade Center Public Hearing on June 21, 2022 Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:42:20 PM
Attachments: image898090.png
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I would also like to add that the community at large finds the appeasement or "Bribe" of a park or youth facility at this point more evidence that they know this project is out of place. It gives this whole project another black eye... Instead of truly coming up with solutions... Let's give them a park on the other side of the freeway that the current community cannot easily access as a way to bypass the people... SMH it is disappointing...
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:54 PM Gabriel Diaz <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Mr. William,
Thank you for your email and comments. It will be added to the public record for the project and provided to the City Council at the start of the public hearing on June 21, 2022. If you have any additional questions or comments feel free to contact me.
Thank you,
Gabriel
Gabriel Diaz
Associate Planner
Community Development
City of Moreno Valley
p: 951.413.3226 | e: [email protected] w: www.moval.org 14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley, CA, 92553
NOTICE
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED.
THIS MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL, AND MAY BE EXEMPT OR PROHIBITED FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
IF YOU RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, DO NOT FORWARD OR OTHERWISE SHARE THIS MESSAGE.
INSTEAD, IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND OUR OFFICE OF THE ERROR.
From: Darric <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 12:28 PM
To: Joe Bunker <[email protected]>
Cc: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez <[email protected]>; David Marquez <[email protected]>; Ulises Cabrera <[email protected]>; Edward A. Delgado <[email protected]>; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz <[email protected]>; Gabriel Diaz <[email protected]>; Sean P. Kelleher <[email protected]>; Alvaro Valdivia <[email protected]>; Andre Moye <[email protected]>; Antonio Hoggins <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Brian Jackson <[email protected]>; Carolyn Valencik <[email protected]>; Ceci Yahoo <[email protected]>; Charles Ober <[email protected]>; Cindy Ramos <[email protected]>; Crys Tom <[email protected]>; DAMON FOREMAN <[email protected]>; David McAbee <[email protected]>; Don McNicholas <[email protected]>; Edna White <[email protected]>; Ericka Partida <[email protected]>; Eugene Wright <[email protected]>; Jackie McGee <[email protected]>; James Hagen <[email protected]>; Jean Mims <[email protected]>; Jeff Sims <[email protected]>; Jesus Flores <[email protected]>; John Hubbs <[email protected]>; Jose Garcia <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Karie Woodward <[email protected]>; Ken Morin III] I 111111 1 I I I I I I I i I I I I I
I I I I
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2387 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Lisa Tuy <[email protected]>; Liz Anderson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Margarita Valdivia <[email protected]>; Maritza Torres <[email protected]>; Mark & Donna Montgomery <[email protected]>; Merrick <[email protected]>; Nancy Altamirano <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Pierre Overton <[email protected]>; Ramona Zuniga Morales <[email protected]>; Randy Thomas <[email protected]>; Ray <[email protected]>; Renee Smith <[email protected]>; Richard Moreno <[email protected]>; Richard White <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sharilyn Bankole <[email protected]>; Shelly Mesa <[email protected]>; Terry Scheschy <[email protected]>; [email protected]; VERONICA Ramos <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Moreno Valley Trade Center Public Hearing on June 21, 2022 Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers;
Please include these comments as part of the record for the above-mentioned public hearing. I am a resident of the Heritage Ranch community, the southern border of this proposed project.
We again ask you to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of entitlements for this project for the same reasons that were voiced on December 7, 2021 during the applicant's appeal of their decision. While it is true that the developer has reached out to me with some proposed changes that will eliminate the traffic exiting onto Encelia Ave., the environmental impact has not changed. There will still be the same amount of pollution to our neighborhood as described in the FEIR, the same truck and employee traffic congestion at the round-about of Redlands and Eucalyptus, and the same property devaluation to our homes if this project is approved.
I believe that the people in the affected community should have the most credibility because we also represent the children to be affected by the decisions of people and interests that do not hold or care about the well-being of our community. There are always paid workers that claim to live amongst us or live in Moreno Valley at large to lobby for destructive and irreversible policy prescriptions for our neighborhood in the name of revenue and personal gain or greed. It is frustrating to listen to and deal with knowing those very people who are for projects in our community do not live here. If the same questionable projects were dropped in their community they would not approve. It is shocking to us that some of the things that people believe are "Good for Moreno Valley". Really? Good for who? These outside interests wanting and praising this project as a net positive for the Moreno Valley do not live in this community. This is not a good project... If you approved this project then you will want to approve the Pilot Truck stop next... I would like to not assume that you care more about city revenue than the health and well-being of the people in your community.
Mr. Marquez, Cabrera, and Delgado, you were ready to vote no on December 7th after listening to us. We ask that you again vote no on June 21st. Again, please revisit the location of the project and visualize the magnitude of a 1.3 million sq. ft. building and what it will do to our neighborhood.
Thank you,
Darric V. Williams
Heritage Ranch HOA
Affected Resident
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 2:56 PM Joe Bunker <[email protected]> wrote:
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers;
Please include these comments as part of the record for the above mentioned public hearing. I represent the Valley Springs HOA which borders Encelia Ave., the southern border of this proposed project. We again ask you to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of entitlements for this project for the same reasons that were voiced on December 7, 2021 during the applicants appeal of their decision. While it is true that the developer has reached out to me with some proposed changes that will eliminate the traffic exiting onto Encelia Ave., the environmental impact has not changed. There will still be the same amount of pollution to our neighborhood as described in the FEIR, the same truck and employee traffic congestion at the roundabout of Redlands and Eucalyptus, and the same property devaluation to our homes if this project is approved.
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2388 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Mr. Marquez, Cabrera, and Delgado, you were ready to vote no on December 7th after listening to us. We ask that you again vote no on June 21st. Again, please revisit the location of the project and visualize the magnitude of a 1.3 million sq. ft. building and what it will do to our neighborhood.
Thank you,
Joe Bunker
Valley Springs HOA
Warehouse Chairperson
--
Darric V. Williams
Cell 951.634.9143
Fax 810.963.0303
--
Darric V. Williams
Cell 951.634.9143
Fax 810.963.0303
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2389 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: [email protected]
To: Moreno Valley Mayor; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Gabriel Diaz Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center comments for the public hearing at the June 21 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:07:36 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Moreno Valley Trade Center Project concerns:
Since I am unable to attend tomorrow night's meeting I am writing to you with my concerns for this project on the public hearing agenda tonight.
The project at first may sound as if it has been scaled back to reduce impacts from the project but most of the changes are minor and still result in significant impacts as before.
The reduction in the size of the building is minor as the square footage is only reduced by less than 5 % from the previous proposed size.
The number of truck loading docks will only reduced by 4 out of a total of 117 on the south side of the building closest to the homes - that is still 113 loading docks on the south side nearest homes! And another 90 loading docks (instead of 97) on the north side. 203 loading docks total! That is a lot of loading docks and would not be a significant change to the amount of noise and air pollution coming from this activity. And another 228 tractor trailer parking spaces besides the loading docks. That is a lot of trucks in a relatively small area right next to existing homes.
The visual impact is changed but not reduced. Instead of the current scenic vistas, the existing homes houses will have a view of a 35 foot berm right along Encelia Avenue just feet from the homes and way taller than the one story homes there. This berm will block a view of the building more but still remove any vistas they now have. And none of the changes will reduce pollution impacts or impacts to roads.
While this project appears to remove traffic impacts to Encelia Avenue itself, there will still be more trucks in the area that will pollute the air, damage roads, continue to run over curbs at the too small roundabout and impact the too small overpass and ramps at Redlands Blvd with no proposal to improve anytime soon. There will be a high volume of employee cars also added to Redlands Blvd. and at certain times of day is very busy already.
As far as providing construction jobs, the homes that were zoned for the area would also provide construction jobs and there is a very high demand for more housing. The city is also proposing more homes just to the southwest of this trade center and those potential residents have no say in this proposal since it has not been developed yet and would impact them as well especially from noise and air pollution.
This project is also right next to the Prologis Development on Eucalyptus that was made to revise their proposal to keep large buildings away from the homes that are now going to be impacted by this proposal. How is it right to have that developer revise their project to keep it further from the homes and now put a bigger building even closer to those same homes? This is also another change to the very new general plan that was supposed to be a vision for the city for many years to come. What is the point of all of the work that went into the general plan to turn around and immediately change it? As the planning commission pointed out this is not the right place for this project and there is already a nearby very large area approved in the current general plan for this type of project (WLC).
Melody Lardner
34 year resident of Moreno Valley
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2390 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 1 Sean P. Kelleher
From: TOM HYATT <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 8:02 PM
To: Gabriel Diaz
Subject: MVTC
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I sure hope you aren’t in favor of this project? Your priority should be the health and safety of your constituents (families with children and disabled adults), not the $$ interests of the warehouse developers. Move this east of Redlands NOT NEXT TO AN EXISTING Residential neighborhood! The developer offered to pressure wash the pollution off of our houses at the last council meeting! Are you kidding?? That tells you all you need to know about the hazards of this project and the other proposed projects near our neighborhood. If they offered to do this to your house because of the pollution, you would laugh at their face. NO to this project. There is talk of class action lawsuits. Hoping common sense and decency will prevail.
Tom H.
Sent from my iPhone
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2391 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 1 Sean P. Kelleher
From: Ken Morin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 8:45 PM
To: Gabriel Diaz; David Marquez; Edward A. Delgado; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Sean P. Kelleher; Ulises Cabrera; Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez
Subject: MVTC, LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs Residents of Moreno Valley Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen,
I sincerely hope that my neighbors and I can all count on your support to deny this request to change the general planning on zoning of the parcels north of Encella and west of Redlands blvd where the Halls Nursary is located. Allowing this to be changed from residential to BP and industrial is unconscionable. There should be a buffer zone between BP, Industrial and residential zones.
Our residences are within 1/4 mile of this area and it is unhealthy for our families. It will also decrease the value of our homes. There is already too much truck traffic in the area. Sometimes I come home to see transport trucks parked on our residential streets and sometimes even idling. These still happens even with the signs posted at the new Redlands blvd roundabout which we were told was to prevent trucks to move south of eucalyptus.
I sincerely hope you work in our best interest at the next hearing on Nov 15 and not be swayed by developers.
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2392 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 2 TRAD
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2393 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 3 ‐‐
Ken Morin
Century21 Full Realty Services
Dre 01764881
951‐445‐0911
F.2.w
Packet Pg. 2394 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 1 of 3 [Revision 3] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 1 Sean P. Kelleher
From: Dio Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 9:39 PM
To: Gabriel Diaz
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: External Email– Watch for Email Red Flags!
Please vote NO the Truck Stop development on Redland Blv.
This is my home thatI work hard soI can havea please to have chicken etc.
HavingA Truck Stop near us is not good for our heath.
Please Please Vote No.
Thank you so much.
Sent from my iPhone
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2395 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 1 Sean P. Kelleher
From: Dio Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 9:58 PM
To: Gabriel Diaz
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Please vote No on the Sport Park that is proposed on Ironwood/Redland Blv That park will light up our rural are and bring crime to our quiet low crime area.
Please VOTE No.
Sent from my iPhone
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2396 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 1 Sean P. Kelleher
From: George Hague <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 10:07 AM
To: Gabriel Diaz
Cc: Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) offsite offers and impacts to current families Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good morning City Council,
The Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) with all their off sites offers to you are trying to put lipstick on a pig with the hope you will be willing to sacrifice the families who will be forced to live (24/7/365) very near the project which could be built to a height of at least 100 feet (almost 10 stories) — on land currently zoned for homes.
Below my name are some of the harmful polluting impacts that caused the Planning Commission to vote unanimously against the project and which the developer's own documents show they cannot avoid if the project is built.
Sincerely,
George Hague
"5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS
IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR disclose the significant environmental effects of a project which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b)). As described in detail in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance after the consideration of Project design features, compliance with applicable federal, State and local regulations, and the application of the feasible mitigation measures identified in this EIR. The significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below thresholds of significance consist of the following:
o Aesthetics: Implementation of the Project would mostly or completely block views of Reche Canyon and the Badlands (and the San Bernardino Mountains beyond) from the segment of Encelia Avenue that abuts the Project site on the south (west of Shubert Street). Also, implementation of the Project would mostly or completely block scenic views of Mount Russell and its foothills from the segment of Eucalyptus Avenue that abuts the Project site. This would be a significant and unavoidable direct impact.
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2397 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 2 o Air Quality (Air Quality Management Plan Conflict): The Project would emit air pollutants (NOX) that would contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State ozone standards in the SCAB. Because the Project requires a General Plan Amendment, it also would exceed the growth projections contained in SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP. As such, the Project would conflict with and could obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Project impacts due to a conflict with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP would be significant and unavoidable on both a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis. o Air Quality (Criteria Pollutant Emissions): After the application of Project design features, mandatory regulatory requirements, and feasible mitigation measures, Project-related NOX emissions during long-term operation of the Project would remain above the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. Accordingly, Project-related emissions would not meet SCAQMD air quality standards and contribute to the non-attainment of ozone standards in the SCAB. Therefore, Project operational-related impacts due to NOX emissions would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis. o Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG Emissions Generation): Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold for GHG emissions and would result in a cumulatively-considerable impact to the environment." (page 5-1 in MVTC Final EIR)
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2398 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 1 Sean P. Kelleher
From: Jeff Sims <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 10:55 AM
To: Sean P. Kelleher; Manuel A. Mancha
Subject: MVTC - Appeal PAA21-0001
Attachments: 11 08 22 (MVTC Appeal).pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Hi Sean and Manny,
Attached is correspondence I ask to be included in the November 15, 2022 Council Packet regarding the continued appeal hearing for the MVTC.
Thanks much,
Jeff Sims
28721 Handel Court
Moreno Valley, CA 92555
951.809.3308
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2399 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) November 7, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Moreno Valley
From: Jeff Sims
Area Resident
City of Moreno Valley Planning Commissioner
RE: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Appeal PAA21-0001
On October 28, 2021, the Moreno Valley Trade Center ("MVTC or Project") was considered by your appointed Planning Commission, which I currently am a member, and unanimously denied entitlement approvals. On December 7, 2021, the Developer appealed this decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. After considerable input by interested stakeholders, Council Members deliberated.
Deliberation comments by Council Members Delgado, Cabrera, and Marquez suggested a potential majority may vote to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Mayor Gutierrez acknowledged this with his statement "it doesn't appear there is support for the project." Instead of calling for the vote, Gutierrez motioned for a continuance, which was seconded and approved. Apparently, the continuance was to give the Developer time to address concerns and objections stated at the Planning Commission, and City Council appeal.
Of note the Developer heard the concerns and objections regarding the project at the October 28, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing where it was unanimously denied but cavalierly five weeks later at the City Council Appeal Hearing addressed none of the concerns. A person could go down many paths on why none of the concerns were addressed. But an obvious reason is Hillwood's motivation is profit driven with little to no concern of the impacts on the City, and especially for the existing residential neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed MVTC. Hillwood wants the Project entitled to achieve their goal of maximizing profit.
The continued appeal was scheduled for June 21, 2022. The Developer at the last minute pulled the item from the agenda. It is understood the Developer between December 7, 2021, and June 21, 2022, offered some "City Benefits" including a proposed Developer funded park near Ironwood and Redlands Blvd., and a $500,000 cash contribution to the Moreno Valley Community Fund (of which I understand the Council Members control the allocation and disposition of the funds).
Although at the time of writing this letter the Project Conditions and Agenda Packet for the November 15, 2022, meeting was not available it is my understanding after speaking with City Planning staff these "City Benefits" are still on the table, and the plans and conditions for the Project are essentially the same as those proposed in June. The question I ask each of you is -is the offering by the Developer to influence approval of their Project adequate consideration for the actual harm and damage it will 1 F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2400
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) impose on your citizens who live in the existing residential neighborhood directly next to this proposed project?
As one of your appointed Planning Commissioners I find the project is a nice logistics/warehouse project, but in the wrong location. Its location simply is not compatible with the existing land uses adjacent to it. Below are some of the concerns I had and still do about the MVTC:
1. Incompatible Land Use - The proposed MVTC land use is not consistent with the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Update. The General Plan Update indicates R-2 zoning for the property where the MVTC is proposed. The General Plan Update process and the entitlement review process for the proposed MVTC was happening concurrently over a two-year time frame. It is hard to believe city planning staff, city leadership, including the Council was not aware of the proposed MVTC during the processing of the General Plan Update. The General Plan process considered the need to retain compatible land uses adjacent one another and appropriately retained a residential land use adjacent the existing half and third acre residential lots directly adjacent to the property where the MVTC is proposed. Your Planning Commission recognized the incompatibility of land uses and denied the MVTC entitlements due to its lack of consistency with guidance of the City's General Plan as approved by this Council. Why go through all the effort to develop and approve a General Plan and then not honor it?
2. Traffic-The original MVTC design proposed for maximum utility of a warehouse use resulting in a design where thousands of daily employee passenger car trips would be dumped onto Encelia Avenue. Encelia Avenue is a one lane in each direction residential street and one of the two main access points into the adjacent existing rural residential neighborhood. The Developer indicated at the Planning Commission Hearing "they tried everything they could to mitigate impacts on the adjacent neighborhood, but the design as proposed was necessary so truck traffic in and out of their proposed project would not interface with their employee ingress and egress." Their proposed solution to the problem they are creating is to make a forever problem for the existing neighborhood. Now the Project has been modified to not allow project traffic onto Encelia Avenue by building a 40 ft. wide private street that runs parallel to Encelia Avenue.
This close to half mile long private street will be "masked" from sight behind a 35 ft. tall berm, but the adjacent neighborhood will undoubtedly be subjected to significant increases in noise and forced to breath the air pollution as this road is only 250 feet away from existing homes along Encelia Avenue. Since this is a proposed logistics/warehouse operation with no time limits on operation, the noise and pollution will be imposed on the existing neighborhood 24/7- 365.
3. Air Pollution -Although I am a registered civil engineer, I am not technically versed in the details of air pollution. But it does not take an engineering degree to know regardless of what study says what, when thousands of daily car and truck trips are introduced into an area where they previously were not, there will be a significant and immediate increase in air pollution in the vicinity. Hillwood in hopes to placate nearest residents offers band aid mitigation ..... ask yourself, would I want my family to breathe in diesel soot 24/7- 365 for as long we continued to live there? Who wants to live where you need air filtration for your home and to have the exterior of the house power washed due to ongoing pollution? Is it fair to the citizens who invested in this neighborhood to be polluted on?
2 F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2401
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park)
4. Noise Pollution - Like with air pollution, it does not take an engineering degree to know regardless of what study says what, when thousands of daily car and truck trips are introduced into an area where they previously were not, there will be a significant and immediate increase in noise pollution in the vicinity. Hillwood in hopes to placate nearest residents again offers some band aid mitigation ..... ask yourself, would I want that right next to my house? Councilmember Cabrera during the appeal hearing stated his first-hand experience about noise impacts from the logistic/warehouse use near his home and indicated it was noticeable. There will be increased noise pollution happening all hours of every day. The revised and current Project plan shows a truck circulation plan where trucks will be driving parallel along Encelia only 250 ft. away from homes 24/7 - 365. The 40 ft. wide private road is on the neighborhood side of the proposed 14 ft. screen wall. The screen wall does nothing to mitigate sounds from the trucks using the private drive. Essentially the Developer eliminated the traffic problem onto Encelia Avenue but did so at the expense of increased noise and air pollution - both of which are clearly incompatible with the existing residential neighborhood.
5. No boundary/perimeter fencing along Encelia Avenue -As mentioned above under #2 "Traffic", the project proposes installing a massive 35 ft. high landscaped berm along Encelia Avenue with a goal to mask the project from the existing residential neighborhood. The berm will obliterate existing northerly viewsheds currently enjoyed by the existing neighborhood. The Developers own plans show cross sections of this berm to scale (attached). When looking at the cross section, notice the relationship of the person to the height of the berm and trees. The area of open space on the south side of the MVTC property, including the landscaped berm totals around 7.5 acres with no perimeter fencing along Encelia Avenue. If the Project is approved and built as proposed, going north toward the Project from the northerly right of way of Encelia Avenue there will be a 35 ft. high landscaped berm (relative to existing centerline of Encelia Avenue), then a landscaped open space between the berm and a 40 ft. wide private street for ongoing truck circulation, and then a 14 ft. high screen wall. Attached are cross-sections showing all of this from the Developers plans. Concern about this include:
a. The 14 ft. screen wall does nothing to constrain any of the noise from the truck traffic using the 40 ft. private street as the private street is on the neighborhood side of the screen wall. The private street is being proposed to enable trucks to access docking on both the north and south side of the proposed building 24/7 - 365 days per year from Eucalyptus only.
b. As proposed, there is no perimeter fencing for the Project along Encelia Avenue to stop unwanted loitering, camping, or trespassing on the privately owned 7.5 acres of landscaped open space. With Encelia Avenue kept as a quiet, low traffic residential street directly adjacent a large unfenced open space, one can reasonably anticipate this unfenced, unsecured open space area will become attractive to homeless along with the problems associated therewith. This would be further exacerbated if the Pilot Travel Center is approved on appeal to Council. The residents living in this neighborhood while at work to pay for their homes they invested in will have to worry about increased 3 F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2402
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) property theft, and other crimes potentially carried out by those occupying the unfenced, unsecured open space.
When deliberating on this project, I ask you to think about these five above compatibility issues. But beyond straight compatibility issues there are other concerns.
For those who drive Redlands Blvd. on a routine basis to access the 60 Freeway know the roundabout at Eucalyptus is challenging now during peak periods caused by existing traffic. You don't have to be a traffic engineer to know this will be exacerbated with the addition of the proposed MVTC. This problem will remain for decades until the Redlands/GO interchange is upgraded. I say decades because as a resident of the City of Moreno Valley living in the east end since 1994, I've seen how long the Moreno Beach interchange has taken to be improved, and it's still not done. The City is getting the cart in front of the horse approving major truck and traffic producing projects where supporting road infrastructure is obviously deficient. The Redlands Blvd/GO interchange is deficient for more truck traffic and addition of the proposed MVTC will further degrade the quality of life of area resident's dependent on this interchange. The daily drive in and out of Moreno Valley is already miserable during morning and evening commute times due to existing freeway congestion on the 60 between the 60/215 interchange and 60/91 interchange. Absent an improved Redlands/GO interchange the MVTC will add more time lost to sitting and slogging through added traffic congestion trying to get off 60 at Redlands and navigating through the roundabout. I am sure most, if not all, of the area resident who use the 60 to get to work agree the proposed MVTC will exacerbate an already miserable daily commute.
The Moreno Valley portion of the draft LAFCO Municipal Services Report is attached. As you know LAFCO is an unbiased governmental entity to monitor services provided by various municipalities within Riverside County. There are some interesting findings in this unbiased report you as elected leaders of this City should be mindful of:
1. The median household income in Moreno Valley is lower than the rest of the County of Riverside
2. Moreno Valley's population grew slowly during the last decade at just 0.77%
3. Population growth over the next 15-25 years is not expected to keep up with county-wide growth rates
4. The City's land use profile "is disproportionately skewed towards industrial development with almost 75% of the City's commercial square footage designed for industrial users"
5. Largest employers are distribution centers
6. The City will not meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment 6th cycle (RHNA) in all income
categories.
7. FY 2018/19 revenues= $171 M FY 18/19 expenses = $149 M
8. Major sources of income:
a. Property tax
b. Sales tax
c. Property tax in lieu of vehicle licensing fee
d. Utility tax
Supporters of large box distribution/logistic facilities tout benefits of "job creation", increased ability to work near home, and "living wages". If this is true, why is the median income in Moreno Valley lower than the rest of the County of Riverside? Why is our population growth slow and expected to stay slow? Perhaps it is because most logistic/distribution jobs don't pay living wages sufficient to own and buy a 4 F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2403
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) home. Also, perhaps the word on the street now is Moreno Valley is becoming a less attractive place to live and raise a family because of the disproportionately skewed land use of industrial development that creates traffic congestion, difficulty to get in and out of Moreno Valley, low paying jobs, and added air and noise pollution.
This Council recently approved the City's General Plan with this property planned for residential development consistent with the existing residential directly adjacent. At a minimum even if you can somehow find a way to justify the "benefit" of the proposed MVTC over the irreparable harm to the existing area residents, an approval in land use change from residential to industrial shows continued disregard by the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) metrics. Perhaps a more appropriate use for the property is a rezone from R-2 to residential zoning proposing a transition of R-2 along Encelia Avenue to higher density residential along Eucalyptus. At least there would be a buffer for the existing residential use with similar and compatible uses. Under this scenario, people moving there would do so acknowledging/accepting the surrounding existing land uses. And with transitional higher density residential, the City could indicate progress towards meeting RHNA metrics by providing more opportunity for affordable housing consistent with Moreno Valley incomes.
We all know the City likes added tax increment revenues from development. If the MVTC is built on this property, the property tax increment received by the City see an initial large increase (over current) then see only small incremental increases due to Prop 13 legislation. In contrast if developed as residential land use consistent with the General Plan, the City would also receive an initial large increase in property taxes, plus receive added sales tax, and added utility taxes as the added population will live, shop, and spend in Moreno Valley. Also, as part of a residential development the residential developer would be required to pay impact fees such as park fees.
Saying no is hard especially on union supported projects. Labor unions focus on keeping their dues paying members employed. But how many of those dues paying union members live in Moreno Valley or anywhere near where this project is proposed? The reality is not many do. After a union supported project is approved those same union representatives will be at the next Planning Commission and Council Meeting in whatever town the next project is proposed. I certainly understand it is quite an undertaking to get elected and re-elected. It takes backing and money to get exposure. Hats off to all of you seeking elected office. Maybe it's a bit na"ive on my part, but it would be nice to believe those seeking elected office remember the people who live, shop, and spend in Moreno Valley are the ones who are most impacted by the consequences of the decisions. Out-of-towners and special interest campaign contributors who participate to influence local city elections won't live with the negative, harmful impacts of the projects they support. In the recent special election in April, the council seat win was not by significant margin which may be indicia people are beginning to take note of the policies and stances of people seeking elected office here in Moreno Valley. As traffic in and out of Moreno Valley gets worse and neighborhoods are impacted by traffic, noise, and air pollution from these warehouse projects it is likely there will be less support for leadership who supports approving them.
Many cities are pushing back on warehouse/logistics project approvals. There is an awareness of the incompatibility of these land uses adjacent to or near existing residential land uses. With what Moreno Valley has already approved in this land use waiting to be built (World Logistics Center) perhaps tapping the brakes a bit would not be a bad decision.
5 F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2404
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) In the event the Council makes findings and justifications indicating the proposed MVTC has more benefit to the City than harm despite Planning Commission denial and significant area opposition, it is requested the Council condition the MVTC with the following added improvements:
1. Addition of perimeter fencing along the entire length of Encelia Avenue such 6 - 8 ft. high metal fencing with masonry pilasters. Common sense should make this an obvious requirement.
2. Record an irrevocable deed restriction or some other legally sufficient mechanism on the property forever disallowing any project traffic onto Encelia Avenue. The only exceptions would be -access for emergency by Fire or Police, and if the property in the distant future was redeveloped into residential.
3. Addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of Redlands and Dracaea.
4. Full improvement of the west side of Redlands Blvd. between Encelia and Dracaea. It is anticipated the proposed MVTC is already conditioned to fully improve Redlands Blvd. along its frontage between Eucalyptus and Encelia and provide for adequate transition from full improvement on Redlands for southbound traffic to the existing two-lane roadway on Redlands between Encelia and Dracaea. This would complete Redlands Blvd. between Eucalyptus and Cottonwood and be an incremental add to the project conditions.
Items 3 & 4 are needed to provide area residents with safe access to Redlands Blvd. and ability to leave the area via Cottonwood to Moreno Beach or Alessandro to avoid congestion at the roundabout and unimproved 60/Redlands interchange. To provide some equity to the MVTC Developer, the Developer and the City could enter into a reimbursement agreement where MVTC would be reimbursed some proportionate amount from other developers within an identified Benefit Area who benefit from Redlands Blvd. street improvements. For example, there is undeveloped property along the west side of Redlands Blvd. between Encelia and Dracaea. The developer of this property would likely be conditioned to build out this improvement if not already built. It would seem reasonable this developer would be required to contribute a proportionate share of the expense paid by MVTC for making the improvement.
As a Planning Commissioner for close to 10 years I have participated in the approval of most warehouse/logistic projects in this City. This includes voting yes for the World Logistics Center (WLC) despite living close to it. What WLC has going for it is a plan for buffering the impacts of its project from the existing residential and eliminated truck and employee traffic from Redlands Blvd. with access from Theodore now WLC Parkway. Most other warehouse/logistic approvals in the City have been in areas where the existing underlying land use zoning allows for warehouse/logistic use, or the projects are located where there are existing non-residential land uses, and city approved truck routes.
The proposed MVTC even as modified to eliminate traffic on and off Encelia Avenue, will create irreparable harm to the existing residential neighborhood. These residents bought homes in this area with a reasonable expectation City elected would respect and protect their investments by not approving incompatible land uses on adjacent property. Prior Planning Commissions and City Councils have done that in the past. For example, when Pro-logis was developing along Eucalyptus east of the auto center, they responsibly agreed with area resident and city leadership to maintain a buffer of their proposed industrial use to the existing residential and eliminated two buildings from their project. 6 F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2405
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Saying no is hard but needs to be done sometimes. This is one of those times. The harm the proposed MVTC creates far outweighs the tax revenue increase this project will generate, a proposed park, and $500,000 cash contribution. There is still around 2,800 acres of property approved for warehouse/logistics on the east side of the Redlands Blvd. This existing neighborhood does not deserve having this incompatible use built right on top of it. A yes vote on the proposed MVTC benefits out-oftown developers who will enjoy profits at the expense of city residents.
Please do right by the approximate 1,000 citizens who have invested and live in the approximate 250 homes between Encelia and Cottonwood who pay taxes, shop, spend, and vote in Moreno Valley. VOTE
NO ON APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED MVTC UPHOLDING YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION
AND YOUR RECENT GENERAL PLAN APPROVAL
I apologize for the long letter but thank you for your time to read it as part of your considerations in coming to a decision. If you have any questions or would like to discuss, please feel free to contact me.
Jeff Sims
City of Moreno Valley Resident
Planning Commissioner - City of Moreno Valley
1. Cross-section along Encelia (Developer Plan DAB-A4.2)
2. MVTC overall site and landscape plan
3. Pages 225-251 of Public Review Draft - LAFCO City MSR and SOI Update dated March 29, 2022 7 F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2406
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) II • I Ell •1 ll(J"I' I t n1 I
~,ti bu1:,.a,::J -p-i lN
.,_ v 11 (._, K>,,'° eve!
§, it §1 Ill
:i: , •· :: I
is i= d
II
H Ii Q I' u I
(
;! r ···1-- I !~§ 4= c--11 I I I • f 2 I 2§ a I
\)
""t
- I;)
; st C
I
j
r
+-
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2407 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade ...
I'
:
\.
:
-- ·...,·('i
'\ . ..., ' ,,.\ '- l /" I f f
1 ·ffi
I I I ! ! ! I !
.
c:a
>
"O
en
0 C
"O
Q)
"O
0 C
"O
<( >
(1)
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2408 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Riverside 6216 Brockton Avenue. Suite 111-B
Riverside, CA 92506
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2409
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park)
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- March 29, 2022
The City of Moreno Valley incorporated in 1984 as a general law city in the County's Western Region.11° The City's northern, eastern, and the majority of the southern boundary is shared with unincorporated Riverside County territory. Most of the City's southern boundary is adjacent to the Lake Perris State Recreation Area. The City of Perris boundary is immediately south of a portion of Mmeno Valley. The City's western edge is bound by the March Air Reserve Base, City of Riverside corporate boundary, and unincorporated territory. The City's incorporated boundary covers an area of 51.3 square miles and the City's SOI extends northwest and southeast to encompass an additional 15.5 square miles, for a combined 66.8 square miles . 111 The City's demographic profile is presented in Figure 84.
Figure 84: Demographic Profile - Moreno Valley
Population as of 2020 208,838 150 2,442,304
Population as of 201 O 193,365 105 2,189,641
Annual Pop. Growth Since 2010 0.77% 3.63% 1.10%
Housing Units 57,523 55 867,637
Persons / Housing Unit 3.63 2.73 2,81
Land Area ( sq mi) 51.3 15.5 7,206.0
Persons / Square Mile 4,071 10 339
Median Household Income $64,073 $93,293 $67,369
Projected Population in 2035 246,068
2,995,509
Annual Proj. Growth 2020-2035 1.10% 1.37%
Projected Population in 2045 266,814 3,251,
705
Annual Pro·. Growth 2020-2045 1.65% 1.93%
Sources: California Department of Finance, Southern California Association of Governments, US Census, ESRI Business Analyst Online (Growth rates are presented as annual growth rates)
110 Source: City or Moreno Valley
lll Source: Riverside LAFCO
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2410
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
Moreno Valley's population grew slowly during the last decade, increasing at just a 0.77 percent annual growth rate to a total population of almost 2'09,000. Moreno Valley is the second-largest city in the County of Rlverside. Moreno Valley has large households (3.63 persons per household) and a high population density (4,071 persons per square mile) when compared to the County averages (2.81 persons per household and 339 persons per square mile). The population projections over the next 15 to 25 years indicate that population growth will increase, but growth is not expected to keep pace with County-wide growth rates.
The City's SOI contains a population of just 150, spread across 55 households. The City's median household income is slightly lower than the County-wide average, while the median household income in the SOI is about 38 percent higher than the County-wide average.
The City's land use profile is disproportionately skewed towards industrial development, with almost 75 percent of the City's commercial square footage designed for industrial users. During the last decad:e, the City added over 9.3 million square feet of industrial space, representing about half of the City's commercial development. While this is a significant increase in square footage, a lot of the City's development can be attributed to retail projects. The City's housing inventory is concentrated in single-family housing, representing more than 80 percent of the City's units.
Aligned with the City's land use profile, several of the City's lar.gest employers are distribution centers, including Amazon (7,500 employees), Ross Dress for Less/DD's (2,400 employees), Sketchers USA (1,200 employees), Harbor Freight Tools (788 employees), and Deckers Outdoor (700 employees). lhe remaining top ten employers include March Air Reserve Base (9,600 226
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2411
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
employees), Riverside University Health Systems Medical Center (3,400 employees), Moreno Valley Mall (1,500 employees), and Kaiser Permanent Community Hospital (1,457 employees). 112 Moreno Valley's land use summary is presented in Figure 85.
Figure 85: Land Use Summary- Moreno Valley
-
ll 1•11eu'-' llt \f-l§iJr:l,_1- .. .S1!tWH1
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 46,378 80.6% 54.8%
Multifamily 9,781 17.0% 43.6%
Mobile Home 1,364 2.4% 1.6%
Total Units 57,523 100.0% 100.0%
New Units Since 2010 1,964
Commercial Gross SF
Retail 8,080,993 20.9% 26.6%
Industrial 28,896,728 74.9% 61.8%
Office 1,512,415 3.9% 9.6% Other 103,295 0.3% 2.0%
Total 38,593,431 100.0% 100.0%
New Commercial Since 201 O 20,028,947
Sources: California Department of Rnance (2020) and Costar (Other includes hospitality, healthcare, specialty, sports and entertainment)
CURRENT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, ISLANDS/POCKETS, AND DUCS
The City of Moreno Valley's SOI consists of three (3) noncontiguous areas, illustrated in Exhibit
12. The City's eastern SOI is the largest of the three (3) areas, stretching eastward into the hills along State Route 60 and southward along Gilman Springs to encompass the area known as Mystic Lake, which is a seasonal body of water. The City's northwestern SOI extends west to the City of Riverside's existing SOI in the hills north of State Route 60, in an area that is largely overlapping the Box Springs Mountain Reserve Park. The City's third and smallest SOI area 112 Source: City of Moreno Valley, 2018-19 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 227
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2412
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Se1Vice Review and Sphere of lnRuence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
extends south from the City's southern boundary adjacent to Lake Perris State Recreation Area, east of Davis Road.
The SOI does not contain LAFCO-identified DUCs or unincorporated islands and pockets.
Moreno Valley's boundary was previously reconfirmed in the September 2006 Central Valleys, The Pass Area and Southwestern Riverside County MSR (LAFCO 2005-49-3&5; LAFCO 2005- 48-5; LAFCO 2005-47-1&3) (the "2006 MSR").
@RSG 228
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2413
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) @)
:;o
(J)
G>
N
N
(0
City of Moreno Valley and Sphere of Influence
Disadvantaged UnlnCOIJlOraled COfTIITlunltles
CJ (OUCs) as previously idenUfled by LAFCO (ACS
2006-101; Statewide Median Household Income
(MHI) of $60,883, 80% of which Is $46,706
New DUCs (ACS 2015-19) Statewide Median
Income of $75,235, 60% or which Is $60,166
. .
..... . . : ...... ._,,, . ; ~~~
1'-_lllt:'k••"'· -~.. ~,1·~ ~~j._~; !~:~. .~~~~-·~'1: •. -~ ' 't:,. ~'-~· ,' . ; .. ~v-,.~~ . •;"! ·~--~-~-1S:, . .:: .. <-•~~l ~ :-~, -- . ,q
~ "'~~-~m . ::-~.: ... .. --. --,· . ~\,,-~ -, ' ·P.ERRf$,_ N
A
0 0.5 1 3
--=:::a•-====--•Miles 2
Source: RSG Inc, Riverside LAFCO. Rfverslde County IT
.....
!"-:>
Q
'<::
~ Q.
en
Q
Cl)
0 §
fil- ~-(.')
"1J
C:
2:
er
::0
(I)
< ii'
:::
CJ
iil
;:l!
I
~ Q)
cl
::r
I')
~
N
0 N
N
(")
~
:s::
C:
::,
n·
-s·
!!!..
en
CD
< tr
;;o
<ti
< iii"
:::
Dl
::,
a.
C/1
-0
:;
Ill
mo
0;:::
-'<
;o _ _ j □ ~
~ 2';:: ijJ CD O
i5: ~;; <ti <ti::,
()Co
0'8_ ~ 5 Dl = - - CD '< Ill '<
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2414 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade
FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND STAFFING
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
The City of Moreno Valley is a "Council - Manager" form of government, with a City Council that includes five (5) members, including one Mayor elected at-large, and four (4) Councilmembers elected according to district boundaries. The Mayor serves a two (2) year term while Councilmembers serve four (4) year terms. The City Council appoints a City Manager, who serves as the head of the administrative branch of the City government. 113 The City Council also serves as the Housing Authority, Successor Agency, Moreno Valley Community Services District, Public Financing Authority, and Public Facilities Financing Corporation. Several boards, commissions, committees, and councils carry out assignments as directed by the City Council, including the Accessibility Appeals Board, Environmental and Historical Preservation Board, Senior Citizens Advisory Board, Arts Commission, Library Commission, Planning Commission, Traffic Safety Commission, Utilities Commission, Moreno Valley Citizens Public Safety Committee, Parks Community Services and Trails Committee, and the Emerging Leaders Council. 114
The City Manager reports directly to the City Council and oversees a staff of 375 full-time equivalent personnel. 115 The City's annual operating expenditures ranged from $118 to $150.3 million between 2016-17 2018-19. 116
SERVICES PROVIDED
City staff provide the community with building and planning, housing, code enforcement, animal control, parks and recreation, landscape maintenance, streets and road maintenance, lighting, utilities, stormwater drainage, and innovation and technology services. The following section describes municipal services provided within Moreno Valley and identifies the service provider. 113 Source: City of Moreno Valley
114 Source: City of Moreno Valley
115 Source: City of Moreno Valley, 2018-19 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 116 Source: California State Controller's Office, "Cities Financial Data" @RsG 230
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2415
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Ser.ice Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Publir; Review Draft - Marr;h 29, 2022
Figure 86 summarizes the municipal services provided within the Moreno Valley city limits by the City or by other service providers.
Figure 86: Service Provider Matrix - Moreno Valley
c c ..
c .. ., c c 0 ii 'g 1l ;u 1i ., ., c- f E Cl SI i D.,: C,: c-c 'le! c .. "ii ., - ., _
.. .. " Cl..!! Cl..!! 0 .,,- .., ·- :! Jl "- cC cC m C i!jC u ., :>, :!i! :E C 'E ~fii ;1 ., .!i! ! .., .. 1i"U i! e,u .. u "'" C .. ;;a E ., E "' .. > e .. z:. 0 ji ..... ·c .c Public Service Service i5 l>rovlder u CJ wilt Ill~ -' Ill II.. u. u, Law Enforcement Sheriff
Fire Pro1ection Fire/Calf ire
EmerAenev Meaical Fire/Ca IF ire
Buiding/Planning Community Development
Housing Housing Aulhoritv
Code Enforcement Community Development
Animal Contnil Community Development
Parks and Recreation Parks and Community Services. CSD, Regional Parks Library Library, Library System
Museum Historical Societv Landscape Maintenance Public Works, CSO, LLMD. & CFO Street,;JRoad Maintenance Pvblic Works, CSA
StreeUigh!s Ed!lemont CSD. CSD, LLMD, & CFD '
Ligh~no Pubric Works. CSD, LLMD, & CFO UbliUes Bectric U~fllY. Edison, So Cal Gas Solid Waste Waste Management
Stormwa1er Drainage Pubf,c Works. Flood Control & Water Conservation I' Innovation and Tec~nolo!IV Financial B. Managemenl Services, Speclr~m.AT&T Airport NIA
Cemetery• N/A
Healthcare• NIA
Waler' Easlern Municipal Waler Dislricl, Edgemont CSD Wastewater• Edgemont Corrmunity Services District • l>/ot included in this MSR
Government Services
General government services in the City of Moreno Valley are provided by the elected City Council, and appointed staff like the City Manager and City Clerk. The City Manager serves as the Chief Executive of the City and is responsible to the City Council for the efficient management of all City business including implementation of Council policies and programs, providing direction to departments that administer City programs and services, coordinating intergovernmental relations and legislative advocacy efforts, and administering the outsourcing agreements through which Public Safety services are provided. The City Clerk is responsible for the administration of all municipal elections, access to and management of City records, preparation of agendas, recording and maintenance of all Council actions, maintenance of the Municipal Code, and serves as the official custodian of the City seal.
231
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2416
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Law Enforcement
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
Moreno Valley receives law enforcement services from the Riverside County Sheriff Department.
The Sheriff provides general policing services including, investigations, special enforcement, school resources, traffic enforcement and patrols, community services, crime prevention, and the administration of the volunteer program and the Explorer youth program.
The 2006 MSR presented the following determination:
• Law enforcement services were being provided at a level below the City's standard of 1 sworn officer per 1,000 people.
According to City staff, the recently adopted General Plan identifies City policies for providing responsive, efficient, and effective law enforcement services that promote a high level of public safety. Furthermore, City staff noted that the City no longer has a policy specifying a number of sworn officers per 1,000 residents.
Fire Protection
Fire Protection services are provided by Riverside County Fire DepartmenUCalFire in Moreno Valley. Since 1921, the Riverside County Fire Department has been in a contractual relationship with CalFire to provide wildland fire protection services. In 1946, the contract between CalFire and Riverside County Fire Department was expanded to include fire protection services. Services provided by Riverside County Fire Department/CalFire include fire protection and prevention, medical response, review of planning cases, review and inspections of construction and developments, fire and life safety inspections of state-regulated occupancies, information on ordinances and standards for construction, and information bulletins and standards for fire protection. Fire Stations
2, 6, 48, 58, 65, 91, and 99 are in the City.
The Riverside County Fire Department/CalFire provides fire protection services to 20 cities in Riverside County and the Rubidoux community services district. The Riverside County Fire Department/CalFire also responds to calls for service in seven (7) additional Riverside County cities and the ldyllwild Fire Protection District through mutual and automatic aid agreements. 232
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2417
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Emergency Medical
Cily of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29. 2022
Emergency medical services are provided by the Riverside County Fire Department/CalFire.
Please refer to the previous section for more information on the Department.
Building/Planning and Housing (Community Development)
Building, planning, and housing services are provided by the City's Community Development Department through the Planning and Building and Safety Divisions. The Planning Division informs the planning commission, ensures new developments fulfill the City's strategic priorities, and ensures new development is in line with CEQA. The Building and Safety Division conducts plan reviews, issues permits, conducts field inspections, and coordinates permit approvals with City departments and outside agencies.
Code Enforcement
Code enforcement services are provided by the Community Development Department's Code and Neighborhood Services Division. The Division responds to citizen complaints, proactively enforces the municipal code, provides parking control services, and runs the abandoned vehicle abatement program.
Animal Control
Animal control is provided by the Animal Services Division of the Community Development Department. The Division provides humane animal services, sheltering, rabies control, stray animal control, licensing, and public education. A shelter operated by the Division is located in the City at 14041 Elsworth Street.
Parks and Recreation
Parks and recreation services are provided by three (3) entities: The City's Parks and Community Services Department, the Community Services District- Zone A, Community Facilities District No. 1, and the Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District. The Department provides 233
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2418
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City or Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Ora~ - March 29, 2022
maintenance and development of parks, trails and recreational facilities, maintains open space, administers an array of recreational programs, and enforces park rules and regulations. The Community Services District, known also as Zone A, services parks in the City with the Parks and Community Services Department. The District primarily provides funding to the Department for parks and recreation services. The Community Facilities District No. 1 also provides funding to the Department, but funding is reserved for maintenance of facilities. The Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District operates the Box Spring Mountain Reserve in the City.
The Reserve is located on 3,400 acres of land that overlooks the cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley. The entrance is located at 9699 Box Springs Mountain Road in Moreno Valley.
The 2006 MSR identified the following determinations:
• The City was providing parkland at a ratio that was below the City's standard and noted financing constraints that led to an increase in fee related recreational activities and a degradation of service provision.
According to City staff, the recently adopted General Plan identifies 671 acres of existing and planned parkland which could meet the parkland ratio within a 20-year period. City staff noted that the City also plans to evaluate parkland dedication fees and in-lieu parkland dedication fees to ensure that the City is adequately addressing the community need while maintaining regional competitiveness.
Library
The Moreno Valley Public Library provfdes library services to the City. The Library is owned and operated by the City. It has two (2) satellite locations in the Moreno Valley Mall and Iris Plaza.
The Library provides users of all ages with reading materials in electronic and traditional formats, educational support for students, and literacy programs. The City's Community Services District provides funding for the operations of the Library.
The 2006 MSR presented the following determinations:
234
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2419
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- March 29. 2022
• The City's Library was too small to hold the City's entire inventory and the City had plans at the time to develop a larger facility.
The City has expanded library facilities to address this finding, adding two satellite libraries that provide library services throughout Moreno Valley. Museum There is no museum in the City of Moreno Valley.
Landscape Maintenance
Landscape maintenance is provided by the City's Public Works Department through funding from the Community Services District, Landscape Maintenance District 2014-2, and several other special funding districts in the City. The Department provides general landscape maintenance services to public property and oversees any landscape maintenance contracts.
Streets/Road Maintenance
Streets and roads maintenance is provided by the Public Works Department. The Department's responsibilities include the coordination, maintenance, and operation of traffic facilities and roadways, sidewalk and street maintenance, and the management of City capital improvements.
The 2006 MSR identified the following determinations:
• The City's roads and intersections operating below the City's level of service standard.
City staff indicated that streets and roads were in fair to good shape.
Streetlights
The Moreno Valley Community Services District, Zone C Arterial Streetlights, the Lighting Maintenance District 2014-01, the Community Facilities District 2014-01, and the Edgemont Community Services District all provide funding for streetlight maintenance in various parts of the City. The Edgemont Community Services District provides streetlight maintenance services to several neighborhoods in the western part of the City. The District was formed in 1957 to cover @RsG 235
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2420
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Cily of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Updale Riverside
County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
the Edgemont area of Riverside County which straddles both the cities of Riverside and Moreno
Valley. The other districts provide funding that is used by the Moreno Valley Public Works Department to service the rest of the City.
Utilities (Gas, Electric)
Utilities are provided by the Moreno Valley Electric Utility ("MVU"), Southern California Edison ("SCE"), and the Southern California Gas Company ("SoCal Gas"). The MVU is the primary public electric utility in the City and is run by the Public Works Department. Created in 2001 , the utility now serves around
6,600 residents . The traditional regional utilities SCE and So cal Gas both still
serve some residents in the City. In Fiscal Year 2018-19 the MVU entered into a financing agreement through Bank of America to acquire the City's streetlights from SCE. According to City staff, the streetlights then underwent an LED retrofit.
Solid Waste
The City has a franchise agreement in place with Waste Management for solid waste collection services. Waste Management is a private solid waste disposal company provides solid waste disposal and recycling services to Moreno Valley residences. Waste Management is one of the largest solid waste companies in North America with more than 45,000 employees serving over 20 million residential, industrial, municipal, and commercial customers.
The 2006 MSR presented the following determinations:
• The
City was not disposing of the required amount of solid waste.
City staff indicated that the City has implemented a number of innovative source reductions, re
cycling, composting, and reuse programs to help meet State diversion goals. The City's current diversion rate is 65 percent, which exceeds the current standard diversion rate of 50 percent.
Furthermore, City staff noted that an amendment to the City's municipal code will require a diversion rate of 75 percent by 2025 as required by State law. 236
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2421
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Storm Drainage
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of lnnuence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
Storm drainage services are provided by the Public Works Department. The Department is responsible for engineering, designing, and overseeing the construction of capital improvements for flood and storm-water management, and the operation and maintenance of City storm drains.
County Service Area 152 provides funding for the management of the City's NPDES permit program, which is aimed at reducing pollution to underground water tables.
The 2006 MSR presented the following determinations:
• The City's storm water drainage is inadequate.
City staff did not indicate that storm water drainage was inadequate in the City.
Innovation and Technology
Innovation and technology services are provided by the Financial and Management Services Department. The Department manages the City's technology assets, improves hardware, software, and telecommunications, and provides IT support.
Airport
There is no public or private airport in the City of Moreno Valley.
Extraterritorial Services Provided
The City of Moreno Valley does not provide services outside of the City's boundaries. Government Code Section 56133 requires LAFCO approval for extension of services outside a sphere of influence in response to an existing or impending threat to public health or safety.
RECENT AND PLANNED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The City prepares a Capital Improvement Plan that serves as a comprehensive planning document inclusive of revenues and expenditures for capital improvements within the City. The 237
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2422
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
C'rty Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
City's
Cl P is adopted every other year and coordinates with the City's two-year budget cycle. The City plans to make improvements in regard to pavement rehabilitation, street and road improvements, interchange construction, bridge maintenance and construction, drainage improvements, lighting improvements, and community center renovation.
According to City staff, all projects identifi
ed above, except for the March Community Center
Renovation, are moving forward and funded.
HOUSING NEEDS AND HOUSING ELEMENT REPORTING
The City of Moreno Valley submitted its
6th Cycle Draft Housing element to HCD on February 19,
2021. As of the date on this MSR, HCD had not completed the review of the City's Housing Element. 117 During the
5th Cycle, the City submitted Annual Progress Reports between 2014 and 2019,
but failed to submit an Annual Progress Report in 2013.m The City's
5th Cycle housing needs are presented in Figure 87.
Figura 87: 5th Cycle Housing Element Summary - Moreno Valley • ~Lt~
RHNA Allocation 1,500 993 Permitted Units 0 0
Allocation Surplus/(Shortage) (1,500) 993)
Source: HCD Annual Progress Report Permit Summary, October 6, 2020 fi'lr.ro ~r-t~
oJii.§
1,112 2,564
457 1,354
(655) (1,210)
The City permitted 457 moderate income housing units and 1,354 above-moderate income units d
uring the
5th Cycle. The
City did not per
mit any very low- or low-inc
ome housing units during the
5th Cycle, and the City fell short of meeting its RHNA allocation in all income categories. With a \
117 Source: Cal1fomia Department of Housing and Community Development, "Housing Element Implementation Status Tracker" updated June 28,2019
118 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, "Annual Progress Report Permit Summary," dated October 6, 2020.
238
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2423
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Cily of Morerio Valley
City Muriicipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- Marcil 29, 2022
shortage of
4,358 housing units, the City is not e-xpected to meet its RHNA allocation in any income category.
The City's RHNA allocation increases by about 120 percent, or 7,427 units, to a total of 13,596 housing units for the
6th Cycle. In order to accomplish this, the City will need to permit 1,700 units every year during the eight (8) year cycle.
The City's
5th and
6th Cycle production goals and unit production is presented in Figure 88.
Figure 88: 5th and 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation and Production - Moreno Valley 1,800 1.600 1,400 1.200
$
i:1.000
=>
g1800
-~ 600
0 .'.I: 400
200
t:J
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 RHNA 5th Cycle RHNA 6th Cycle
- Market Rate Built -.i Affordable Built --Annual Goal
Moreno Valley is one of 289 California jurisdictions that have not made sufficient progress toward either moderate-income RHNA unit production or failed to submit the latest (2019} Annual Progress Report. As a result, the City is subject to streamlined ministerial approval process for proposed housing developments with at least 10 percent affordable units. The streamlined ministerial approval process was introduced as part of Senate Bill 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) in 2017, 119
119 Source: California Department of Housirig and Community Development, "SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary" 239
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2424
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park)
FISCAL HEAL TH
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere or lnnuence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- March 29, 2022
The City qf Moreno Valley's fiscal health evaluation, including audit findings, revenue sources, expenditure categories, long-term obligations, reserves, and California State Auditor assessment is presented in the sections that follow. The City's net position is presented as annual revenues less expenditures for fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19 in Figure 89. The City recorded surpluses in each year between 2016-17 and 2018-19.
Figure 89: Net Position - Moreno Va/fey
Total General Tax Revenues
Other Tax Revenues Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Total Operating Expenditures
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
Total Expenditures
Net Position
Operating Revenues
$80,283,944
252,636
43,623,150
124,159,730
102,604,217
4,326,445
11,013,480
117,944,142
$6,215,588
$95,664,565
757,763
58,823,573
155,245,901
132,608,840
4,319,000
13,418,628
150,346,468
$4,899,433
$101,563,227
3,562
69,378,685
170,945,474
132,343,618
4,309,456
12,203,689
148,856,763
$22,088 711
As illustrated in Figure 90, the City had total revenues that ranged from $124.2 million in 2016- 17 to $170.9 million in 2018-19. Figure 90 outlines the City's revenue sources between 2016-17 and 2018-19.
240
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2425
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Figt.Jre 90: Operating Revenue History - Moreno Valley
General Revenues
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Property Tax in-lieu of VLF
Franchise Tax
Business License Tax
Property Transfer Tax Utility User Tax
Other Tax Revenues
Total General Tax Revenues
Transportation Tax
Parking Tax
Voter-Approved Taxes
Functional Tax Revenues
Total Tax Revenues
Charges for Services
Special Benefit Assessments
Use of Money
Fines and Forfeitures
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Ri11erside County
Public Review Draft- March 29, 2022
$13,549,337 $19,681,234 $20,781,717
22,613,602 22,899,957 25,928,638
1,852,584 2,344,159 2,433,358
17,430,250 18,406,258 19,577,636
5,673,109 6,300,486 6,585,791
2,832,064 2,956,966 3,046,854
719,514 767,591 833,082
15,613,484 15,629,102 15,483,806
6,678,812 6,892,345
80,283,944 95,664,565 101,563,227
252,636 757,763 3,562
80,536,580 96,422,328 101,566,789
6,582,057 11,502,017 10,078,587
686,981 800,544 732,737
3,040,329 6,153,214 9,724,869
195,970 727,887 800,140
2,950,348 3,234,411 3,638,808
14,637,872 18,156,624 21,488,264
15,529,593 18,248,876 22,915,280
Other Taxes In-Lieu
Miscellaneous Revenues
Total Revenues __ti 24,159,730 $155,245,901 $170,945,474 Source: California State Controller's Office
The City's general tax revenues, which were $101.6 million In 2018-19, account for 59.4 percent of the City's total revenues. The City has a diverse revenue base, with sales tax ($25.9 million), property tax ($20.8 million), property tax in-lieu of VLF {19.6 million}, and utility user tax ($15.5 million) representing the largest revenue sources and collectively representing 80.5 percent of total general tax revenues.
When compared to all other Riverside County and California cities, the City's tax revenues are proportionate, except for utility user tax, which not all communities have adopted. Although sales tax is the City's largest general tax revenue source, accounting for 25.5 percent of the City's general tax revenues, it is proportionally lower than the average sales tax revenue for all 241
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2426
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
Clty Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- March 29, 2022
Riverside County cities (39.9 percent), and more aligned with the average sales tax revenue for all California cities (24. 7 percent). Because sales tax can be susceptible to economic shifts, such as the results of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may be advantageous for the City to rely less on sales tax revenues.
The City's general tax revenues are compared to all Riverside County and California cities in Figure 91.
Figure 91; General Tax Revenue Comparison - Moreno Valley TOT 9.5%
Sales Tax 24.7%
Sales Tax 39.9%
Sales Tax 25.5%
---
PropertyTax 31.2%
Property Tax 20.5% Property Tax 19.0%
Mot8tlo Valley Al Riverside Clies Al Caifomia Cities
Aside from tax revenues, City's largest non-tax revenue sources are miscellaneous revenues ($22.9 million) and intergovernmental revenues ($21.5
million). The
City's major revenue sources
are described in greater detail in the sections that follow.
Sales Tax Sales tax revenues are the City's single-largest tax revenue, accounting for 25.5 percent of general tax revenues or $25.9 million in 2018-19. Sales tax revenues are derived from one percent of gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold in Moreno Valley. Sales tax reven
ues increased by 7.1 percent annually between 2016-17 and 2018-19. 242
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2427
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of lnnuence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
Property Tax and Property Tax in-lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees Property tax and property tax in-lieu of VLF were the City's second and third largest tax revenues in 2018-19, accounting for 20.5 and 19.3 percent of general tax revenues respectively.
In 2018-19, the City collected almost $20.8 million in property tax. Property tax is assessed on land, improvements, and personal property, which amounted to about $15.6 billion in 2018-19.
Approximately $4.1 billion in assessed value was derived from land value and $11 .8 billion from improvements.120 The City's property tax collections were approximately 15.6 percent of all property tax collected in Moreno Valley, which is one of the highest tax rates for a city in Riverside County.
The City's property tax revenues increased from about $13.5 million in 2016-17 to $20.8 million in 2018-19, 23.8 percent annual growth rate. While property assessed valuations can only increase by a maximum of 2 percent annually, property tax revenues can grow at a much faster pace as a result of new development adding new taxable value to the tax roll.
The City of Moreno Valley and County of Riverside have a mutually adopted Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement in place, which was adopted in 1985.111 Property tax in-lieu of VLF accounted for 19.3 percent of the City's general tax revenue in 2018- 19, equivalent to $19.6 million. Property tax in-lieu of VLF replaced vehicle license fees as a revenue source for cities in 2004, and increases based on assessed valuation growth in the jurisdic~ion.
Utility User Tax
A fourth significant revenue source for the City is utility user tax revenues. The City assesses utility user taxes on telephone use at a rate of 5. 75 percent, inclusive of intrastate residential and 120 Source: California City Finance. "Assessed Valuation of Property by City" 121 Source: Riverside LAFCO
243
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2428
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
commercial calls, interstate residential and commercial calls, international residential and commercial calls, and all wireless residential and commercial calls. Additionally, the City taxes business and residential electricity, business and residential natural gas, business and residential cable television, business and residential water, and business and residential sewer fees at a rate of 6 percent. 122 In 2018-19, utility user tax revenues amounted to $15.5 million, or about 15.2 percent of general tax revenues. Over the three (3) year period from 2016-17 to 2018-19, the City's utility user tax revenues were relatively flat, decreasing by a little more than $100,000 over that period.
Miscellaneous Revenues
The City's largest non-tax revenue source is classified as miscellaneous revenues. Miscellaneous revenues amounted to $22.9 million in 2018-19, or about 13.4 percent of all revenues . For the City, the primary sources of
miscellaneous revenues includes development impact fees ($9.6 million in 2018-19), contributions from nongovernmental sources ($1.9 million), and other unclassified miscellaneous revenues ($11 .3 million). According to City staff, the City is expected to begin preparation of a development impact fee study in 2021.
Intergovernmental Revenues
Intergovernmental revenues are collected from County, State, and Federal sources and amounted to $21 .5 million in 2018-19 for the City. The City's intergovernmental revenues are comprised of gas tax revenues ($8.0 million), community development block grants ($1.8 million) and several other State ($8.0 million) and Federal ($3.3 million) government sources. Intergovernmental revenues increased from about $14.6 million in 2016-17 to $21.5 million in 2018-19, a 21.2 percent annual growth rate.
122 Source: California
City Finance, "Utility User Tax by
City" updated ill February 2021
244
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2429
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Operating Expenditures
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere or Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
The City's operating expenditures ranged from $117.9 to $150.3 million between 2016-17 and 2018-19. The City's annual operating expenditures, categorized by use, are presented in Figure
92. Figure 92: Operating Expenditures • Moreno Valley
Operating Expenditures
Salaries and Wages
Employee Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Contract Services Other Operating Expenditures
Total Operating Expenditures
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
Total Ex enditures
Source: California State Controller's Office
$31,577,627
9,756,381
4,749,004
56,321,004
200,201
102,604,217
4,326,445
11,013,480
$117,944,142
$45,685,127
12,363,241
2,974,431
57,844,737
13,741,304
132,608,840
4,319,000
13,418,628
$150,346,468
$21,936,258
13,222,377
3,675,063
83,315,931
10,193,989
132,343,618
4,309,456
12,203,689
$148,856,763
Because the City contracts with the County of Riverside for law enforcement and fire protection services, it is not surprising that the City's largest expenditure category is contract services, amounting to $83.3 million in 2018-19. Between 2016-17 and 2018-19, the City's contract services expenditures increased by 21.6 percent annually - over the same time frame all other operating expenditures increased by just 2.9 percent. In 2018-19, the City's contract service expenditures amounted to 56 percent of total expenditures.
The City's largest current expenditure category is associated with public safety, amounting to $63.3 million in 2018-19. Public safety expenditures grew at just 3.5 percent annually between 2016-17 and 2018-19 while total current expenditures increased by 12.3 percent annually. Most of the growth occurred in transportation, community development, and culture and leisure expenditure categories. The City's current expenditures by function between 2016-17 and 2018- 19 are presented in Figure 93.
245
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2430
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Figure 93: Current Expenditures - Moreno Valley
City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of lnfluerice Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- March 29, 2022
-
- fio16
General Government $17,323,318 $18,982,549 $19,669,398
Public Safety 59,152,472 63,992,529 63,305,321
Transportation 10,976,980 18,441,708 19,286,980
Community Development 6,843,958 12,717,384 111, 128,467 Health
Culture and Leisure 8,307,489 18,474,670 18,953,452
Public Utilities Debt Service 4,326,445 4,319,000 4,309,456 Capital Outlay 11,013,480 13,418,628 12,203,689
Total Current Ex enditures $117,944,142 $150,346,468 $148,856,763 Source: California State Controller's Office
In most contract cities around Riverside County, the public safety costs are rapidly increasing at unsustainable paces - that is not the case in Moreno Valley. The fastest growing expenditure categories for the City were culture and leisure (51 percent annual increase between 2016-17), transportation (32.6 percent annual growth), and community development ($27.5 percent annual growth). These three (3) categories represented $23.2 million in expenditure increases between 2016-17 and 2018-19.
Culture and leisure expenditures are entirely associated with parks and recreation costs (almost $19.0 million in 2018-19) while transportation expenditures include costs for streets, highways and storm drains ($18.1 million), and trees and landscaping ($1.1 million). Community development expenditures are associated with planning ($3.2 million), construction and engineering regulation ($373,000), and other unclassified community development expenditures ($7 .5 million). Some of these costs are recovered via charges for services, and according to City staff, the City's fees are balanced and consistent with all fee studies. City staff also indicated that the City planned to prepare a new development impact fee study in 2021 because the previous fee study was prepared nine (9) years ago.
Reserve Fund Balance
The City has several reserve fund policies. The City's cash flow reserve aims to preserve 17 to 35 percent of General Fund expenditures. The Emergency fund policy requires 12 percent of 246
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2431
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- March 29, 2022
General Fund expenditures and the Rainy Day Reserve policy requires an additional 10 percent of General Fund expenditures to be retained. The City's 2020-21 budget indicates that the City will retain $39.9 million in reserves and is in compliance with the City's reserve policies. 123 Pension and OPEB Obligations
The City of Moreno Valley's pension and OPEB obllgations are outlined in Figure 94.
Figure 94: Pension and OPEB Obligations - Moreno Valley • f
Net Pension Liability/{Surplus}
Total OPES Liabilit / Sur lus
Source: 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 ACFR
$72,410,028
7 099,335
$79,509,363
$68,092,267
6,4!53,487
$74 545 754
$72,896,273
8,175,011
$81,071,284
Qualifying employees are eligible to participate in the City's Miscellaneous Pension Plan. The City does not have public safety employees and therefore does not offer a Safety Plan. The City also provides OPES policies, which are defined benefit postemployment healthcare plans for retired persons, and benefits are extended to surviving spouses. As illustrated in Figure 94, the City has about $81.1 million in combined pension and OPEB liabilities.
The City established an irrevocable trust fund in June 2009 to begin prefunding the City's unfunded OPEB liability.
The City's pension indicators, which include the City's employer contribution compared to the actuarially determined contribution, the City's total covered payroll, and the contribution rate as a percent of covered payroll, are presented in Figure 95. 123 Source: City of Moreno Valley, 2019-20 Budget
247
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2432
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Figure 95: Pension Indicators - Moreno Vs/ley
Actuarially Determined Contribution
Employer Contribution
Covered Pa roll
Em lo er Contribution Rate
Source: 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 ACFR
Cily of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere or Influence Update Riverside County
$6,385,610
6,385,610
$20,860,026
30.6%
Public Review Draft - March 29, 2022
$7,094,031
7,094,031
$21,783,847
32.6%
$7,972,616
7,972,616
$24,175,227
33.0%
The City made employer contributions equivalent to the actuarially determined contribution between 2016-17 and 2019-20. During this time frame, the City's covered payroll increased at an annual rate of about 7. 7 percent. The City's employer contribution rate, which ranged from 30.6 to 33.0 percent between 2016-17 and 2019-20, is about average for the County of Riverside, which ranged from 26 to 32 percent over the same period.
Annual Audit Findings
RSG reviewed the City's Annual Audits from 2017-18 through 2019-20. The Annual Audits did not present any findings and the auditor stated that the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the businesstype activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City.
Additionally, the City's Annual Audits between 2017-18 and 2019-20 were awarded Certificates of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association.
California State Auditor Fiscal Health Evaluation
The City of Moreno Valley ranked 281 out of 471 jurisdictions and received an overall risk rating of low. The City is considered higher risk than 190 peer cities in California, or about 40 percent of cities. The City received low risk ratings on six (6) indicators, including liquidity, general fund reserves, pension obligations, pension costs, future pension costs, and OPEB obligations. Two @RsG 248
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2433
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- March 29, 2022
(2) indicators were given moderate risk ratings, including debt burden and revenue trends. Two (2) indicators scored high risk ratings, including pension funding and OPEB funding. 124
MSR DETERMINATIONS
Requisite CKH determinations for the City of Moreno Varley are presented by topic beJow:
1. Population, Growth, and Housing
Moreno Valley grew at a slower rate over the last decade, when compared to the County and most other incorporated jurisdictions in the Western Riverside Region. The Moreno Valley population is expected to grow at a rate that is slightly lower than the County-wide growth rate over the next 15 to 25 years. The City did not build sufficient housing units to meet its 5th
Cycle RHNA allocation of 6,169 units, falling short by 4,358 units, and the City's 6th Cycle
RHNA allocation increased by 120 percent to a total of 13,596 housing units.
2. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities in SOI
The City's SOI does not contain any DUCs.
3. Present and Planned Capacity of Facilities
Many of the City's deficiencies identified in the 2006 MSR dld not resurface during RSG's research, data collection, and city interview stages.
4. Financial Ability to Provide Services
The City's general tax revenue sources have increased to more than $101.6 million in 2018- 19 .. The City has identified issues with its pension and OPEB liabilities and began to take 124 Source: California State Auditor, Financial Data for Fiscal Year 2019-20 RSG 249
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2434
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Cily of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review arid Sphere of lrifluence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- March 29, 2022
corrective action as early as 2008 with the introduction of an irrevocable trust fund. The City has maintained healthy reserve funds.
5. Opportunities for Shared Facilities
No opportunities for shared facilities were identified.
6. Accountability for Community Service Needs
The City Council is elected according to district boundaries. The City's plethora of boards, committees, and commissions indicates that the City residents are engaged with City government. The City is active across at least five (5) social media platforms and maintains an email list. The City also operates a television channel and has a dedicated media team.
7. Any Other Matter Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery as Required by Commission Policy.
The City did not identify any other matters related to effective or efficient service delivery as required by Commission Policy.
SOI RECOMMENDATIONS
RSG's recommendations related to the Moreno Valley SOI are presented by topic below. RSG is not recommending any changes to Moreno Valley's SOI.
1. Present and Planned Land Uses
Large portions of Moreno Valley's SOI overlaps difficult-to-develop and protected land and are unlikely to be developed in the foreseeable future. The southern and southeastern portions of the unincorporated Moreno Valley SOI present the best opportunities for future growth and development.
250
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2435
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) City of Moreno Valley
City Municipal Service Review and Sphere of lnnuence Update Riverside County
Public Review Draft- March 29, 2022
2. Present and Probable Need for Public Facility and Services City staff indicated that the Moreno Valley SOI has adequate public facilities and services.
3. Present Capacity of Public Facilities
City staff indicated that public facilities in the Moreno Valley SOI are sufficient to meet the community's needs.
4. Social or Economic Communities of Interest
The City did not identify any social or economic communities of interest in the Moreno Valley SOI.
5. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Present and Planned Need for Facilities and Services
The Moreno Valley SOI does not contain any DUCs.
251
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2436
Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 1 Sean P. Kelleher
From: George Hague <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 2:17 PM
To: Gabriel Diaz
Cc: Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC)— Larger than City’s Mall in June article--& proposed unhealthy sports park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good afternoon City Council members, November 8, 2022
When the Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) couldn’t protect the families in the neighborhood and the environment, they decided a park could be offered to influence you to get at least three votes, but they fail to explain the park will be next to a city designated diesel truck route with all its harmful pollution impacting the health of children using the sports park — active use of the sports park will result in children breathing in deeply the health impacting diesel pollution. The 40 million sq ft World Logistics Center warehouse project has just begun moving forward with its project and will be using Redlands Blvd for some of its 13,000 daily diesel truck trips as will the MVTC, Sketchers and others.
Sincerely,
George Hague
Moreno Valley warehouse — larger than city’s
mall — is back for consideration
•
•
•
•
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2437 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 2 Silvia Flores, seen Friday, June 17, 2022, with children, Jillian Flores,13, at right, and Slater Flores, 11, opposes a 1.26- million-square-foot warehouse in her neighborhood. They are standing in the middle of Mozart Way, with Encelia Avenue behind them, where the proposed warehouse could rise. (Photo by Terry Pierson, The PressEnterprise/SCNG) By DAVID DOWNEY | [email protected] | The Press-Enterprise PUBLISHED: June 19, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. | UPDATED: June 19, 2022 at 7:01 a.m.
A plan to build a warehouse larger than the Moreno Valley Mall across the street from houses on half-acre lots is returning to the Moreno Valley City Council.
The council is set to decide Tuesday, June 21, whether to greenlight a 1.26-million-square-foot logistics project called the Moreno Valley Trade Center, on 80 acres south of the 60 Freeway.
The developer, Dallas-based Hillwood Investment Properties, has said the warehouse would stand 48 feet tall.
The project’s final environmental impact reportstates that the building could reach 100 feet if occupied by a fulfillment center filling the orders of online shoppers.
Previous
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2438 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 3 ••
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2439 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 4 •
•
• Next
1 of 2
A 1.26-million-square-foot warehouse is proposed to be built on this land, seen Friday, June 17, 2022, across the street from Moreno Valley homes. (Photo by Terry Pierson, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG) In advance of Tuesday’s meeting, letters from people on both sides of the issue have poured in to the city.
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2440 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 5 Walter Fus, saying he has been a Moreno Valley resident since 1977 and is a retired Air Force pilot, wrote Saturday, June 11, that approving the project “would be the most egregious decision this council could ever make.” Cristina Rivera, in a Wednesday, June 15, email, urged approval in praising an amenity the developer promised, if allowed to build. The project “will bring a new desperately needed sports park to the City of Moreno Valley,” Rivera wrote.
Union carpenters submitted letters of support, saying the project would create construction jobs.
A decision was postponed
In October, the Moreno Valley Planning Commission rejected the project on a 4-0 vote, with one commissioner not participating due to a potential conflict of interest, concluding the center was incompatible with a neighborhood to the south. Hillwood Investment Properties appealed the decision to the council, which discussed the project in December but postponed a decision.
Now the project is back.
City planners are recommending the council approve it, by certifying the environmental impact report, approving a general plan amendment, changing the zone and making a determination that the project won’t “result in a net loss in residential capacity.”
In changing the property designation, the city would eliminate the potential for 145 single-family houses to be built, according to an environmental report.
Project proponents are seeking approval at a time when some Inland Empire communities are pushing back against warehouses.
For example, the Redlands City Council recently enacted a moratorium on industrial projects on the city’s west side.
Earlier, Jurupa Valley limited warehouses to its Mira Loma and Agua Mansa areas, and adopted rules for other types of businesses that generate heavy truck traffic. And Pomona is considering a 45-day moratorium on new warehouses.
At the same time, online shopping is soaring and continues to drive a regional explosion in the logistics industry.
The Moreno Valley Trade Center arrived on the dais of the Planning Commission in fall, a few months after the city completed an overhaul of its general plan, a guide for future growth.
That document designated the 80-acre project site, west of Redlands Boulevard between Eucalyptus and Encelia avenues and mostly empty except for an 8.5-acre plant nursery, as a place for houses on half-acre lots.
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2441 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 6 Hillwood is seeking permission to deviate from that new growth guide. In part because of that, Planning Commission member Jeff Sims called on the council to kill the project in a Saturday, June 11, letter. “Why have an approved General Plan and not honor it?” Sims wrote.
Two other projects in pipeline
There are two other warehouse projects in the early stages.
One is called Edgemont Commerce Center, a proposed 142,345-square-foot warehouse distribution building on approximately 7 acres southwest of Bay Avenue and Day Street.
The other is Heacock Commerce Center, a pair of industrial buildings totaling 874,000 square feet on 46 acres southeast of Gentian Avenue and Heacock Street.
City spokesperson Matthew Bramlett said in email Thursday that environmental reports are being prepared for both projects and it’s not known when they will be completed.
Like Moreno Valley Trade Center, the Heacock project can’t be built unless the city lets the developer deviate from the general plan. Warehouses are allowed at the Edgemont site, though a zone change is required to build one bigger than 50,000 square feet.
George Hague, conservation chair for the Moreno Valley Group of the Sierra Club, said those projects are also in the wrong place because they are near homes and schools.
The California Air Resources Board submitted letters to the city warning that each project has the potential to “expose nearby communities to elevated levels of air pollution.” In separate letters, Robert Krieger, chief of the California Air Resources Board’s Risk Reduction Branch, wrote that both projects are “in census tracts that score within the top 1 percent of State’s most impacted from air pollution from an environmental hazard and socioeconomic standpoint.”
Truck traffic, air pollution concerns
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2442 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 7 As for the Moreno Valley Trade Center, since the December hearing Hillwood has made changes.
The warehouse footprint has been reduced by 65,582 square feet to approximately 1,263,271 square feet, a city report states. A 35-foot-tall earthen berm, landscaped with trees and shrubs is to be built along Encelia Avenue. Truck access is to be limited to Eucalyptus Avenue. The number of loading docks is to be reduced by four, to 117, on the south side of the building, and by seven, to 97, on the north side.
Also, Hillwood has offered to build an 18-acre park at Redlands Boulevard and Ironwood Avenue that features two lighted soccer fields, a lighted baseball field, a playground, concession stand and exercise equipment.
Manuel and Arminda Del Alto, who live near Encelia Avenue, said improvements such as the berm don’t alleviate concerns. They moved to Moreno Valley 14 years ago from Ontario because they wanted to escape the warehouses going up there.
“My main concern is what the trucks and cars will put in the air,” said Manuel Del Alto, who has had a lung transplant.
Arminda Del Alto said they enjoy hearing birds and coyotes in the distance, and worry they will disappear.
Silvia Flores, who lives nearby with her husband, Joe, and two children ages 13 and 11, said she worries about pollution and traffic.
“It’s going to be terrible to have all these trucks,” Flores said.
The environmental report states that the logistics center would generate about 2,320 vehicle trips per day, including 1,436 by passenger vehicles and 885 by trucks. Under the fulfillment center scenario, the total would be 6,607 daily vehicle trips, including 5,750 passenger vehicles and 857 trucks.
Hillwood made several proposals earlier to soften the project’s impact on the neighborhood, including setting aside:
• $125,000 to establish an account to purchase of at least five electric-powered heavy trucks that drive the 60 Freeway corridor through Moreno Valley
• $64,000 to create an account for defraying up to 90% of neighbors’ costs of purchasing and installing noiseinsulation equipment, with a per-home limit of $8,000. Eleven homes on Galino Court, Essen Lane, Gershwin Way, Mozart Way, Strauss Lane and Shubert Street would be eligible for the payments. • $40,000 to establish an account to pay up to 90% of a homeowner’s cost of purchasing and installing air filtration systems, with a per-home limit of $5,000. The same 11 households would be eligible for such payments.
RELATED LINKS
• Massive Moreno Valley warehouse project still alive
• Has Moreno Valley reached its warehouse saturation point? • Pushback against warehouses in the Inland Empire gains momentum • $47 million settlement reached in World Logistics Center lawsuit • Moreno Valley council says yes — again — to World Logistics Center Despite the offers, Sims, the planning commissioner, said, “you can’t negate the smog, the traffic and the noise.” The warehouse building also would eclipse neighbors’ views, he said.
On most days, they can see foothills.
“On a clear day you can see the mountains looking up toward the Big Bear area,” Sims said. If the project goes in, he said, “all we will be able to see is a big wall looking to the north.”
IF YOU GO
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2443 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 8 What: The Moreno Valley City Council will meet and consider a 1.26-million-square-foot logistics project called the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
When: 6 p.m. Tuesday, June 21
Where: City Hall Council Chamber, 14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley Staff writer Monserrat Solis contributed to this report.
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2444 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Charles Smith
To: Sean P. Kelleher
Subject: Proposed Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 7:05:48 PM
Attachments: Warehouse Proposal MV Trade Center SK.docx Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Attached is a copy of a letter sent to the Mayor, 4 Councilpersons, and the City Clerk F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2445 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Dear Mr Kelleher:
A copy of a letter sent to the Mayor, 4 Councilpersons, and the City Clerk
As I have been crossing the 215 on Cactus, Alessandro, and Eucalyptus over passes on weekdays I have noticed that the traffic along the northbound 215 is slowed to a crawl as numerous cargo trucks are on the road. They are being passed by many truck cabs that have just dropped off their trailers or are on their way to pick up trailers. We simply cannot have thousands more trucks clogging up the 60 and 215 freeways. Gridlock will inevitably result. The idling of thousands of trucks will pour fumes into the air that will result in sickness and deaths. This is not what we should want for us or our children.
Here is an article reported in the May 26th Los Angeles Times:
A decades-old plan to widen one of America’s busiest cargo corridors was scrapped Thursday, as transportation officials acknowledged they must find a new way to lessen traffic without adding lanes.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority unanimously voted to end the $6-billion expansion plans for most of the 710 Freeway, where portbound trucks idle in traffic-choked lanes and nearby communities struggle with high rates of asthma and poor health.
And the Times reported on May 6, 2022
Black and Latino residents make up an estimated 83% of the 1.2 million people who live along the 710 corridor. They endure some of the worst air quality in the country. The area accounts for about F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2446 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 20% of all particulate emissions in Southern California, according to Metro…
Moreno Valley MUST stop the proliferation of warehouses in our city! We must also stop the proposed Pilot Travel Center/Truck Stop. The interchange at Redlands Blvd cannot handle that traffic! And, proposed housing tracts in that area will negatively impacted. As the elected by the people it is up to you, the City Council, to stop this NOW!
Charles Smith
22670 Temco St.
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
A resident since 1983
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2447 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: movalca
To: Sean P. Kelleher
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 6:52:38 AM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
This is a poorly planned usage of this area. The detriment to the Community and the City as a whole will not improve the quality of life for this area. Instead it will cause massive pollution and associated medical problems for the area. It will cause increased traffic in an area that is not equipped to handle the extra truck and other vehicles. Please encourage the City Council to vote against this project. Please attach this to the Public Record. --
Stan King
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2448 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Bianca Blua
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez
Cc: City Clerk; Gabriel Diaz; Sean P. Kelleher
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 3:35:30 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Mayor,
I am writing to you about the Moreno Valley Trade Center project. I thought the planning commission voted against this project, but now I see it is on the City Council agenda? This project is not in alignment with the general plan (the area is zoned for homes) and it will create more traffic and air pollution. If you care about the residents of Moreno Valley, and not your pocketbook, please vote against this project.
With Gratitude,
Bianca Blua, Ph.D.
11580 Steeplechase Dr, Moreno Valley, CA 92555
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2449 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Laszo Valladolid
To: City Manager"s Office_DG; City Clerk"s Dept_DG
Subject: I Support Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Saturday, November 12, 2022 5:57:38 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Moreno Valley City Council and Officials,
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley a new sports park, infrastructure improvements, hundreds of good union jobs, and over a thousand more will be created for operations.
This investment in Moreno Valley will bring benefits for decades to come.
Join me in supporting the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Sent from my email to iPhone
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2450 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Mario Del Angel
To: City Manager"s Office_DG; City Clerk"s Dept_DG
Subject: I Support Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:50:04 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Moreno Valley City Council and Officials,
My name is Mario Del Angel and I live in Rancho Belago on the Promontory Park community near Moreno Beach Drive and Cactus Ave.
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley a new sports park, infrastructure improvements, hundreds of good union jobs, and over a thousand more will be created for operations.
This investment in Moreno Valley will bring benefits for decades to come.
Join me in supporting the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Thank you,
Mario Del Angel
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2451 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Dany Ramos
To: City Manager"s Office_DG; City Clerk"s Dept_DG
Cc: Alonso Gomez
Subject: I Support Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:53:33 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Moreno Valley City Council and Officials,
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley a new sports park, infrastructure improvements, hundreds of good union jobs, and over a thousand more will be created for operations.
This investment in Moreno Valley will bring benefits for decades to come.
Join me in supporting the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Sent from my iPhone
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2452 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Martha Del Angel
To: City Manager"s Office_DG; City Clerk"s Dept_DG
Subject: I Support Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:55:02 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Moreno Valley City Council and Officials,
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley a new sports park, infrastructure improvements, hundreds of good union jobs, and over a thousand more will be created for operations.
This investment in Moreno Valley will bring benefits for decades to come.
Join me in supporting the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Thank you.
Martha Del Angel
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2453 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Marisabel Melendez-Valladolid
To: City Manager"s Office_DG; City Clerk"s Dept_DG
Subject: I Support Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 7:59:10 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Moreno Valley City Council and Officials,
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley a new sports park, infrastructure improvements, hundreds of good union jobs, and over a thousand more will be created for operations.
This investment in Moreno Valley will bring benefits for decades to come.
Join me in supporting the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Enviado desde mi iPhone
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2454 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Debbie Walsh
To: Gabriel Diaz; City Clerk; George Hague; Sean P. Kelleher; Julia Descoteaux Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center Project GPA PEN19-0191 Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 9:22:52 AM
Attachments: MVtradeCenterletterNov9_2.pdf
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Gabriel Diaz,
Please find the attached letter regarding the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project GPA PEN19- 0191.
Please submit into the Administrative and Public Record.
Thanks.
Debbie Walsh
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2455 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) November 9, 2022
Rural Association of Mead Valley (RAMV)
PO Box 2244
Perris, CA 92572
Moreno Valley City Council
Attn: Gabriel Diaz, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
RE: Moreno Valley Trade Center Project including Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No 20210039038), GPA PEN19-0191, Change of Zone PEN19-0192, Plot Plan PEN19-0193, and Tentative parcel Map 37836.
Honorable Council Members:
The Redlands Amazon Warehouse along the I-215 Freeway is a Prime example of why this warehouse SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED.
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2456 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) This recently built state of the art Redlands warehouse burned to the ground just two years ago. It was 600,000 square feet along the I-10 freeway. Operated by Amazon, this recently built warehouse caught on fire and burned to the ground quickly. Those driving along the freeway could feel the heat from the fire.
The Redlands warehouse was 600,000 sq. ft. and 45 feet in height. The Proposed warehouse is 1,328,853 sq. ft. in size and at least 100 feet in height.
Even though this recently constructed warehouse had the state of the art sprinkler system, it went up in flames quickly and was completely destroyed according to the Redlands Daily news.
There were about 100 people working inside when the fire was reported about 5:30 a.m., and they all got out safely, city spokesperson Carl Baker said. “It went up really fast, and the whole building was involved,” Baker said. He described the damage as a total loss. The damage was estimated at “hundreds of millions of dollars,” Baker said.
One focus of the investigation will be why what Baker called “a state-of-the-art” sprinkler system failed to limit the fire’s spread. “Obviously, the suppression system didn’t work as intended,” he said.
Redlands Daily News Article.
Redlands City does not have the equipment necessary to fight this type of warehouse. A large number of agencies from other cities and counties were brought in with ladder trucks to fight this Redlands City fire.
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2457 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) Will the fire trucks be tall enough to put water on top of a building 100 feet or more? That is much taller than the 45-foot warehouse that burned down in Redlands. Will there be enough ladder trucks to fight this type of fire with a building 100 feet tall or more? Will there be enough of a setback from the residential neighborhoods if the walls over 100 feet tall collapse during a fire? How does the City of Moreno Valley plan to fight a fire if one were to break out if this massive warehouse were to be built?
This warehouse is planned next to a residential neighborhood and homes. Yes, these warehouses catch on fire. The trucks will use residential streets even though agreements state they will not use residential streets.
A large warehouse in the City of Perris recently had a large explosion from a large 1,000 gallon propane tank. This warehouse is directly next to residential homes similar to the proposed Project.
The blast from the explosion could be seen and heard from miles away. No propane tanks should be installed and used on warehouse sites. All forklifts, Goats, and equipment should be electric powered.
The Rural Association of Mead Valley is opposed to the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project for this and the following reasons. This Project is for a proposed 1,328,853 square foot Industrial warehouse building up to 100 feet in height on a 72.5-acre site and adjacent to existing singlefamily homes within a rural animal keeping overlay. The change in the Project Site’s Land Use Designation would result in a total increase of approximately 80.04-acres of the Business Park (BP) General Plan Land Use Designation and a corresponding reduction of approximately 80.04-acres of the Residential 2 (R2) General Plan Land Use Designation. 1) a General Plan Amendment (PEN19-0191) to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation of the Project Site from Residential 2 (R2) to Business Park (BP); 2) a Change of Zone (PEN19-0192) to amend the City’s Zoning Atlas to rezone the Project Site from Residential Agriculture 2 (RA2) to Light Industrial (LI) and remove the Primary Animal Keeping Overlay (PAKO) district; 3) Tentative Parcel Map (PEN19-0234) to merge 11 parcels into 1 parcel; and 4) a Plot Plan (PEN19-0193) for an approximately 1,328,853 square foot Warehouse/Distribution Building. The Project Site is located south of Eucalyptus Avenue, north of Encelia Avenue, west of Quincy Street and west or Redlands Boulevard comprising Assessor Parcel Nos. 488-340-002 through 012.
2) The Project requires a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Single Family Residential land with animal keeping, a rural land use, to Industrial Zoning. This massive Industrial Project is not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The General Plan that was just updated includes the Project site as Residential housing. No indications were made during the General Plan update that this area would be changed in the near future from residential to industrial land uses. The MVTC is inconsistent with the recently approved 2040 General Plan which points out that industrial is incompatible with residential zoned areas. Policy LCC.3-2 directs the City to use "development standards to ensure smooth transitions for areas that border one another so that neighborhoods and districts maintain their unique qualities while being compatible with one another”. The 2040 General Plan approved in June also requires the city to screen and buffer F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2458 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) nonresidential projects to protect adjacent residential property when necessary to mitigate noise, glare and other adverse effects on adjacent lands.
The World Logistics Center and numerous other massive logistics warehouses are set to open nearby this Project location. This Project will add to the tens of thousands of additional truck trips approved on the already gridlocked I-60 Freeway. The unrealistic analysis of job creation assumes that there is a need for additional warehouse workers. The facts are that the current logistics and e-commerce warehouses cannot fill their positions. Where will these tens of thousands of additional workers come from? The best use of this land will be for single-family homes.
If the Project is constructed and used as an e-commerce fulfillment center the amount of vehicle trips is projected to be more than 5,000 vehicles per day. The MVTC’s plan as a warehouse is to allow the southern entrance of the project to allow 1,000’s of vehicles to access Encelia Street.
The project is located just 118 feet away the nearest family home. A 1,000-foot buffer is recommended by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to protect the health of residents living across the street.
The Project is proposed to be built under speculation. The developer has the option of developing this Project as a fulfillment/e-commerce center or logistics warehouse.
The following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts have been identified in the Final EIR and will require mitigation but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: 1) Aesthetics:
Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista; 2) Air 2 Quality: Air Quality Management Plan Conflict; 3) Air Quality: Criteria Pollutant Emissions; and 4) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: GHG Emissions Generation. Details of these significant unavoidable adverse impacts are discussed in the Final EIR and are summarized, or were otherwise provided in Section 5.3, Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation and Findings, in the Statement of Facts and Findings. (Page 11).
The Environmental Justice Element is now required by the State to be a part of all General Plans.
The City must “minimize any potential health risks” of new development on adjacent sensitive receptors and “designated truck routes that avoid sensitive land uses” (Policies EJ.1-3 and EJ. 1-9).
The City must create a substantial buffer between homes and the warehouse. Screening must be installed along the southern and western boundaries of the Project. All truck parking and docks must be located on the north side and east side of the Project away from residential neighborhoods.
The Project is located in an area the State has designates as a Disadvantage Community under SB 535.
Although the Project has a number of entrances most warehouses use just one driveway for trucks to enter and exit, thereby reducing staffing to one gate. The Project does not have sufficient room at any of the entrances to prevent trucks from backing up onto Eucalyptus Ave.
The Project must include a substantial amount of solar power, especially if used as an e-commerce business. The current power grid is not sufficient to produce enough electricity for the current F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2459 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) customers. The drain on the power grid during summer months produces frequent brown outs throughout Southern California.
The Project is located in an area with the worst smog in the nation.
This Project will increase greenhouse gas levels that are already impacting Communities in Western Riverside County. Mead Valley is also a disadvantaged community. The impacts warehouses in Moreno Valley and Perris are having negatively impacts to the entire region. The I-215 Freeway is congested for most of the day. The I-60 Freeway is congested with thousands of trucks. This backs up traffic throughout the region. Trucks are now using residential streets to avoid the congested freeways. Cajalco Road is backed up bumper to bumper during the day. Trucks are using Van Buren, Alessandro and Cajalco to get to the I-91 to get to the Ports. Our freeways cannot add tens of thousands of additional trucks and cars from any new warehouses without severe gridlock to our freeways.
RAMV is opposed to this Project that will impact the entire region. We cannot afford to turn anymore of our residential zoned areas into Industrial zoned areas. Our freeways are already at capacity, our air quality is already the worse in the nation, and our local roads are already being impacted. Please consider all of the impacts that this Project will bring to not only Moreno Valley, but also the entire region.
Sincerely,
Debbie Walsh
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2460 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) 1 Sean P. Kelleher
From: Marisabel Melendez-Valladolid <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 7:59 PM
To: City Manager's Office_DG; City Clerk's Dept_DG
Subject: I Support Moreno Valley Trade Center
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Dear Moreno Valley City Council and Officials,
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley a new sports park, infrastructure improvements, hundreds of good union jobs, and over a thousand more will be created for operations.
This investment in Moreno Valley will bring benefits for decades to come.
Join me in supporting the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Enviado desde mi iPhone
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2461 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: louse palomarez
To: City Clerk
Date: Friday, November 11, 2022 3:20:52 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Please forward to council members.
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley hundreds of good union jobs and reduce traffic by keeping people working locally. Less cars means less pollution.
Businesses being tax dollars and that helps to pay for public safety which is the residents' number one concern overall.
I ask that you vote in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Louise Palomarez
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2462 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Kimberly Gil
To: City Clerk
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Friday, November 11, 2022 8:36:34 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley hundreds of good union jobs and reduce traffic by keeping people working locally. Less cars means less pollution.
Businesses bring tax dollars and that helps to pay for public safety which is the resident's number one concern overall.
I ask that you vote in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2463 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Oscar A. Alvarez
To: City Clerk; Sean P. Kelleher
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center Comments
Date: Saturday, November 12, 2022 8:26:29 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
City Clerk and Planning Manager Sean P. Kelleher, for your consideration and distribution, I am a resident of Moreno Valley (City) since 1990. I have three grown children and four small grandchildren, and they all live in the area. I am writing these comments on the subject matter because I am very concerned with the future of my children and grandchildren, and in particular, in their future ability to breathe healthy air and lead a healthful life in the City. I am writing as an individual (not as a member of a City Advisory Board member), and on behalf my family and myself.
California Attorney General (AG) Bonta Intervention on the Moreno Valley General Plan. During a press release dated July 1, 2022, the AG Bonta made it clear that according to CalEnviroScreen, Moreno Valley ranks among the highest in the state for ozone pollution (it also worth noting that the counties of San Bernardino and Riverside get an "F" on the American Lung Association's 2022 State of the Air report card for both high ozone days and particle pollution). Ozone exposure (smog) is associated with decreases in lung function, worsening of asthma, increases in hospital admissions, and a higher death rate. Mr. Bonta further argued in its petition (dated June 21, 2022) that the City did not fully account for and mitigate the environmental and public health consequences of its General Plan. Specifically, Moreno Valley fails to:
Compare the General Plan’s air quality impacts against a proper environmental baseline, which is typically defined as “the physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time” of project approval;
Evaluate whether the General Plan would lead to a significant, cumulative increase in pollutants like ozone and particulate matter, which impacts whether the region can meet state and federal air quality standards; and
Consider whether the General Plan would increase pollution near schools, hospitals, and other sensitive sites or otherwise negatively impact the surrounding communities.
Implement enforceable measures required to mitigate the General Plan’s anticipated greenhouse gas impacts.
All of these requirements have not been addressed by the City, and are still lacking in the Moreno Valley General Plan. It is important to address these matters before approving additional warehouses, as any approvals will be on "thin ice".
Continuous Approval of Warehouse Projects and their Impact The City of Moreno Valley for the past several years continues to approve (or settle) additional warehouses in the City. For example, 1) it has approved the 40.6 million square feet World Logistic Center (settled in April 29, 2021 with $47 million in green technologies, conservation and minor air pollution mitigation measures), which is starting construction this year, and is projected to create more than 13,000 daily toxic diesel truck trips, 2) there are several additional warehouse projects undergoing the City development review process, which may potentially add more than 20 million square-foot warehouse space and additional thousands of daily toxic diesel truck trips, 3) there may be others in the development process that have not necessarily been disclosed to the public.
Any reasonable and average individual does not need to run an environmental and/or cumulative impact studies to see that the currently approved World Logistic Center warehouse project, along with other warehouse projects being approved and planned, will potentially be adding more than 70-million of warehouses square footage space that within a few years will convert the City into a “jungle” of trucks, F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2464 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) and subject it to unprecedented pollution and noise levels.
These thousands and thousands of daily toxic diesel truck trips will have the end result, within less than a decade, of transforming our current barely livable air quality into an environment with unbreathable air, undrivable city streets and adjacent freeways, and with all-day noise and bright lights at night, exposing its residents to continuous 7day/24hr air, noise and light pollution. Needless to say, these projects are close enough to our schools and homes, and its cumulative and local effect will directly impact our families and all those around us - a living hell.
The MV Trade Center Project Being Proposed Fails to Meet Proper Analysis and Fails to Protect from Pollution Impacts Current Residents and Future Generations As indicated in comments filed on the MV General Plan during the last four years, and as also indicated recently by the California Attorney General filing, the air pollution analysis in the General Plan is faulty, and thus, any project relying on it is defective, since it relies on incorrect data.
Mr. Bonta has stated: "Communities in Moreno Valley experience some of the highest levels of air pollution in the state. We're intervening today so that those communities do not continue to bear the brunt of poor land decisions that site warehouses outside their doors. At the California Department of Justice, we're fighting day in and day out for communities who live at the intersection of poverty and pollution" (June 21, 2022).
The Moreno Valley Trade Center project in and by itself, does not have a proper environmental baseline reflecting actual physical conditions in the proposed project area, it does not have a true impact evaluation of the cumulative increase of pollutants (e.g. air, noise, water runoff, greenhouse gases, light and glare pollution) on the surrounding communities and whether they meet state and federal standards, and the project fails to calculate the true effects of pollution in homes, schools, hospitals and other sensitive communities in the project surrounding areas. The MVTC also needs to describe how the project is going to mitigate the cumulative impact of pollutants on those living within the surrounding areas of the project census tract.
We should not be adding and approving indiscriminately warehouses without fully addressing proper baselines, true evaluation of cumulative impacts and effects on the City environment and people. Doing otherwise is failing our City residents and future generations.
Warehouse Moratorium Consideration - A Necessary Step to Take Stock of Where We Are in Terms of Pollution Impacts, and to Assure a Healthy MV Community in the Present and for the Future
Many cities have considered and explored a warehouse moratorium while studying the accumulated pollution impact of warehousing on their communities. Others have outright rejected warehouse projects due to concerns of traffic, pollution, and lowering property values. A brief overview of these activities (not intended to provide a whole history) is given below:
- In June 2019, the Pomona City Council supported drafting a set of strategies to address the cumulative impacts of warehouses in their city. The strategies recommended would include an update on City zoning laws to better regulate industrial zones and long-term impacts of these projects. This will allow city officials to better address the negative impacts that these warehouse projects may have on their community, while also giving due consideration to environmental justice. The moratorium would prohibit citywide speculative industrial development and new warehouse development, except for certain expansions. The city felt it this was necessary because oftentimes projects are built near communities of color, and this forces many neighbors to breathe diesel exhaust from warehouse activities, particularly in "disadvantaged-communities".
- The cities of Chino, Colton, Riverside and Jurupa Valley have also enacted similar moratoriums. - The City of Redlands enacted a temporary ban on non-housing development in a portion of their City on June 7, and was considering a ban for their entire City. - In August 2022, the City of Norco approved a a 45-day moratorium on warehousing to give city officials F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2465 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) time to find the potential and cumulative impact of warehousing on public safety, health and welfare. This would allow time to develop proper zoning, regulations and standards for future logistics sites. - In October 2022, the Beamont City Council rejected several warehouse projects due to concerns with polluting truck traffic, pollution and ruining property values.
It is time for the Moreno Valley Mayor and Council to consider a warehouse moratorium to take stock of where we are in terms of polluting levels, properly model and project where we will be in terms of pollution impacts if all approved warehouse projects were to be built, and take the necessary steps now to mitigate these polluting impacts.
The State-of-Affairs of the Climate Crisis According to World Leaders and Its Implications to the City of Moreno Valley
On November 7, 2022, the Chief of the United Nations put it very clearly and bluntly during the International Climate Conference: We as the world are on "a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator", and warned world leaders to "cooperate or perish". Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore stated: "Choose life over death ... It is not time for moral cowardice".
What this means to our Moreno Valley Mayor and Councilmembers, is to remove their foot from the accelerator of implementing polluting warehouses in our city, and to choose to bring into the city products and services that will save our lives, such as electric vehicles manufacturing, medicine related products, planting extensively trees along the major streets in our city, and other climate crisis mitigation related activities. Our city leaders need to have the courage and perform the hard work to lead the City into a leadership position in the Inland Empire where mitigation of the climate crisis is a priority, and a way of life.
Doing otherwise is failing our current city residents and future generations, and effectively choosing death over life.
Conclusions
Concerns from the California Attorney General need to be addressed address before approving additional warehouses, as any approvals will be on "thin ice".
Warehouse projects already approved or in the pipeline will add thousands and thousands of daily toxic diesel truck trips within less than a decade, transforming our current barely livable air quality into an environment with unbreathable air, undrivable city streets and adjacent freeways, and with all-day noise and bright lights at night, exposing its residents to continuous 7day/24hr air, noise and light pollution. A true living hell.
The MV Trade Center should not be approved as it does not have a proper environmental baseline reflecting actual physical conditions in the proposed project area, it does not have a true impact evaluation of the cumulative increase of pollutants (e.g. air, noise, water runoff, greenhouse gases, light and glare pollution) on the surrounding communities, and the project fails to calculate the true effects of pollution in homes, schools, hospitals and other sensitive communities. The MVTC also needs to describe how the project is going to mitigate the cumulative impact of pollutants on those living within the surrounding areas of the project census tract. We should not be adding and approving indiscriminately warehouses without fully addressing proper baselines, true evaluation of cumulative impact and effects on the City environment and people. Doing otherwise is failing our City residents and future generations.
It is time for the Moreno Valley Mayor and Council to consider a warehouse moratorium to take stock of where we are in terms of polluting levels, properly model and project where we will be in terms of pollution impacts if all approved warehouse projects were to be built, and take the necessary steps now to mitigate these polluting impact.
It is time for the Moreno Valley Mayor and Council to remove their foot from the accelerator of implementing polluting warehouses in our city, and to choose to bring into the City products and services that will save our lives, such as electric vehicles manufacturing, medicine related products, planting extensively trees along the major streets in our city, and other related climate F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2466 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) crisis mitigation activities. Doing otherwise is failing our current city residents and future generations, and effectively choosing death over life.
- Oscar Alvarez, PE, MSEE, MAPh, MBA
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2467 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Jeanette Enciso
To: City Clerk
Subject: Moreno Valley trade center
Date: Sunday, November 13, 2022 2:41:13 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am a resident in Moreno Valley ,and I support the Moreno Valley trade center.
I believe it will bring more jobs for our community.
Sent from my iPhone
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2468 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Megan Keo
To: City Clerk
Date: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:27:45 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley hundreds of good union jobs and reduce traffic by keeping people working locally. Less cars means less pollution.
Businesses being tax dollars and that helps to pay for public safety which is the residents' number one concern overall.
I ask that you vote in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2469 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Pranom Keo
To: City Clerk
Date: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:38:30 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley hundreds of good union jobs and reduce traffic by keeping people working locally. Less cars means less pollution.
Businesses being tax dollars and that helps to pay for public safety which is the residents' number one concern overall.
I ask that you vote in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2470 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Angelina Valdivia
To: City Clerk
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:39:26 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley hundreds of good union jobs and reduce traffic by keeping people working locally. Less cars means less pollution.
Businesses being tax dollars and that helps to pay for public safety which is the residents' number one concern overall.
I ask that you vote in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2471 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Sara Branson
To: City Clerk
Subject: Support for Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Sunday, November 13, 2022 9:11:47 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley hundreds of good union jobs and reduce traffic by keeping people working locally. Less cars means less pollution.
Businesses being tax dollars and that helps to pay for public safety which is the residents' number one concern overall.
I ask that you vote in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Best,
Sara Branson
Student, University of California, Berkeley
She/her
--
Sara Branson
Student, University of California, Berkeley
she/her/hers
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2472 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Eileen Avila
To: City Clerk
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:19:08 AM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am writing in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
This project will bring the residents of Moreno Valley hundreds of good union jobs and reduce traffic by keeping people working locally. Less cars means less pollution.
Businesses being tax dollars and that helps to pay for public safety which is the residents' number one concern overall.
I ask that you vote in support of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Sent from my iPhone
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2473 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Darric
To: Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez; Ulises Cabrera; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Sean P.
Kelleher; City Clerk
Cc: Alvaro Valdivia; Andre Moye; Antonio Hoggins; [email protected]; Brian Jackson; Carolyn Valencik; Ceci Yahoo; Charles Ober; Cindy Ramos; Crys Tom; DAMON FOREMAN; Darric Williams; David McAbee; Don McNicholas; Edna White; Ericka Partida; Eugene Wright; Jackie McGee; James Hagen; Jean Mims; Jeff Sims; Jesus Flores; John Hubbs; Jose Garcia; [email protected]; Karie Woodward; Ken Morin; [email protected]; Lisa Tuy; Liz Anderson; [email protected]; Margarita Valdivia; Maritza Torres; Mark & Donna Montgomery; Merrick; Nancy Altamirano; [email protected]; Pierre Overton; Ramona Zuniga Morales; Randy Thomas; Ray; Renee Smith; Richard Moreno; Richard White; [email protected]; Sharilyn Bankole; Shelly Mesa; Terry Scheschy; [email protected]; Tom and Terri Thornsley; VERONICA Ramos Subject: MVTC & 2nd Moreno Valley warehouse on Tues. Nov 15th City Council agenda at 6 pm = Moreno Valley Business Center (MVBC)
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:13:41 AM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers;
Please include these comments as part of the record for the above-mentioned public hearing. I am a resident of the Heritage Ranch community, the southern border of this proposed project.We again ask you to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of entitlements for this project for the same reasons that were voiced on December 7, 2021, during the applicant's appeal of their decision. While it is true that the developer has reached out to me with some proposed changes that will eliminate the traffic exiting onto Encelia Ave., the environmental impact has not changed. There will still be the same amount of pollution in our neighborhood as described in the FEIR, the same truck and employee traffic congestion at the roundabout of Redlands and Eucalyptus, and the same property devaluation to our homes if this project is approved.
I believe that the people in the affected community should have the most credibility because we also represent the children to be affected by the decisions of people and interests that do not hold or care about the well-being of our community. There are always paid workers that claim to live amongst us or live in Moreno Valley at large to lobby for destructive and irreversible policy prescriptions for our neighborhood in the name of revenue and personal gain or greed. It is frustrating to listen to and deal with knowing those people who are for projects in our community do not live here. If the same questionable projects were dropped in their community they would disapprove. It is shocking to us that some of the things that people believe are "Good for Moreno Valley". Really? Good for who? These outside interests wanting and praising this project as a net positive for Moreno Valley do not live in this community. This is not a good project... If you approved this project then you will want to approve the Pilot Truck stop next... I would like to not assume that you care more about city revenue than the health and well-being of the people in your community.
Mr. Marquez, Cabrera, and Delgado, you were ready to vote no on December 7th after listening to us. The June 21, 2022 vote was conveniently postponed till Nov 15th right after the current elections. Again, please revisit the project's location and visualize the magnitude F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2474 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) of a 1.3 million sq. ft. building and what it will do to our neighborhood.
The same sentiments are shared for the MVBC.
If these developers are offering $500,000 to the city to develop in areas that will cause irreparable harm to the community then there must be something that is innately wrong with the project. It does not fit in with this community and my children will pay the price for greed and power. This behavior that is being tolerated does not fit in with our progressive agenda and typifies the corporate monster that is allowed to propagate itself in retrospect to what you ran on as politicians and supposed protectors of the community.
The sad part is that we will rehash the sideshow of union workers claiming to be a part of our community that somehow we never see at our local meetings tell us how good this project is for Moreno Valley, to say nothing of how it will affect the immediate local residents. These actors are not in fact a part of our local community. They have no interest in our concerns about why this project's location and proximity to our community is a net negative.
At the end of the day, I like business and growth... Just not at the expense of my home, children, and community. This project can exist... They just need to move it into the area that was already zoned for this... Move it off Theodore...
--
Darric V. Williams
Cell 951.634.9143
Fax 810.963.0303
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2475 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Linda M Castellano
To: Elena Baca-Santa Cruz; Edward A. Delgado; David Marquez; Ulises Cabrera; Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez Cc: Sean P. Kelleher; City Clerk
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 2:37:39 PM
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
I am sending you this email to implore you all to vote no on the 1.26 million sq ft Moreno Valley Trade Center! You all say you want what is best for the residents of Moreno Valley, well how could this warehouse possibly be good for us? Imagine what this huge warehouse would do to our quality of life, it could possibly shorten our lives! In the meantime, while your yes vote would be killing us, we would also have to suffer the additional truck traffic! It already takes me 30 minutes to get out of Moreno Valley!
The planning Commission voted against the MVTC so the developer is now trying to sweeten the deal by offering a sports park! And now I just learned that they are also promising the Moreno Valley Community Foundation $500,000 to sweeten the deal even more. I am not sure how many of you are on the board of MVCF but please do not let this bribe or whatever you prefer to call it influence your NO vote!
If you truly are for the people of Moreno Valley, then vote NO on the MVTC.
Sincerely,
Linda Castellano
34-year resident of Moreno Valley
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2476 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) From: Tom Thornsley
To: Ulises Cabrera
Cc: City Clerk; Sean P. Kelleher
Subject: Moreno Valley Trade Center hearing
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:13:06 PM
Attachments: Council Member Cabrera Letter MVTC.docx
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Good Afternoon Councilman Cabrera,
Congratulations on the outcome of the election. How I hope you can bring some change to what seems to be the city's philosophy that all things warehouse are good. We need a leader that puts community residents first while focusing on appropriate and diverse development for a broader spectrum of opportunities in Moreno Valley. Besides, next door to this project site is the WLC with land available for 30 similar size warehouses.
Since the last hearing, the developer has sweetened the deal with an offer to build a park, contribute $500,000 to a city foundation and made campaign contribution. If an established local business wanted to make a contribution to the city, it would appear to be a neighborly thing to do. But as an enticement to get a project approved is just not right. Remember that Ex-Councilman Co went to jail for taking a bribe to get a land use and zoning change. Only difference here is the offer is made to the city publicly with one string attached, the project must be approved. These offers offend me and it should do so to you too. Remember, they do nothing to offset the project impacts.
The staff report implies that the developer now considers building an e-commerce distribution center and needs a 100-foot-tall building. Previously, we were told that would not be the option.
This will be the largest building by cubic feet anywhere in the region and with it will be even more traffic not previously discussed publicly.
Please put forth a Condition of Approval limiting the height of this warehouse to 50 feet even if you don't what the project approved. At least this would limit the facility should others vote to approve.
There are a litany of environmental impacts this project will bring that simply cannot be mitigated or even mitigated to the fullest financially feasible. Instead, the developer is burdening the city while enticing the project's approval with financial incentives.
Attached is a letter outlining the full range issues this project fails to meet according to the MoVal 2040 General Plan. Please take a look at what the General Plan asks for and consider whether we really need another warehouse when we need housing and job diversity.
Please uphold the Planning Commissions denial of the Moreno Valley Trade Center.
Sincerely,
Tom Thornsley
F.2.x
Packet Pg. 2477 Attachment: City Council - Public Comments Packet 2 of 3 [Revision 4] (6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center/Park) November 14, 2022
To: Council Members Cabrera,
City of Moreno Valley
Subject: Request to not overturn Planning Commission Denial of the Moreno Valley Trade Center Dear Council Member Cabrera,
Having resided just south of the proposed Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) and next to the World Logistics Center (WLC), for many years, it is my hope that you can understand my and all most all those on this end of town objecting to yet another warehouse near us. We ask that you agree with the Planning Commissions denial of this project. Just east of this project, the WLC has the potential to build 30 similar sized warehouses. So, why the need for one more at the cost of losing valuable residential, increasing air pollution, intensifying truck traffic, and further impacting and devaluating residential property.
You should take note that there are a broad range of reasons why this project should have be approved.
Yes some are personal but may have to do with quality of life, environmental impacts, and inconsistencies with the MoVal 2040 General Plan.
Planning staff for the city should never have overlooked the following issues and standards. What follows are passages taken directly from the General Plan that defend the need to deny this project for its inconsistencies with the General Plan. (My comments in the following passages are those in bold italics.)
MoVal 2040 General Plan Goals, Policies, Actions