Agenda packet, regular meeting — Moreno Valley City Council, May 2, 2023 (part 1 of 11)

AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF

THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

May 2, 2023

REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 PM
-1-

City Council Study Sessions
Second Tuesday of each month – 6:00 p.m.

City Council Meetings
Special Presentations – 5:30 P.M.

First & Third Tuesday of each month – 6:00 p.m.

City Council Closed Sessions
Will be scheduled as needed at 4:30 p.m.

City Hall Council Chamber – 14177 Frederick Street

Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Any person with a disability who re quires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the ADA Coordinator, at 951.413.3 350 at least 72 hours before the meeting. The 72-hour notification will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Ulises Cabrera, Mayor

Edward A. Delgado, Mayor Pro Tem David Marquez, Council Member

Cheylynda Barnard, Council Member Elena Baca-Santa Cruz, Council Member ..

-2-
AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
May 2, 2023

CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 PM

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

1. JAYDEN JIMENEZ - 2022 CONGRESSIONAL APP CHALLENGE
.
-3-
.AGENDA

JOINT MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

AND THE BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

*THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVES A SEPARATE STIPEND FOR CSD
MEETINGS*

REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 PM
MAY 2, 2023

CALL TO ORDER

Joint Meeting of the City Council, Community Services District, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority and the Board of Library Trustees - actions taken at the Joint Meeting are those of the Agency indicated on each Agenda item.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION
Pastor Martin C. Porter, Quinn A.M.E. Church

ROLL CALL

INTRODUCTIONS

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS ON THE AGENDA

JOINT CONSENT CALENDARS (SECTIONS A-E)
All items listed under the Consent Calendars, Sections A, B, C, D, and E are considered to be routine and non -controversial, and may be enacted by one motion unl ess a member of the City Council, Community Ser vices District, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority or the Board of Library Trustees requests that an item be removed for separate action. The motion to adopt the Consent Calendars is deemed to be a separate motion by each Agency and shall be so recorded by the City Clerk. Items withdrawn for report or discussion will be heard after public hearing items.

-4-
A. CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL
A.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

A.2. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - CLOSED SESSION - APRIL 18, 2023 4:30 PM Recommendation:

1: Approve as submitted.

A.3. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 18, 2023 6:00 PM
Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

A.4. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A PROJECT LIST FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 SENATE BILL 1 FUNDING FOR CITYWIDE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION AND P RESERVATION (RESO. NO. 2023 - XX) (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendation:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2023 -XX – To establish a Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation and Preservation project list for submission to the California Transportation Commission for Fisc al Year 2023/24 Senate Bill (SB) 1 funding; and

2. Authorize the Public Works Director/City Engineer to make any minor adjustments to the limits of work and minor modifications to the project list, as necessary.

A.5. AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

WITH PACIFIC COAST ELEVATOR CORPORATION DBA AMTECH

ELEVATOR SERVICES FOR ELEVATOR AND WHEELCHAIR LIFT

MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, TESTING AND CERTIFICATION SERVICES (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendation:

1. Award a five-year agreement wit h Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services for a total not -to-exceed amount of $150,000.00 for Elevator and Wheelchair Lift Preventative Maintenance and Repair Services; and authorize the City Manager t o execute contracts in conformance with the attached Agreement funded -5-
through Facilities Maintenance (Fund 7310);

2. Authorize the issuance of purchase orders to Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services , for the completion of Elevator and Wheelchair Lift Preventa tive Maintenance and Repair Services subject to funds available in the City Council approved Operating Budget; and

3. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the agreement and any subsequent amendments, subje ct to the approval of the City Attorney, in accordance with approved terms of the agreement.

B. CONSENT CALENDAR-COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
B.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUD ES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

B.2. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - CLOSED SESSION - APRIL 18, 2023. (SEE A.2.)
Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

B.3. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 18, 2023. (SEE A.3.)
Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

C. CONSENT CALENDAR - HOUSING AUTHORITY
C.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

C.2. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - CLOSED SESSION - APRIL 18, 2023. (SEE A.2.)
Recommendation:

-6-

1. Approve as submitted.

C.3. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 18, 2023. (SEE A.3.)
Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR - BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES
D.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

D.2. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - CLOSED SESSION - APRIL 18, 2023. (SEE A.2.)
Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

D.3. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 18, 2023. (SEE A.3.)
Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR - PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
E.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

E.2. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - CLOSED SESSION - APRIL 18, 2023. (SEE A.2.)
Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

E.3. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 18, 2023. (SEE A.3.)

-7-
Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Questions or comments from the public on a Public Hearing matter are limited to five minutes per individual and must pertain to the subject under consideration.

Those wishing to speak should complete and submit a GOLDENROD speaker slip to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

F.1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38325 (PEN21 -0327), MASTER PLOT PLAN (PEN21 - 0325), AND PLOT PLAN (PEN21-0326) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS (Report of: Community Development) Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2023-___, attached hereto, ADOPTING the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325 (PEN21 -0327), Master Plot Plan
(PEN21-0325), and Plot Pl an (PEN21 -0326) on file with the Community Development Department, incorp orated herein by this reference, which was completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and reflects that the Planning Commission and City reviewed and considered the in formation contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and exercised its independent judgment and analysis of the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts and ADOPTING the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project, which consists of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325 (PEN21 -0327), Master Plot Plan (PEN21 -0325), and Plot Plan (PEN21 -0326) pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and

2. ADOPT Resolution No. 2023 -__, attached hereto, DENYING Appeal PAA23 -0006 and APPROVING Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325 (PEN21 -0327), Master Plot Plan (PEN21-0325), and Plot Plan (PEN21 -0326) based on the Recital, Evidence contained in the Administrative Records, and Findings as set forth in Resolution No. 2023-__.

F.2. SUNNYMEAD HOTEL (Report of: Community Development) Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2023-__, attached hereto:

1. APPROVING the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration -8-
prepared for Specific Plan Amendment (PEN21 -0330) and Plot Plan (P EN21-0329) on file with the Community Development Department, incorporate d herein by this reference, which was completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and reflects that the Planning Commission and City reviewed and considered the informa tion contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and e xercised its independent judgment and analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts; and

2. ADOPTING the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for th e Proposed Project, which consists of a Specific Plan Amendment (PEN21 -0330) and Plot Plan (PEN21 -0329) pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

2. ADOPT Resolution No. 2023-__, attached hereto:
1) APPROVING Plot Plan (PEN21 -0329) based on the Recitals, Evidence contained in the Administrative Records and Findings as set forth in R esolution No. 2023 -__ and any necessary and corresponding amendment to the City’s Zoning Atlas to reflect the proposed changes in the zoning classification and/or redistricting associated with the General Plan Amendment.

3. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. [next in o rder] approving Specific Plan Amendment (PEN21 -0330), based on the Recitals, Evidence and Findings contained in the Administrative Record of the proceedings.

F.3. ADOPTION OF THE FI SCAL YEAR 2023/24 – 2024/25 OPERATING BUDGET (RESO. NOS 2023 -XX, CSD 2023 -XX, HA 2023 -XX, SA 2023 -XX, MVCF 2023-XX) (Report of: Financial & Management Services) Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to Approve and Adopt Res olution No. 2023- XX, approving the Budget for the City of Moreno Valley f or FY 2023/24 – 2024/25; and

2. Authorize the Chief Financial Officer to prepare/finalize the Adopted Budget Book, including the impact of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) once ado pted by Council for the purpose of completing the Government Financial Of ficers Association and California Society of Municipal Finance Officers award program requirements and final distribution.

Recommendations: That the CSD:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to Approve and Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2023-XX, approving the Budget fo r the Moreno Valley Community -9-
Services District for FY 2023/24 – 2024/25; and

2. Authorize the Chief Financial Officer to prepare/finalize the Adopted Budget Book, including the impa ct of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) once adopted by CSD for the purp ose of completing the Government Financial Officers Association and California Society of Municipal Finance Officers award program requirements and final distribution.

Recommendation: That the Housing Authority:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to Approve an d Adopt Resolution No. HA 2023-XX, approving the Budget for the Moreno Valley Housing Authority for FY 2023/24 – 2024/25; and

2. Authorize the Chief Financial Officer to prepare/fina lize the Adopted Budget Book, including the impact of the Capital Improve ment Plan (CIP) once adopted by HA for the purpose of completing the Government Financial Officers Association and California Society of Municipal Finance Officers award program requi rements and final distribution.

Recommendation: That the Successor Agency:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to Approve and Adopt Resolution No. SA 2023-XX, approving the Budget for the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley for FY 2023/24 – 2024/25; and

2. Authorize the Chief Financial O fficer to prepare/finalize the Adopted Budget Book, including the impact of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) once adopted by SA for the purpose of completing the Government Financia l Officers Association and California Society of Municipal Finance Office rs award program requirements and final distribution.

Recommendation: That the Moreno Valley Community Foundation:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to Approve and Adopt Resolution No. MVCF 2023-XX, approving the Budget for the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley for FY 2023/24 – 2024/25; and

2. Authorize the Chief Financial Officer to prepare/finalize the Adopted Budget Book, including the im pact of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) once adopted by MVCF for the p urpose of completing the Government Financial Officers Association and California Society of Municipal Finance Officers award program requirements and final distribution.
-10-

G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDARS FOR DISCUSSION OR

SEPARATE ACTION

H. GENERAL BUSINESS - NONE

I. REPORTS
I.1. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
(Informational Oral Presentation - not for Council action) March Joint Powers Commission (JPC)
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA)
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA)
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) School District/City Joint Task Force
I.2. EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION REPORTS
I.3. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
(Informational Oral Presentation - not for Council action)

CLOSING COMMENTS AND/OR REPORTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY

SERVICES DISTRICT, CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE CO MMUNITY

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, HOUSING AUTHORITY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND THE BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES.

ADJOURNMENT

PUBLIC INSPECTION
The contents of the agenda packet are available for public inspection on the City’s website at www.moval.org and in the City Clerk’s office at 14177 Frederick Street during normal business hours.

Any written information related to an open session agenda item that is known by the -11-
City to have been distributed to all or a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to this meeting will be made available for public inspection on th e City’s website at www.moval.org and in the City Clerk’s office at 14177 Frederick Street during normal business hours.
..

CERTIFICATION
I, Jane Halstead, City Clerk of the City of M oreno Valley, California, certify that 72 hours prior to this Regular Mee ting, the City Council Agenda was posted on the City’s website at: www.moval.org and in the following three public places pursuant to City of Moreno Valley Resolution No. 2007-40:

City Hall, City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street

Moreno Valley Library
25480 Alessandro Boulevard

Moreno Valley Senior/Community Center
25075 Fir Avenue

Jane Halstead, CMC
City Clerk

Date Posted: April 27, 2023

-1-

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 PM
April 18, 2023

CALL TO ORDER

The Closed Session of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, Moreno Valley Community Services District, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moren o Valley, Housing Authority, and the Moreno Valley Public Financing Authority was called to order at 4:33 p.m. by Mayor Cabrera in the Council Chamber located at 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, California.

Mayor Cabrera announced that the City Cou ncil receives a separate stipend for CSD meetings.

ROLL CALL

Council: Ulises Cabrera
Ed Delgado
David Marquez
Cheylynda Barnard
Elena Baca-Santa Cruz

Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS ON THE AGENDA ONLY

Mayor Cabrera opened the public comments portion of the meeting for items listed on the agenda only.

Public comments were called.

Raquel (C. Labor Negotiations)

1. City-wide compensation study.

Public comments were concluded.

A.2
Packet Pg. 12
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 4:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -2-

CLOSED SESSION

Interim City Attorne y Quintanilla announced that the City Council would recess to Closed Session to discuss the item as listed on the agenda and that he did anticipate reportable action.

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION

Significant Exposure to Litigation
Pursuant Government Code Section 54956.9(1)
(1 Potential Case)

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
Case Name: Sierra Club et al. v. City of Moreno Valley
Case No.: Riverside County Superior Court Case No. CVR12103300

C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS

a) City Representative: Mike Lee, City Manager & Brian Mohan, Assistant City Manager
Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer

Employee Organization: Moreno Valley City Employees
Association (MVCEA)

D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCEL - PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT EVALUATION Public Employee Title: Interim City Attorney

Mayor Cabrera recessed the City Council to the City Manager's Conference Room, second floor, City Hall, for their Closed Session at 4:37 p.m.

Mayor Cabrera reconvened the City Council in the Council Chamber from their Closed Session at 5:44 p.m.

REPORT OF ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY, BY CITY ATTORNEY A.2
Packet Pg. 13
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 4:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -3-
Interim City Attorney Quintanilla announced that there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Cabrera adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.

Submitted by:

___________________________
Jane Halstead, CMC
City Clerk
Secretary, Moreno Valley Community Services District
Secretary, City as Successor Agency for the Community
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley
Secretary, Moreno Valley Housing Authority
Secretary, Board of Library Trustees
Secretary, Public Financing Authority

Approved by:

___________________________
Ulises Cabrera
Mayor
City of Moreno Valley
President, Moreno Valley Community Services District
Chairperson, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley
Chairperson, Moreno Valley Housing Authority
Chairperson, Board of Library Trustees
Chairperson, Public Financing Authority
A.2
Packet Pg. 14
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 4:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL)

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY April 18, 2023

-1-
CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 PM

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

1. RECOGNITION OF THE 2022 BEAUTIFY MOVAL LEVEL 3 ADOPTERS

2. ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION

3. FIREFIGHTER OF THE YEAR
A.3
Packet Pg. 15
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -2-

MINUTES

JOINT MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 PM
April 18, 2023

CALL TO ORDER

The Joint Meeting of the City Council, Community Services District, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agenc y of the City of Moreno Valley, Moreno Valley Housing Authority, Moreno Valley Public Financing Authority and the Board of Library Trustees was called to order at 6:0 5 p.m. by Mayor Cabrera in the Council Chamber located at 14177 Frederick Street.

Mayor Cabrera announced that the City Council receives a separate stipend for CSD meetings.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Barnard.

INVOCATON

The invocation was given by Father Romeo Seleccion of St. Christopher's Church.

ROLL CALL

Council: Ulises Cabrera Mayor
Edward A. Delgado Mayor Pro Tem
Elena Baca-Santa Cruz Council Member
David Marquez Council Member
Cheylynda Barnard Council Member

A.3
Packet Pg. 16
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -3-

INTRODUCTIONS

Staff: Jane Halstead Manager of the Office of the Mayor and City Council/City Clerk
Patty Rodriguez Senior Deputy City Clerk
Paul Bradvica Deputy City Clerk
Steven Quintanilla Interim City Attorney
Mike Lee City Manager
Brian Mohan Assistant City Manager, Chief Financial
Officer, City Treasurer
Michael Lloyd Assistant City Manager
Sean Kelleher Acting Community Development Director
Melissa Walker Public Works Director/City Engineer
Jeremy Bubnick Parks and Community Services Director
Ken Reichle Chief of Police
Jesse Park Fire Chief

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ANY SUBJECT NOT ON THE AGENDA UNDER THE

JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Fred Banuelos

1. AB 742.

Shane Ysais

1. Warehouses.

Jeff Sims

1. Quality of Life.

Mayor Cabrera called for a ten-minute break.

Donovan Saadiq

1. Critical of Council Member Marquez.

Daryl Terrell

1. Tenant Relocation Assistance.

Brandon Carn

1. Arts Events.

Genevieve Aleman
A.3
Packet Pg. 17
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -4-

1. Arts and Grant Opportunities.

Jesse Aleman

1. Arts events.

George Hague

1. Warehouses.

David Zeitz

1. General Plan.

Dr. Patsy Brown

1. Home Key Grant Opportunity, Churches.

Dr. James Owens

1. Churches.

Frances Venegas

1. Home Key Grant Opportunity, Churches.

Lora Ross-Jackson

1. Churches.

Christopher Baca

1. General Plan.

Tom Jerele Sr.

1. Catalytic Converters.

Pete

1. Edgemont Community.

Louise Palomarez

1. Economic Opportunities.

Roy Bleckert

1. AB 742.

Bob Palomarez
A.3
Packet Pg. 18
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -5-

1. AB 742, Critical of Council Member Marquez.

Council Member Marquez responded to comments from the public speakers.

Mayor Cabrera called for a motion to move item F.2 to after public comments on any subject not on the agenda.

Motion made by Mayor Cabrera and seconded by Council Member Marquez to move item F.2 to after public comments on any subject not on the agenda.

Motion passed by a vote of 5 -0, with Council Member Baca -Santa Cruz, Council Member Marquez, Council Member Barnard, Mayor Pr o Tem Delgado, and Mayor Cabrera voting yes.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ulises Cabrera, Mayor
SECONDER: David Marquez, Council Member
AYES: Cabrera, Delgado, Marquez, Barnard, Baca-Santa Cruz F.2. 6209 : Moreno Valley Trade Center (Report of: Community Development) That the City Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt Resolution No. [next in order] approving and adopting the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Certifying the Final Environmen tal Impact Report for the Moreno Valley Trade Center Project;

2. Adopt Resolution No. [next in order] approving General Plan Amendment (PEN19-0191), Tentative Parcel Map (PEN19-0234), and Plot Plan (PEN19 -0193) and the respective conditions of approval, based on t he Recitals, Evidence and Findings contained in the Administrative Record of the proceedings;

3. Introduce Ordinance No. [next in order] approving Change of Zone (PEN19-0192) and corresponding amendment to the City’s Zoning Atlas and the conditions of approval, based on the Recitals, Evidence and Findings contained in the Administrative Record of the proceedings;

4. Adopt Resolution No. [next in order] finding and determining pursuant to Senate Bill No. 330 that approval of the Moreno Valley Trade Center project shall not result in a net loss in residential capacity; and,

5. Adopt Resolution No. [next in order] accepting the Community Benefits and Community Park on behalf of the City of Moreno Valley, as offered by the Applicant and set forth in the Community Park Acquisition and Improvement Agreement and authorize the City A.3
Packet Pg. 19
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -6-
Manager to execute the Agreement and approve any subsequent amendments, subject to the consent of the City Attorney, consistent with the intent and purposes of the Agreement.

Interim City Attorney Steven Quintanilla addressed comments that were made by members of the public.

Staff report provided by Acting Community Development Director Sean Kelleher.

With the conclusion of the staff report, Mayor Cabrera called for Council questions of staff.

Mayor Pro Tem Delgado, Council Member Baca-Santa Cruz, and Mayor Cabrera asked questions of staff.

Interim City Attorney Steven Quintanilla responded to Council's inquiries.

With no further Council questions of staff, Mayor Cabrera called for the presentation from the applicant/appellant to be heard.

With the conclusion of the applicant/appellant's presentation, Mayor Cabrera called for public comments to be heard.

Mayor Cabrera reduced the time for speakers from five minutes to two minutes, due to the number of speakers.

Donovan Saadiq

1. Concerns.

Alex Zamora

1. Support project.

Joe Bunker

1. Oppose project.

Juan Serrato

1. Support project.

Al Sanchez

1. Support project.

A.3
Packet Pg. 20
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -7-
Fred Banuelos

1. Oppose project.

Jimmy Elrod

1. Support project.

Shane Ysais

1. Oppose project.

Richard Moreno

1. Oppose project.

Arlene Sims

1. Oppose project.

Joe Flores

1. Oppose project.

Jeff Sims

1. Oppose project.

Julian Flores

1. Oppose project.

Tammie Ferem

1. Oppose project.

Jayson Baiz

1. Support project.

Omar Cobian

1. Support project.

Cryscynthia Tom

1. Oppose project.

Russell Shafer
A.3
Packet Pg. 21
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -8-

1. Support project.

Kia Kerr

1. Support project.

Jeremy Horvath

1. Oppose project.

Mike McCarthy

1. Oppose project.

Tom Jerele Sr.

1. Oppose project.

Bianca Blua

1. Oppose project.

Bob Palomarez

1. Support project.

Christopher Baca

1. Support project.

David Zeitz

1. Oppose project.

George Hague

1. Oppose project.

Pete

1. Support project.

Michelle Davis

1. Support project.

Louise Palomarez

1. Support project.

A.3
Packet Pg. 22
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -9-
Roy Bleckert

1. Support project.

Public comments were heard.

Mayor Cabrera called for a five-minute break.

With the conclusion of public comments, Mayor Cabrera called for the applicant/appellant's rebuttal.

Applicant/appellant provided the rebuttal.

With the conclusion of the applicant/appellant's rebuttal, Mayor Cabrera called for Council deliberation.

After deliberation from the City Council, a motion was made by Mayor Cabrera to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the project, based on the findings made by the Planning Commission.

Motion made by Mayor Cabrera and seconded by Council
Member Marquez to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the p roject, based on the findings made by the Planning Commission.

Motion passed by a vote of 4 -1 with Council Member Marquez, Council Member Barnard, Mayor Pro Tem Delgado, and Mayor Cabrera voting yes and Council Member Baca -Santa Cruz voting no.

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Ulises Cabrera, Mayor
SECONDER: David Marquez, Council Member
AYES: Ulises Cabrera, Ed Delgado, David Marquez, Cheylynda Barnard NAYS: Elena Baca-Santa Cruz

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ANY SUBJECT ON THE AGENDA
Roy Bleckert (A.3)

1. Concerns.

Tom Jerele (A.4)

1. Transparency.

CITY COUNCIL OPENING COMMENTS
A.3
Packet Pg. 23
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -10-

None.

JOINT CONSENT CALENDARS (SECTIONS A-E)
Mayor Cabrera called for a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Motion made by Council Member Marquez and second ed by Mayor Pro Tem Delgado to approve the consent calendar.

Motion passed by a vote of 5 -0, with Council Member Baca -Santa Cruz, Council Member Marquez, Council Member Barnard, Mayor Pro Tem Delgado, and Mayor Cabrera voting yes.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: David Marquez, Council Member
SECONDER: Ed Delgado, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Cabrera, Delgado, Marquez, Barnard, Baca-Santa Cruz A. CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL
A.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

A.2. City Council - Regular Meeting - Apr 4, 2023 6:00 PM Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

A.3. COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY EXPEND ITURE REPORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 FROM JULY 1, 2022 THROUGH March, 31, 2023. (Report of: City Clerk)
Recommendation:

1. Receive and file the Fiscal Year 202 2/2023 Council Discretionary Expenditure Report for July 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023.

A.4. PAYMENT REGISTER - FEBRUARY 2023 (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendation:

A.3
Packet Pg. 24
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -11-

1. Receive and file the Payment Register.

A.5. LIST OF PERSONNEL CHANGES (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendation:

1. Ratify the list of personnel changes as described.

A.6. APPROVE THE 3 -YEAR MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WESTERN
RIVERSIDE REGIONAL FOOD RECOVERY PROGRAM (Report of:

Financial & Management Services)
Recommendations:

1. Approve the City of Moreno Valley entering into a 3 -year agreement with Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) for the City of Moreno Valley to participate in the Western Riverside Regional Food Recovery Program for $117,329 for FY2022/23.

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and any subsequent related extensions or amendments with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

3. Authorize t he Chief Financial Officer to appropriate budget as set forth in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.

A.7. APPROVAL TO USE ASSET FORFEITURE FUNDS TO PURCHASE A

THERMO SCIENTIFIC UNLIMITED HAND -HELD NARCOTICS ANALYZER IN FY 2022/23 (Report of: Police Department)
Recommendations:

1. Authorize the Police Department to purchase one new Thermal Scientific-TruNarc Unlimited Handheld Narcotics Analyzer (TruNarc), at a cost of $29,160.38 ($27,063.00 for the equipment and warranty, plus $2,097.38 sales tax).

2. Authorize a budget adjustment as set forth in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.

B. CONSENT CALENDAR-COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
A.3
Packet Pg. 25
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -12-
B.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

B.2. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 4, 2023.

Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

B.3. PURSUANT TO LANDOWNER PETIT IONS, ANNEX CERTAIN PARCEL S INTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2021 -01 (PARKS
MAINTENANCE) - AMENDMENT NOS. 78, 81 and 86-89 (RESO. NOS. CSD 2023-28 TO CSD 2023-33) (Report of: Financial & Management Services) Recommendation:

1. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2023-28, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, ordering the annexation of territory to City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 ( Parks Maintenance) and a pproving the amended map f or said District (Amendment No. 78) (Abdon Sepulveda, 13400 Birchwood Dr.).

2. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2023-29, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, ordering the annexation of territory to City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 ( Parks Maintenance) and approving the amended map for said District (Amendment No. 81) (Pedro A. Rivera Hernandez, Esther Burgos Rivera, 25663 Dracaea Ave.).

3. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2023-30, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, ordering the annexation of territory to City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District No. 20 21-01 ( Parks Maintenance) and approving the amended map for said District (Amendment No. 86) (Raul Romero, 22060 Monico Dr.).

4. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2023-31, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Mor eno Valley, California, ordering the annexation of territory to City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 ( Parks Maintenance) and approving the amended map for said District (Amendment No. 87) (Dale Kimbriel, 14361 Anthony Pl.).

A.3
Packet Pg. 26
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -13-

5. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2023-32, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, ordering the annexation of territory to City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 ( Parks Maintenance) and approv ing the amended map for said District (Amendment No. 88) (Juan Ramon and Bertha Maldonado, 2503 5 Quebrada Ct.).

6. Adopt Resolution No. CSD 2023-33, a Resolution of the Board for the Moreno Valley Community Services District of the City of Moreno Valley, California, ordering the annexation of territory to City of Moreno Valley Community Facilities District No. 2021 -01 ( Parks Maintenance) and approving the amended map for said District (Amendment No. 89) (11 Fir Park Apartment Homes, located on the northside of Fir Ave., east of Indian St.).

C. CONSENT CALENDAR - HOUSING AUTHORITY
C.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

C.2. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 4, 2023.

Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR - BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES
D.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

D.2. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 4, 2023.

Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR - PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
A.3
Packet Pg. 27
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -14-
E.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

E.2. MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 4, 2023.

Recommendation:

1. Approve as submitted.

F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
F.1. PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW AND BEGIN THE 30 -DAY PUBLIC

COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE FIVE -YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR PROGRAM YEARS 2023/2028 AND FOR THE CDBG, H OME & ESG
PROJECT SELECTIONS FOR INCLUSION IN FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (Report of: Financial & Management Services) Recommendation:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to review and begin th e 30 -day public comment period for the five-year Consolidated Plan for program years 2023/2028 and for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and Emergency Solutions Grants Program (ESG) programs to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed pr oject selections for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Annual Action Plan.

Assistant City Manager Brian Mohan provided the staff report.

Mayor Cabrera opened the floor for Council questions of staff.

Mayor Pro Tem Delgado asked a question of staff.

Assistant City Manager Brian Mohan answered Mayor Pro Tem Delgado's question.

Mayor Cabrera opened the hearing and called for public comments.

With no public comments, Mayor Cabrera called for Council deliberation.

Mayor Cabrera provided brief comments regarding this item.

Motion made by Mayor Cabrera and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Delgado to review and begin the 30 -day public comment period A.3
Packet Pg. 28
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -15-
the five-year consolidated plan
Motion passed by a vote of 5 -0 with Council Member Baca -Santa Cruz, Council Member Marquez, Council Member Barnard, Mayor Pro Tem Delgado, and Mayor Cabrera voting yes.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ulises Cabrera, Mayor
SECONDER: Ed Delgado, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Cabrera, Delgado, Marquez, Barnard, Baca-Santa Cruz G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CO NSENT CALENDARS FOR D ISCUSSION OR

SEPARATE ACTION

None.

H. GENERAL BUSINESS - NONE

None.

I. REPORTS

I.1. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

(Informational Oral Presentation - not for Council action)

March Joint Powers Commission (JPC)
Mayor Pro Tem Delgado reported the following:

We heard an update by Colonel Weeman, commander of the Mission Support Group at March.

We approved a 4 th Amendment to the March LifeCare Development Agreement to allow them until July 31st to complete the pressure reducin g valve installation for water service on the Base.

Finally, we agreed to discontinue using teleconferencing for our Commission meetings.

Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA)
A.3
Packet Pg. 29
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -16-
None.

Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
Mayor Cabrera reported the following:

The Commission approved an agreement with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority for the Interstate 15 cross-county toll segment.

The Commission received an update from CEO Kristin Warsinski of Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) on the fiscal budg et, Fleet replacement program, and ongoing agency projects.

Riverside Transit Agency (RTA)
Council Member Marquez reported the following:

The Committee approved and recommended to the full Board of Directors for authorizing staff to award an agreement to Burnham Benefits Insurance Services for medical brokerage services for a three -year base period with two one -year options.

The Board authorized staff to join the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems a nd to a pply to the Regional Clean Hy drogen Hubs Funding Opportunity.

The Board also approved and adopted Amendments to the Agency’s Conflict of Interest Code.

Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
None.

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) None.

School District/City Joint Task Force
None.

I.2. EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION REPORTS

None.

A.3
Packet Pg. 30
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -17-
I.3. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

1. Earth Day Celebration Event.

2. Veteran's Programs.

CLOSING COMMENTS AND/OR REPORTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL , COMMUNITY

SERVICES DISTRICT, CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE COMMUNITY

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, HOUSING AUTHORITY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND THE BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES.

Council Member Baca-Santa Cruz

1. Promoted City events.

2. Residency requirements.

Council Member Marquez

1. Traffic concerns.

2. Project comments.

Council Member Barnard

1. Autism Awareness Month.

2. Traffic advice.

Mayor Pro Tem Delgado

1. Traffic safety.

2. Promoted City events.

3. Town Hall.

4. K9 Rudy.

5. Residency requirements.

Mayor Cabrera

1. Attended events.

2. Promoted City events.

A.3
Packet Pg. 31
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -18-

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Cabrera adjourned the meeting in honor of Autism Awareness Month and K9 Rudy at 9:54pm.

PUBLIC INSPECTION

The contents of the agenda pac ket are available for public inspection on the City’s website at www.moval.org and in the City Clerk’s office at 14177 Frederick Street during normal business hours.

Any written information related to an open session agenda item that is known by the City to have been distributed to all or a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to this meeting will be made available for public inspection on the City’s website at www.moval.org and in the City Clerk’s office at 14177 Frederick Street during n ormal business hours.

A.3
Packet Pg. 32
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL) -19-
Submitted by:

Approved by:

___________________________
Ulises Cabrera
Mayor
City of Moreno Valley
President, Moreno Valley Community Services District
Chairperson, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moreno Valley
Chairperson, Moreno Valley Housing Authority
Chairperson, Board of Library Trustees
Chairperson, Public Financing Authority
A.3
Packet Pg. 33
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Apr 18, 2023 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL)

Report to City Council

ID#6237 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Melissa Walker, Public Works Director/City Engineer

AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2023

TITLE: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A
PROJECT LIST FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 SENATE
BILL 1 FUNDING FOR CITYWIDE PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION AND PRESERVATION (RESO. NO.
2023-XX)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

2. Authorize the Public Works Director/City Engineer to make any minor adjustments to the limits of work and minor modifications to the project list, as necessary.

SUMMARY

Roadway maintenance remains a top pr iority for the City Council. This report is for adoption of a Resolution approving a list of street segments for pavement rehabilitation for submission to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to receive funding from the Road Repair and Accountabi lity Act of 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1 for Fiscal Year 2023/24.

The street segments selected are for FY 2023/24 as part of the updated Pavement Management Plan (PMP) Five -Year Look -Ahead approved by Council on March 21, 2023. To be prepared to maximize the available budget, additional street segments from the PMP FY 2024/25 list are to be included as additive bids but may not be constructed dependent upon bids received.

A.4
Packet Pg. 34

Page 2 ends

DISCUSSION

On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed SB 1 to address basic road maintenanc e, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on state highways as well as local streets and roads. Funds are generated via fuel excise taxes and vehicle registration fees and a portion are allocated by formula to eligible cities and counties for basic roa d maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects.

Prior to receiving the annual allocation of the formula -based SB 1 funds, local agencies must submit a project list to the CTC prior to July 1, 2023. The project list must include a description and the location of each street segment, a proposed schedule for project completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvements. The project list does not limit the flexibility of an eligible city to fund projects in accordance with local needs an d priorities so long as the projects are consistent with SB 1 funding priorities.

In addition to submitting a proposed list of projects to the CTC for approval, to remain eligible for SB 1 funds, local agencies are required to:

• Submit annual documentation regarding completed projects • File an annual report of expenditures for street or road purposes with the State Controller’s Office
• Sustain a Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
• By July 1, 2023, follow guidelines developed by the California Workforce Development Board that address participation and investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship training programs

The City is scheduled to receive an estimated $5 million in SB 1 funding in Fiscal Year 2023/24 for the nearly $600 million pav ement infrastructure. Currently, there is roughly over $50 million of critical deferred maintenance needs, and $250 million overall, for the 505 centerline-miles of streets within the City’s 51 square mile boundary.

The street segments selected are for FY 2023/24 as part of the updated Pavement Management Plan (PMP) Five -Year Look -Ahead approved by Council on March 21, 2023. To be prepared to maximize the available budget, additional street segments from the PMP FY 2024/25 list are to be included as addi tive bids but may not be constructed dependent upon bids received.

For the proposed segments, staff is also recommending that the City Council authorize the Public Works Director/City Engineer to make minor modifications to the limits of work on individu al street segments to accommodate any changes in private property development of other conflicting Capital Improvement Plan projects that may arise prior to bidding the project for construction. Additionally, staff recommends authorizing the Public Works Director/City Engineer to make minor modifications to comply with any changes in the CTC procedures or forms to avoid delays.

Consistent with the approved Momentum MoVal Strategic Plan, staff is taking proactive A.4
Packet Pg. 35

Page 3 ends

steps to create an ongoing annual pavemen t preservation program with similar level of efforts in roadway maintenance.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve the recommended actions as presented in this staff report. This alternative will allow timely project list submittal for SB 1 for Fiscal Year 2023/24 funding and commence of citywide street pavement rehabilitation project.

2. Do not approve the recommended actions as presented in this staff report and provide alternate direction to staff. This alternative may jeopardize receiving of SB 1 funding for Fiscal Ye ar 2023/24 and delay use of State funding to meet the Council’s priority to enhance the condition of City’s roadways

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact for the recommended action items.

NOTIFICATION

All utilities, adjacent property owners, busin ess owners, law enforcement, fire department, and other emergency services responders in the areas affected by the pavement rehabilitation will be notified in a timely manner prior to the start of construction work.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Quang Nguyen, P.E. Melissa Walker, P.E.

Senior Engineer Public Works Director/ City Engineer

Concurred By:

Harold Zamora
Engineering Division Manager/ Assistant City Engineer

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Public Safety. Provide a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community, control the number and severity of fire and hazardous material incidents, and provide protection for citizens who live, work and visit the City of Moreno Valley.

Community Image, Neighborhood Pride and Cleanliness . Promote a sense of community pride and foster an excellent image about our City by developing and executing programs which will result in quality development, enhanced neighborhood preservation efforts, including home rehabilitation and neighborhood restoration.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development
A.4
Packet Pg. 36

Page 4 ends

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

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

1. FY 23.24 SB 1 Project List Resolution

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval ✓ Approved . 4/25/23 7:27 AM City Attorney Approval ✓ Approved .

City Manager Approval ✓ Approved . 4/25/23 8:34 AM A.4
Packet Pg. 37
1 Resolution No. 2023-XX
Date Adopted: May 2, 2023

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2023/24 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and

WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency pr ovisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and

WHEREAS, the City, is to receive an estimated $5 million in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2023/24 from SB 1; and

WHEREAS, this is the seventh year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and

WHEREAS, the City has undergone a public process to ensure public input into our community’s transportation priorities, capital improvement needs, and the project list; and

WHEREAS, the City used several key criteria and a Pave ment Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost -effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and

WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate approximately 38 street segments throughout the City this year and secure the implementation of similar needed projects into the future; and A.4.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: FY 23.24 SB 1 Project List Resolution [Revision 1] (6237 : ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A PROJECT LIST FOR THE 2 Resolution No. 2023-XX
Date Adopted: May 2, 2023

WHEREAS, the 20 20 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in a severely distressed condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will bring our streets and roads into a acceptable condition; and

WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and usin g cutting -edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. Exhibit A is the list of newly proposed projects that will be funded in -part or solely with Fiscal Year 2023/24 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 2023.

____________________________
Ulises Cabrera
Mayor
City of Moreno Valley
ATTEST:

_______________________________
Jane Halstead, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
Steve Quintanilla, Interim City Attorney
A.4.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: FY 23.24 SB 1 Project List Resolution [Revision 1] (6237 : ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A PROJECT LIST FOR THE 3 Resolution No. 2023-XX
Date Adopted: May 2, 2023

RESOLUTION JURAT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY )

I, Jane Halstead, City Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No 2023-XX was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

(Council Members, Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor)

JANE HALSTEAD, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)
A.4.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: FY 23.24 SB 1 Project List Resolution [Revision 1] (6237 : ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A PROJECT LIST FOR THE 4 Resolution No. 2023-XX
Date Adopted: May 2, 2023
Exhibit A
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY FISCAL YEAR 2023/2024 PROJECT LIST No. Street Name From To
Pavement
Condition
Index (PCI)
Average
Daily Traffic
(ADT)
Proposed Treatment Estimated Cost
Anticipated
Completion
Date
Anticipated
Useful Life
Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program FY 23/24 Project 1 Elsworth Street Alessandro
Blvd Cottonwood Ave 35 6,700 Pavement Surface Replacement $400,000 12/30/2024 10+ Years
2 Eucalyptus Avenue Heacock St Indian St 30 6,500 Pavement Surface Replacement $350,000 3 Lasselle Street Cottonwood
Ave Alessandro Blvd 37 9,000 Pavement Surface Replacement $280,000 4 Perris Boulevard Storm Drain A South City Limit 35 26,000 Pavement Surface Replacement $1,350,000 5 Jacklyn Avenue Perris Blvd East End 20 1,500 Pavement Surface Replacement $280,000 6 Los Olivios Drive Jacklyn Ave Alta Vista Dr 10 800 Pavement Surface Replacement $150,000 7 Pico Vista Way Perris Blvd North End 15 2,100 Pavement Surface Replacement $320,000 8 Ivy Lane Ironwood Ave Valley View Ln 22 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $250,000 9 Valley View Lane Ivy Ln East End 22 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $50,000 10 Agave Street Cactus Ave Delphinium Ave 18 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $200,000 11 Aleppo Way Agave St West End 20 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $45,000 12 Billie Drive Cholla Drive Parkwood Ct 35 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $180,000 13 Cochiti Drive Taupe Ave Cactus Ave 24 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $70,000 14 Desert Willow Drive Agave St West End 30 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $55,000 15 Gorgonio Way Agave St West End 25 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $55,000 12/30/2024 10+ Years
16 May Lane South End Cactus Ave 15 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $100,000 17 Menominee Court Parkwood Ct West End 20 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $25,000 18 Minnetonka Court Parkwood Ct West End 20 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $25,000 19 Oconto Court Parkwood Ct West End 25 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $25,000 20 Parkwood Court Delphinium Ave Cactus Ave 20 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $180,000 21 Rio Bravo Road Cactus Ave Delphinium Ave 32 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $120,000 22 Taupe Avenue Rio Bravo Rd Cochiti Dr 18 n/a Pavement Surface Replacement $30,000 23 Alpha Street Coleman St Lombardy Ln 62 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $18,000
12/30/2024 5 - 10 Years
24 Alta Vista Drive Mountain Crest
Dr East End 54 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal
& Slurry Seal $32,000
A.4.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: FY 23.24 SB 1 Project List Resolution [Revision 1] (6237 : ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A PROJECT LIST FOR THE 5 Resolution No. 2023-XX
Date Adopted: May 2, 2023
Exhibit A
No. Street Name From To
Pavement
Condition
Index (PCI)
Average
Daily Traffic
(ADT)
Proposed Treatment Estimated Cost
Anticipated
Completion
Date
Anticipated
Useful Life
Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program FY 23/24 Project 25 Bianca Court Kitching St West End 58 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $8,000
12/30/2024 5-10 Years
26 Coleman Street Jaclyn Ave Alpha St 50 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $21,000
27 Fran Lou Drive Perris Blvd East End 52 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $26,000
28 Fran Lou Drive Kitching St West End 55 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $11,000
29 Kitching Street Fran Lou Dr North End 53 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $10,000
30 Lamayo Avenue Coleman St Lombardy Ln 57 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $35,000
31 Luxury Street Perris Blvd Coleman St 61 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $5,500
32 Mountain Crest Drive Pico Vista Wy Alta Vista Dr 60 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $12,000
33 Riviera Court Alphat St North End 57 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $4,500
34 Tropic Court Alphat St North End 54 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $4,500
35 Matthews Road Ironwood Ave North End 55 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $42,000
36 Chipman Hill Court Rio Bravo Rd West End 50 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $8,000
37 Cholla Drive Billie Dr Cactus Ave 56 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $9,000
38 Clovelly Court Rio Bravo Rd West End 58 n/a Local Repairs/ Crack Seal & Slurry Seal $8,000
TOTAL $4,794,500
A.4.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: FY 23.24 SB 1 Project List Resolution [Revision 1] (6237 : ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A PROJECT LIST FOR THE

Report to City Council

ID#6172 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Melissa Walker, Public Works Director/City Engineer

AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2023

TITLE: AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC COAST

ELEVATOR CORPORATION DBA AMTECH ELEVATOR

SERVICES FOR ELEVAT OR AND WHEELCHAIR LIFT

MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, TESTING AND CERTIFICATION

SERVICES

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

1. Award a five-year agreement with Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services for a total not -to-exceed amount of $ 150,000.00 for Elevator and Wheelchair Lift Preventative Maintenance and Repair Services; and authorize the City Manager to execute contracts in conformance with the attached Agreement funded through Facilities Maintenance (Fund 7310);

2. Authorize the issuance of purchase orders to Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services, for the completion of Elevator and Wheelchair Lift Preventative Maintenance and Repair Services subject to funds available in the City Council approved Operating Budget; and

3. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the agreement and any subsequent amendments, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, in accordance with approved terms of the agreement.

SUMMARY

This report recommends approval of a $150,000.00 contract with Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services , for elevator and wheelchair lift maintenance, repair, testing, and certification services at all City facilities.

A.5
Packet Pg. 43

Page 2 ends

DISCUSSION

The City is responsible for ensu ring that public facilities are safe and properly operational for the general public and employees, including Fire Stations, the Public Safety Building, and the Emergency Operations Center. Properly functioning elevator and wheelchair lift systems are esse ntial part of the City’s buildings. Required elevator and wheelchair lift maintenance, repair, testing, and certification services range from routine monthly maintenance items to emergency repairs. As such, the need for a licensed and qualified contractor with experience performing such services is critical.

Requests for Proposal for elevator and wheelchair lift maintenance, repair, testing, and certification services went out for proposals on February 15, 2023. Staff reviewed the proposals and recommends the award of a professional services agreement with Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services , for the elevator and wheelchair lift maintenance, repair, testing, and certification services.

There is an aggr egate not-to-exceed amount of $150,000.00 for this agreement based on a trend analysis covering five years of related expenses and potential cost escalations due to inflation. The services will be utilized on a regular basis for prescribed maintenance and on an as needed basis for e mergency repair under direction from the Public Works Department.

Approval of the recommended actions would support Objective 4 of the Momentum MoVal Strategic Plan: “Manage and maximize Moreno Valley’s public Infrastructure to ensure an excellent qual ity of life, develop and implement innovative, cost -effective infrastructure maintenance programs, public facilities management strategies, and capital improvement programming and project delivery.”

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve and authorize the recommended actions as presented in this staff report. This alternative will provide for elevator and wheelchair lift maintenance, repair, testing and certification services at all City facilities.

2. Do not approve and authorize the recommended actions as presented in this staff report. This alternative will delay the timely elevator and wheelchair lift maintenance, repair, testing and certification services at all City facilities.

FISCAL IMPACT

Funding is available in the approved Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2022/23 . The not-to-exceed $150,000.00 contract will be expensed over the five -year term, based on services needed for elevator and wheelchair lift maintenance, repair, testing, and certification services subject to the City Council approval of future Operating Budget.

There is no General Fund impact based on this action.

A.5
Packet Pg. 44

Page 3 ends

NOTIFICATION

N/A

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Angela Gaynor Melissa Walker
Management Aide Public Works Director / City Engineer

Concurred By:

Joseph Mattox
Maintenance & Operations Division Manager

Public Facilities and Capital Projects . Ensure that needed public facilities, roadway improvements, and other infrastructure improvements are constructed and maintained.

Positive Environment. Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

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

A.5
Packet Pg. 45

Page 4 ends

1. Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba A mtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot)

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval ✓ Approved . 4/25/23 7:21 AM City Attorney Approval ✓ Approved .

City Manager Approval ✓ Approved . 4/25/23 8:31 AM A.5
Packet Pg. 46
1 City of Moreno Valley

AGREEMENT FOR ON-SITE AND/OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

This Agreement is made by and between the City of Moreno Valley California, a municipal corporation, with its principal place of business at 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92552, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services with its principal place of business at 12921 166th Street, Cerritos, CA 90703 hereinafter referred to as the “Contractor,” based upon City policies and the following legal citations:

RECITALS

A. Government Code Section 53060 authorizes the engagement of persons to perform special services as independent contractors;
B. Contractor desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of professional elevator and wheelchair lift maintenanc e, repair, testing , and certification contracting services required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Contractor represents that it is experienced in providing professional elevator and wheelchair lift maintenance, repai r, testing, and certification contracting services, is licensed in the State of California, if applicable;
C. City desires to engage Contractor to render such services for the elevator and wheelchair lift maintenance, repair, testing , and certification contracting services as set forth in this Agreement;
D. The public interest, convenience, necessity and general welfare will be served by this Agreement; and
E. This Agreement is made and entered into effective the date the City signs this Agreement.

TERMS

1. CONTRACTOR INFORMATION:

Contractor’s Name: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Address: 12921 166th Street
City: Cerritos State: CA__ Zip: 90703__________
Business Phone: (562) 658-6000____________ Fax No. (860) 755-6688_______ Other Contact Number: (844) 258-1523____________________________ Business License Number: _________________________
Federal Tax I.D. Number: 06-1417004_______________

2. CONTRACTOR SERVICES, FEES, AND RELEVANT DATES:

A. The Contractor’s scope of service is described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

B. The City’s responsibili ties, other than payment, are described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 2 C. Payment terms are provided in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

D. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2028 unless terminated earlier as provided herein . The City acknowledges t hat it will not unreasonably withhold approval of the Contractor’s requests for extensions of time in which to complete the work required. The Contractor shall not be responsible for performance delays caused by others or delays beyond the Contractor’s reasonable control (excluding delays caused by non -performance or unjustified delay by Contractor, his/her/its employees, or subcontractors), and such delays shall extend the time for performance of the work by the Contractor.

3. STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

A. Control of Work. Contractor is solely responsible for the content and sequence of the work, and will not be subject to control and direction as to the details and means for accomplishing the anticipated results of services. The City will not provide any training to Contractor or his/her/its employees.

B. Intent of Parties. Contractor is, and at all times shall be, an independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall be construed as making the Contractor or any individual whose compensati on for services is paid by the Contractor, an agent or employee of the City, or authorizing the Contractor to create or assume any obligation or liability for or on behalf of the City, or entitling the Contractor to any right, benefit, or privilege applica ble to any officer or employee of the City.

C. Subcontracting. Contractor may retain or subcontract for the services of other necessary contractors with the prior written approval of the City. Payment for such services shall be the responsibility of the Con tractor. Any and all subcontractors shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, with the exception that the City shall have no obligation to pay for any subcontractor services rendered. Contractor shall be responsible for paying prevailing wages where required by law [See California Labor Code Sections 1770 through 1777.7].

D. Conformance to Applicable Requirements . All work prepared by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of City.

E. Substitution of Key Personnel. Contractor has represented to City that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the services under this Agreement.

Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Contractor may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approv al of City. In the event that City and Contractor cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, City shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause.

As discussed below, any personnel who fail or refuse to perform the services in a manner acceptable to the City, or who are determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequa te or timely completion of the project or a threat to the safety of persons or property, shal l be promptly removed from the project by the Contractor at the request of the City. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: Stephanie Ybarra, Account Manager.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 3 F. City’s Representative. The City hereby designates the City Manager, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (“City’s Representative”). Contractor shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the City’s Representative or his or her designee.

G. Contractor’s Representative. Contractor hereby designates Stephanie Ybarra, Account Manager, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for th e performance of this Agreement (“Contractor’s Representative”). Contractor’s Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Contractor for all purposes under this Agreement. The Contractor’s Representative shall supervise and direct the services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and fo r the satisfactory coord ination of all portions of the services under this Agreement.

H. Legal Considerations. The Contractor shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with services.

If the Contractor performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the City, Contractor shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any cla im or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.

I. Standard of Care; Performance of Employees . Contractor shall perform all services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consis tent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Contractor represents and maintains that it is skilled in the profession necessary to perform the s ervices.

Contractor warrants that all employees and subcontractor shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the s ervices assigned to them. Finally, Contractor represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approval s of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Any employee of the Contractor or its subcontractors who is determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequa te or timely completion of the project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the services in a manner acceptable to the City, shall be promptly rem oved from the project by the Contractor and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the services or to work on the project.

J. Contractor Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, the Moreno Valley Housing Authority , and the Moreno Valley Community Services District (CSD), their officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, causes of action and demands, including , without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees, reasonable attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses , incurred in connection with or in any manner arising out of Contractor’s performance of the work contemplated by this Agreement and this A.5.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 4 Agreement. Acceptance of this Agreement signifies that the Contractor is not covered under the City’s general liability insurance, employee benefits, or worker’s compensation. It further establishes that the Contractor shall be fully responsible for such coverage. Contractor’s obligation to indemnify shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement, and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the City, the Moreno Valley Housing Authority, and the CSD, and their officers, agents and employees.

K. Additional Indemnity Obligations . Contractor shall defend, with counsel of City’s choosing and at Contractor’s own cost, expense and risk, any and all claims, suits, actions or other proceedings of every kind covered by Section “J” that may be brought or instituted against City, the Moreno Valley Housing Authority, and the CSD, and their officers, agents and employees. Contractor shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City, the Moreno Valley Housing Authority, and the CSD, and their officers, agents and employees as part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Contractor shall also reimburse City for the cost of any settlement paid by City, the Moreno Valley Housing Authority, and the CSD, and their officers, agents and employees as part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Such reimbursement shall include payment for City’s attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Contractor shall reimburse City, the Moreno Valley Housing Authority, and the CSD, and their officers, agents and employees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided.

L. Insurance Requir ements. The C ontractor will comply with the following insurance requirements at its sole expense. Insurance companies shall be rated (A Minus: VII—Admitted) or better in Best’s Insurance Rating Guide and shall be legally licensed and qualified to conduct business in the State of California:

The Contractor shall procure and maintain, at its sole expense, Workers’ Compensation Insurance in such amounts as will fully comply with the laws of the State of Cali fornia and which shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for the Contractor and the City, the Housing Authority and CSD against any loss, claim, or damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases happening to any worker employed by the Contractor in the course of carrying out the Agreement. This coverage may be waived if the Contractor is determined to be functioning as a sole proprietor and the city provided form “Exception to Worker’s Compensation Coverage” is signed, notarized and attached to this Agreement

 General Liability Insurance—to protect against loss from liability imposed by law for damages on account of bodily injury, including death, and/or property damage suffered or alleged to be suffered by any person or persons whomever, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or activities of the Contractor, sub-Contractor, or any person acting for the Contractor or under its control or direction. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect throughout the terms of the Agreement and any extension thereof in the minimum amounts provided below:

Bodily Injury $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate A.5.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 5 Property Damage $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate

 Liability and Property Damage Insurance coverage for owned and non - owned automotive equipment operated on City/CSD/ Housing Authority premises. Such coverage limits shall not be less than $ 1,000,000 combined single limit.

 A Certificate of Insurance and appropriate additional insured endorsem ent evidencing the above applicable insurance coverage shall be submitted to the City prior to the execution of this Agreement. The Certificate of Insurance or an appropriate binder shall bear an endorsement containing the following provisions:

Solely as respect to services done by or on behalf of the named insured fo r the City of Moreno Valley, it is agreed that the City of Moreno Valley, the Moreno Valley Housing Authority , and the Moreno Valley Community Services District, their officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are included as additional insured under this policy and the coverage(s) provided shall be primary insurance and not contributing with any other insurance available to the City of Moreno Valley, the Moreno Valley Housing Authority, and the Moreno Valley Community Services District, their officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers , under any third party liability policy

The terms of the insurance policy or policies issued to provide the above coverage shall neither be amended to reduce the required insurance limits and coverages nor shall such policies be canceled by the carrier without thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified or registered mail of amendment or cancellation to the City, except that cance llation for non-payment of premium shall require ten (10) days prior written notice by certified or registered mail.

In the event the insurance is canceled, the Contractor shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in the amounts established.

M. Intellectual Property . Any system or documents developed, produced or provided under this Agreement, including any intellectual property discovered or developed by Contractor in the course of performing or otherwise as a result of its work, shall become the sole property of the City unless explicitly stated otherwise in this Agreement. The Contractor may retain copies of any and all material, including drawings, documents, and specifications, produced by the Contractor in performance of t his Agreement. The City and the Contractor agree that to the extent permitted by law, until final approval by the City, all data shall be treated as confidential and will not be released to third parties without the prior written consent of both parties.

N. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations of warranties, expressed or implied, not specified in this Agreement. This Agreement applies only to the c urrent proposal as attached. This Agreement A.5.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 6 may be modified or amended only by a subsequent written Agreement signed by both parties. Assignment of this Agreement is prohibited without prior written consent.

O. (a) The City may terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time without cause by giving at least ten (10) days written notice to the Contractor. The written notice shall specify the date of termination. Upon receipt of such notice, the Contrac tor may continue work through the date of termination, provided that no work or service(s) shall be commenced or continued after receipt of the notice which is not intended to protect the interest of the City. The City shall pay the Contractor within thir ty (30) days after receiving any invoice after the date of termination for all non -objected to services performed by the Contractor in accordance herewith through the date of termination.
(b) Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause. In t he event the City terminates this Agreement for cause, the Contractor shall perform no further work or service(s) under the Agreement unless the notice of termination authorizes such further work.
(c) If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein , City may require Contractor to provide all finished or unfinished documents and data and other information of any kind prepared by Contractor in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to provide such documents and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
(d) In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, similar to those terminated.

P. Payment. Payments to the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement will be reported to Federal and Stat e taxing authorities as required . The City will not withhold any sums from compensation payable to Contractor. Contractor is independently responsible for the payment of all applicable taxes. Where the payment terms provide for compensation on a time and materials basis, the Contractor shall maintain adequate records to permit inspection and audit of the Contractor’s time and materials charges under the Agreement. Such records shall be retained by the Contractor for three (3) years following completion of the services under the Agreement.

Q. Restrictions on City Employees . The Contractor shall not employ any City employee or official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement in violation of federal, state, or local law.

R. Choice of Law and Venue. The laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement, and shall govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any legal proceeding arising from this Agreement shall be brought in the appropriate court loca ted in Riverside County, State of California.

S. Delivery of Notices . All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 7 Contractor:

Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba
Amtech Elevator Services
12921 166th Street
Cerritos, CA 90703
Attn: Stephanie Ybarra, Account Manager

City:

City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street
P.O. Box 88005
Moreno Valley, CA 92552
Attn: Maintenance & Operations Division

Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty -eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.

T. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

U. City’s Right to Employ Other Contractors. City reserves right to employ other contractors in connection with this project.

V. Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both parties.

W. Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a party shall give the other party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.

X. No Third Party Beneficiaries . There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the parties.

Y. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each o f which shall constitute an original.

Z. Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

AA. Assignment or Transfer . Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein without the prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, an d any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 8 BB Supplementary General Conditions (for projects that are funded by Federal programs). The following provisions, pursuant to 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 13, Subpart C, Section 13.36, as it may be amended from time to time, are included in the Agreement and are required to be included in all subcontracts entered into by CONTRACTOR for work pursuant to the Agreement, unless otherwise expressly provided herein. These provisions supersede any conflicting provisions in the General Conditions and shall take precedence over the General Conditions for purposes of interpretation of the General Conditions. These provisions do not otherwise modify or replace General Conditions not in direct conflict with these provisions. Definitions used in these provisions are as contained in the General Conditions.

1. CONTRACTOR shall be subject to the administrative, contractual, and legal remedies provided in the General Conditions in the event CONTRACTOR violates or breaches terms of the Agreement.

2. CITY may terminate the Agreement for cause or for convenience, and CONTRACTOR may terminate the Agreement, as provided the General Conditions.

3. CONTRACTOR shall comply with Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, entitled Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 11375 of October 13, 1967, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (41 CFR chapter 60). (All construction contracts awarded in excess of $10,000 by CITY and/or subcontracts in excess of $10,000 entered into by CONTRACTOR.)

4. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (18 U.S.C. 874) as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 3) (All contracts and subcontracts for construction or repair.)

5. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a to 276a7) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5).

6. CONTRACTOR shall comply with Sections 103 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327330) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5).

7. CONTRACTOR shall observe CITY requirements and regulations pertaining to reporting included in the General Conditions.

8. Patent rights with respect to any discovery or invention which arises or is developed in the course of or under the Agreement shall be retained by the CITY.

9. Copyrights and rights in data developed in the course of or under the Agreement shall be the property of the CITY. FEMA/CalOES reserve a royalty-free, nonexclusive, irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use or authorize to others to use for federal purposes a copyright in any work developed under the Agreement and/or subcontracts for work pursuant to the Agreement.

10. CONTRACTOR shall provide access by the City, the Federal grantor agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives to any books, documents, papers, and records of the A.5.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 9 contractor which are directly pertinent to that specific contract for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions.

11. CONTRACTOR shall retain all required records for three years after CITY makes final payments and all other pending matters relating to the Agreement are closed.

12. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements issued under section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857(h)), section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR part 15). (This provision applies to contracts exceeding $100,000 and to subcontracts entered into pursuant to such contracts.)

13. CONTRACTOR shall comply with mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the State energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94163, 89 Stat. 871).

SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have each caused their authorized representative to execute this Agreement.

City of Moreno Valley Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services

BY: BY:

Mike Lee
City Manager
TITLE:
(President or Vice President)

Date
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 10 Date

BY:

TITLE:

(Corporate Secretary)

Date

INTERNAL USE ONLY

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

City Attorney

Date

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

Melissa Walker, P.E.

Public Works Director/ City Engineer

Date
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 11 EXHIBIT A

CONTRACTOR SCOPE OF SERVICES

A. This Agreement between the City of Moreno Valley and Contractor is for professional elevator and wheelchair lift maintenance, repair, testing, and certification services for City facilities as referenced in RFP #2023-003.

B. Requests for service will be conveyed from the City via telephone or email requesting an informal or formal quote or proposal. There is no minimum or maximum number of service calls.

C. Quotes and proposals must be prepared in accordance with the request for service and be submitted to the City prior to work being performed unless otherwise directed.

Jobs valued in excess of $1,000 will be quoted at prevailing wage.

D. All work is to be performed in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations, as well as all federal, state, country, and local regulations.

E. This scope of work excludes any work other than incidental (less than 10 square feet) of any material containing asbestos. The contractor will immediately stop work if any encountered material is suspected to be asbestos and report the finding to the Fleet & Facilities Supervisor.

F. All materials and completed work must meet local, county, state, and federal codes and regulations.

G. Submission of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are mandatory for any supply or material used on the job or supplied in the course of this Agreement prior to receipt of or with the first shipment of hazardous material. Also, at any time the content of an MSDS is revised, the Contractor is required to provide new information relevant to the specific material.

H. The Contractor shall provide manufacturer's warranties and warranty workmanship, operation and performance as described within this Agreement.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 12 EXHIBIT B

CITY RESPONSIBILITIES
The City of Moreno Valley is responsible for the following:

A. Providing requests for service, access to sites to perform evaluations for estimates and/ or project work, and coordinating site visits;
B. Providing escorts at sites that require the presence of a City employee during work periods;
C. Providing purchase orders or other written authorization to confirm the approval of work;
D. Providing materials when the scope of work so indicates; and E. Funding all required City permits, excluding a City of Moreno Valley business license.

EXHIBIT C

TERMS OF PAYMENT
A.5.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 13 1. The Contractor's compensation shall not exceed $150,000.00.

2. The Contractor will obtain, and keep current during the term of this Agreement, the required City of Moreno Valley business license. Proof of a current City of Moreno Valley business license will be required prior to any payments by the City. Any invoice not paid because the proof of a current City of Moreno Valley business license has not been provided will not incur any fees, late charges, or other penalties. Complete instructions for obtaining a City of Moreno Valley business license are located at:
http://www.moval.org/do_biz/biz-license.shtml

3. The Contractor will electronically submit an invoice to the City on a monthly basis for progress payments along with documentation evidencing services completed to date. The progress payment is based on actual time and materials expended in furnishing authorized professional services since the last invoice. At no time will the City pay for more services than have been satisfactorily completed and the City’s determination of the amount due for any progress payment shall be final. The Contractor will submit all original invoices to Accounts Payable staff at [email protected] Accounts Payable questions can be directed to (951) 413-3740.

3. The Contractor agrees that City payments will be received via Automated Clearing House (ACH) Direct Deposit and that the required ACH Authorization form will be completed prior to any payments by the City.

Any invoice not paid because the completed ACH Authorization Form has not been provided will not incur any fees, late charges, or other penalties.

The ACH Authorization Form is located at:
http://www.moval.org/city_hall/forms.shtml#bf

4. The minimum information required on all invoices is:

A. Vendor Name, Mailing Address, and Phone Number
B. Invoice Date
C. Vendor Invoice Number
D. City-provided Reference Number (e.g. Project, Activity) E. Detailed work hours by class title (e.g. Manager, Technician, or Specialist), services performed and rates, explicit portion of a contract amount, or detailed billing information that is sufficient to justify the invoice amount; single, lump amounts without detail are not acceptable.

6. The City shall pay the Contractor for all invoiced, authorized professional services within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice for same.

7. Reimbursement for Expenses. Contractor shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by City.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF 14 8. Maintenance and Inspection . Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incur red under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Contractor shall allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursu ant to this Agreement. Contractor shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation dba Amtech Elevator Services Agreement (Staff Reprot) (6172 : AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF

Report to City Council

ID#6240 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Sean P. Kelleher, Acting Community Development Director

AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2023

TITLE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38325 (PEN21 -0327),
MASTER PLOT PLAN (PEN21 -0325), AND PLOT P LAN
(PEN21-0326) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO LIGHT

INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2023 -___, attached hereto, ADOPTING the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tent ative Parcel Map No. 38325 (PEN21 -0327), Master Plot Plan (PEN21 -0325), and Plot Plan (PEN21-0326) on file with the Community Development Department, incorporated herein by this reference, which was completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines , and reflects that the Planning Commission and City reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and exercised its independent judgment and analysis of the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts and ADOPTING the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project, which consists of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325 (PEN21 -0327), Master Plot Plan (PEN21 -0325), and Plot Plan (PEN21-0326) pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and

2. ADOPT Resolution No. 2023 -__, attached hereto, DENYING Appeal PAA23-0006 and APPROVING Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325 (PEN21 - 0327), Master Plot Plan (PEN21 -0325), and Plot Plan (PEN21 -0326) based on the Recital, Evidence contained in the Administra tive Records, and Findings as set forth in Resolution No. 2023-__.

SUMMARY
F.1
Packet Pg. 61

Page 2 ends

Staff recommends denying Appeal PAA23 -0006 and approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325 (PEN21 -0327) for the subdivision of approximately 7.94 acres of land into two (2) lots, Mast er Plot Plan (PEN21 -0325) and Plot Plan (PEN21 -0326) for the development of two (2) approximately 49,815 square foot light industrial buildings with associated improvements in the Business Park (BP) District. Staff also recommends adopting the Initial Stud y/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Proposed Project.

DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Action/Appeal
The Proposed Project was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public meeting conducted on March 9, 2023, and the Planning Commission voted 4 -0 with two (2) absent, to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve the Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325, Master Plot Plan and a Plot Plan for the Cottonwood & Edgemont project.

The Planning Commission approval was appealed by the Sierra Club (PAA23 -0006) within the 10-day appeal period per the Municipal Code requirements.

Proposed Project
Tentative Parcel Map
The Applicant is prop osing a Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325 to create two separate parcels for Building 1 and Building 2. Staff has reviewed the proposed Tentative Parcel Map and confirmed that the proposed lots comply with the City’s development standards and Subdivision Map Act. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map also would vacate the public right-of-way for Old 215 Frontage Road, which is no longer needed by the City of Moreno Valley. The vacated public right -of-way segment would be approximately 17 feet wide and runs the ent ire length of the Project Site’s frontage with Old 215 Frontage Road.

Plot Plan
The Applicant is proposing the construction of two light industrial buildings, each approximately 49,815 s quare feet in size, with associated parking, landscape improvements, and off-site public improvements.

The current proposal anticipates that both buildings will be constructed at the same time. However, should one building be delayed, all on -site and off -site improvements shall be constructed with the first building before issuing any certificate of occupancy for the Proposed Project. Conditions have been included to address the improvements and the maintenance of any unimproved parcel should this situation arise.

Site/Surrounding Area
The Project Site is located on the east side of Old 215 Frontage Road, approximately F.1
Packet Pg. 62

Page 3 ends

500 feet south of Cottonwood Avenue and approximately 620 feet north of Bay Avenue in the Business Park Zoning District.

The surrounding area includes a mix of automotive, retail, and residential land uses and vacant and unimproved land within the Business Park (BP) District to the north, south, and east. Properties to the west are in the City of Riverside and are developed with similar light industrial buildings.

Access/Parking
The Proposed Project will take access from Old 215 Frontage with three driveways servicing the site. On-site parking for both automobiles and trucks meets the Municipal Code requirements.

Design/Landscaping
The proposed light industrial -type building incorporates a contemporary architec tural design. Multiple gray, taupe, and white colors provide various dimensions to the building frontage with the use of aluminum, reflective glass, and tile used for accents. Articulated building elements, including parapets with a varied roofline, wall recesses, awnings, and mullions are proposed as decorative elements.

Landscaping is provided along the Proposed Project’s frontage and perimeter in addition to the required front set back and right -of-way landscaping, including plant, ground covers, street trees, and on-site trees.

ENVIRONMENTAL
An Initial Study was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study examined the Proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment. The Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (IS/MND) provides information in support of the finding that a Mitigated Negative Declaration serves as the appropriate CEQA documentation for the Proposed Project in that the Proposed Proj ect, with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Technical studies prepared in support of the IS/MND include the following: 1) Air Quality Impact Analysis, 2) Health Risk Assessment, 3 ) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment, 4) Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, 5) Energy Analysis, Preliminary Geotechnical and Infiltration Feasibility Investigation, 6) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 7) Paleontological Assessment, 8) Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, 9) Preliminary Drainage Analysis, 10) Noise Impact Analysis, 11) Trip Generation Assessment, and 12) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment. The electronic files for the IS/MND with appendices are attached to this staff report. Anyone wishing to inspect the documents can also do so at City Hall.

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

Biological Resources, Cultural Tribal Resources, and Geology and Soils. T he measures F.1
Packet Pg. 63

Page 4 ends

for Tribal resources have been included to address input from the Tribal governments.

The measures are intended to ensure that potential resources that might be discovered are protected. However, these measures are not required to address a known significant impact. Based on the Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not cause any significant impacts or environmental damage.

The public comment period for the Notice of Availability of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration began on February 9, 2023, and ended on March 1, 2023, which satisfies the required 20-day review period. Written public comments received regarding the Proposed Project prior to the Planning Commission are attached to this staff report.

If they are received after the agenda is posted, they will be provided at the public hearing.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Conduct the appeal hearing and take action to deny the appeal PAA23 -0006, and, adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve the Tentative Parcel Map, Master Plot Plan and Plot Plan consistent with the Staff recommendations to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends this alternative.

2. Conduct the appeal hearing on the Proposed Project and uphold the appeal, PAA23-0006, and do not approve Tentative Parcel Map 38325, PEN21 -0327, Master Plot Plan (PEN21 -0325), and Plot Plan, (PEN21 -0326). Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable

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

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT
Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Julia Descoteaux Sean Kelleher
Senior Planner Acting Community Development Director

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Positive Environment. Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

F.1
Packet Pg. 64

Page 5 ends

Community Image, Neighbor hood Pride and Cleanliness . Promote a sense of community pride and foster an excellent image about our City by developing and executing programs which will result in quality development, enhanced neighborhood preservation efforts, including home rehabilitation and neighborhood restoration.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

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

1. PAA23-0006 Appeal Letter

2. Resolution 2023-__ ISMND

3. Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09)

4. Technical Appendix A1 - AQ Report

5. Technical Appendix A2 - Health Risk Assessment

6. Technical Appendix B - Bio Report

7. Technical Appendix C - Cultural Report

8. Technical Appendix D - Energy Report

9. Technical Appendix E - Geotechnical Report

10. Technical Appendix F - Paleo Report

11. Technical Appendix G - GHG Report

12. Technical Appendix H - Phase I ESA

13. Technical Appendix I1 - WQMP

14. Technical Appendix I2 - Drainage Report

15. Technical Appendix J1 - Noise Report

16. Technical Appendix J2 - Supplimental Noise Report

17. Technical Appendix K1 - Trip Generation

18. Technical Appendix K2 - VMT Evaluation

19. Technical Appendix K3 - Traffic Analysis

20. Traffic Analysis Appendices

21. Exhibit B to Resolution 2023-__ NOI
F.1
Packet Pg. 65

Page 6 ends

22. Exhibit C to Resolution 2023-__ MMRP

23. Resolution 2023-__ Tentative Parcel Map, Master Plot Plan, and Plot Plan

24. Project Plans

25. Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolutions

26. Zoning Map

27. Planning Commission Notice of Intent Comments

28. Planning Commission Public Comments

29. City Council Public Comments

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval ✓ Approved . 4/25/23 7:37 AM City Attorney Approval ✓ Approved .

City Manager Approval ✓ Approved . 4/25/23 8:30 AM F.1
Packet Pg. 66
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: PAA23-0006 Appeal Letter (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map) F.1.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: PAA23-0006 Appeal Letter (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map) F.1.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: PAA23-0006 Appeal Letter (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map) F.1.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: PAA23-0006 Appeal Letter (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map) F.1.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: PAA23-0006 Appeal Letter (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map) F.1.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: PAA23-0006 Appeal Letter (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map) 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 2023-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL (PAA23-0006), AND

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR
MASTER PLOT PLAN (PEN21 -0325), PLOT PLAN (PEN21 -0326), AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 38325 (PEN21 -0327) FOR TWO LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OLD 215 FRONTAGE ROAD SOUTH OF COTTONWOOD AVENUE (APN’S 263 -
190-012, 014, THROUGH 019 AND, 036)
WHEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley (“City”) is a general law city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for local projects that are subject to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1 and CEQA Guidelines2; and
WHEREAS, Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners (CDRE Holdings 21, LLC) (“Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Master Plot Plan (PEN21- 0325), a Plot Plan (PEN21-0326), and a Tentative Parcel Map 38325 (PEN21- 0327) to develop two approximately 49,815 square foot light industrial buildings and public improvements, dividing the approximately 7.94- acre parcel into two approximately 3.95 acre lots (“Proposed Project”) located on the east side of Old 215 Frontage Road south of Cottonwood Avenue (APN’s 263-190-012, 014 through 019, and 036) (“Project Site”); and WHEREAS, Planning Division Staff completed an Initial Study (environmental assessment) for the Proposed Project and based on the environmental assessment, recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progr am (“MMRP”) in accordance with Section 6 (Negative Declaration Procedures) of the City’s Rules and Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the requirements of CEQA the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15070 – 15075; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND was duly noticed and circulated for public review for a period of 20 days commencing on February 9, 2023, through March 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a MMRP, which is a program for reporting and monitoring the Proposed Projects’ mitigation measures, was prepared for the Proposed Project and circulated with the MND; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2023, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission to consider the approval of the Proposed Project’s MND and the MMRP and approval of the Proposed Project, at which time the Planning Commission considered the

1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177
2 14 California Code of Regulations §§15000-15387
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Resolution 2023-__ ISMND [Revision 3] (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map) 2 Initial Study, MND, and the MMRP, together with any comments received during the public review process and the responses prepared; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, in the exercise of its own independent judgment, the Planning Commission determined that the MND and the MMRP prepared for the Proposed Project has reduced the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project to levels of insignificance and that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment that would otherwise require the preparation of an environmental impact report, and voted 4-0-2 (2 absent) to approve the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2023, an appeal (PAA23-0006) was filed appealing the Planning Commission’s decision; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, an appeal hearing was conducted by the City Council at which the City Council considered the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the appeal hearing, in the exercise of its own independent judgment, the City Council has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will reduce the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project to levels of insignificance and that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

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

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

Section 2. Evidence
That the City Council has considered all the evidence submitted into the Administrative Record for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study prepared for the proposed Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
(b) Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration/Newspaper Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B;
(c) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit C; (d) Staff Report prepared for the City Council’s consideration and all documents, records, and references related thereto, and Staff’s presentation at the appeal hearing;
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Resolution 2023-__ ISMND [Revision 3] (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map)

(e) Appeal PAA23-0006;
(f) Testimony, comments, and correspondence from all persons that were provided at, or prior to, the appeal hearing;
(g) Proposed conditions of approval for the Proposed Project; (h) Staff report prepared for the Planning Commission for its March 9, 2023, public hearing;
(i) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that was provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to the May 2, 2023, appeal hearing.

Testimony and/or comments submitted at f City Council appeal hearing held on May 2, 2023.Section 3. Findings
That based on the content of the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record as set forth above, the City Council makes the following findings:
(a) That the City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Appeal, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the whole record before it, including, the Initial Study and comments received;
(b) That the proposed mitigation measures will reduce all environmental impacts of the Proposed Project to levels of insignificance and there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment;
(c) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines consistent the City’s Rules and Procedures for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. (d) That t he Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City as lead agency for the proposed Project; and
(e) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are adequate to serve as the required CEQA environmental documentation for the Proposed Project.

Section 4. Deny Appeal; Adoption
That based on the foregoing Recitals, Evidence contained in the Administrative Record and Findings, as set forth herein, the City Council hereby denies the Appeal, PAA23-0006, and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study attached hereto as Exhibit A and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Section 5. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
That all the provisions as heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Resolution 2023-__ ISMND [Revision 3] (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map) 4 Section 6. Severability
That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 7. Effective Date
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon the date of adoption.

Section 8. Certification
That the City Clerk for the City Council shall certify to the passage of this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 2nd day of May 2023

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

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

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

Exhibit A: Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study Exhibit B: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration / Newspaper Notice Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Resolution 2023-__ ISMND [Revision 3] (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map)

CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE

COTTONWOOD & EDGEMONT PROJECT

Master Plot Plan (PEN21-0325)
Plot Plan (PEN21-0326)
Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325 (PEN21-0327)

February 2023

Lead Agency

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92552

Prepared By
T&B PLANNING, INC.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project i City of Moreno Valley

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ............................................. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ..................................................... 33 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): ...................................................... 33 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ..................................................................... 34 ISSUES & SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES: ............................................................. 35 I. AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................... 35 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ................................................... 37 III. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 38 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 44 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 48 VI. ENERGY ............................................................................................................. 51 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................... 53 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 58 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................... 60 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................... 63 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING............................................................................... 67 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 67 XIII. NOISE ................................................................................................................. 68 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................... 74 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................ 74 XVI. RECREATION ..................................................................................................... 76 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................... 76 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................... 79 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................ 79 XX. WILDFIRE ........................................................................................................... 83 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................... 83

FIGURES

Figure 1 Regional Map ...................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2 Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map ..................................................................................... 13 Figure 4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designation ...................................................... 14 Figure 5 Existing Zoning .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................ 16 Figure 7 Site Photos – Views from the West ..................................................................... 17 Figure 8 Site Photos – Views from the North .................................................................... 18 Figure 9 Site Photos – Views from the East ...................................................................... 19 Figure 10 Project Site Plan .................................................................................................. 20 Figure 11 Site Plan – Building 1 .......................................................................................... 21 Figure 12 Site Plan – Building 2 .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 13 Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325 ......................................................................... 23 Figure 14 Conceptual Architectural Elevations – Building 1 ................................................ 24 Figure 15 Conceptual Architectural Elevations – Building 2 ................................................ 25 Figure 16 Conceptual Material Board .................................................................................. 26 Figure 17 Conceptual Colored Elevations – Building 1 ....................................................... 27 Figure 18 Conceptual Colored Elevations – Building 2 ....................................................... 28 Figure 19 Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................... 29 Figure 20 Conceptual Utility Plan ........................................................................................ 30 Figure 21 Project Physical Impact Footprint ........................................................................ 31 Figure 22 Conceptual Grading Plan .................................................................................... 32 F.1.c
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project ii City of Moreno Valley
TABLES

Table 1 Estimated Construction Schedule ......................................................................... 6 Table 2 Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet .............................................................. 7 Table 3 Peak Construction Emissions .............................................................................. 40 Table 4 Peak Operational Emissions ............................................................................... 40 Table 5 Peak Localized Construction Source Emissions ................................................. 41 Table 6 Peak Operational Source Emissions ................................................................... 42 Table 7 Total Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................. 58 Table 8 Daytime Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary .................................... 68 Table 9 Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Level Compliance ............................................. 69 Table 10 Operational Noise Levels .................................................................................... 70 Table 11 Existing With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ............................................ 71 Table 12 OYC (2025) With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ...................................... 72 Table 13 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ............................................................ 73

APPENDICES (Separate Documents)

Technical Appendix A1: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis Technical Appendix A2: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Health Risk Assessment Technical Appendix B: General Biological Resources Assessment for the Cottonwood and Edgemont Project
Technical Appendix C: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Cottonwood & Edgemont Project
Technical Appendix D: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Energy Analysis Technical Appendix E: Preliminary Geotechnical and Infiltration Feasibility Investigation Proposed Industrial Development APNs 263-190-012, -014, -015, -016, -017, -019 and -036
Technical Appendix F: Paleontological Assessment Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Technical Appendix G: Cottonwood & Edgemont Greenhouse Gas Analysis Technical Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Technical Appendix I1: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan – Old 215 Frontage Road Technical Appendix I2: Preliminary Drainage Analysis for APN 263-190-014-019,036 Old 215/Edgemont Street PEN21-0325/LST22-0007
Technical Appendix J1: Cottonwood & Edgemon
t Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis
Technical Appendix J2: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Off-Site Improvements Noise Assessment
Technical Appendix K1: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Trip Generation Assessment Technical Appendix K2: Cottonwood and Edgemont Warehouse Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation
Technical Appendix K3: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouses (PEN21-0325) Traffic Analysis

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 1 City of Moreno Valley

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DELCARATION FOR

COTTONWOOD & EDGEMONT

PROJECT

Project Description:

The Cottonwood & Edgemont Project comprises a proposal for a Master Plot Plan (PEN21-0325), Plot Plan (PEN21-0326), and Tentative Parcel Map No. 38325 (PEN21-0327) to allow for the development of two (2) light industrial buildings with a total combined building floor area of 99,630 square feet (s.f.) on an approximately 7.94-gross-acre property (6.88 net acres). The Project would include cargo loading areas at each building (within an enclosed truck court with loading docks on the eastern sides of the proposed buildings), parking areas, landscaping, signage, and lighting.

Project Location:

The Project Site is located on the east side of Old 215 Frontage Road, approximately 500 feet south of Cottonwood Avenue in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 263-190-012, -014, -015, -016, -017, -018, -019, -036)

Project Proponent:

CDRE Holdings 21 LLC
523 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245

Findings:

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

Mitigation Measures:

No. Miti gation Measure
MM BR-1 As a condition of approval for all grading permits, vegetation clearing and ground disturbance shall be prohibited during the mi gratory bird nesting season (February 1 through September 15), unless a migratory bird nesting survey is completed in accordance with the following requirements:

a. A migratory nesting bird survey of the project’s impact footprint shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within (3) days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance.
b. A copy of the migratory nesting bird survey results report shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division. If the survey identifies the presence of active nests, then the qualified biologist shall provide the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division with a copy of maps sh owing the location of all nests and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impact. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division and shall be no less than a 300-foot radius around the nest for non-raptors and a 500- foot radius around the nest for raptors. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with constructi on fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist and City Planning Division verify that the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

MM CR-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall retain a professional archaeologist to conduct monitorin g of all ground disturbin g activities. The Pro ject F.1.c
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 2 City of Moreno Valley No. Miti gation Measure
Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during Project construction.

The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the contractor and the City, shall develop a CRMP as defined in Mitigation Measure CR-3. The Project Archaeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandator y Cultural Resources Worker S ensitivity Training to those in attendance. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeolo
gical resources are unearthed.

MM CR-3 The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP in consultation pursuant to the defin ition in AB52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting Tribe is defined as a Tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:

a) Project description and location;
b) Project grading and development scheduling;
c) Roles and responsi bilities of individuals on the Project; d) The pre-grading meeting and Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training details;
e) The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe (s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the ev ent of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation;
f) The type of recordation needed for i nadvertent finds and the stipulations of recordation of sacred items; and
g) Contact information of relevant individuals for the Pro ject.

MM CR-4 In the event that Native American cultural re sources are discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities (inadvertent disc overies), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:

a) One or more of the following treatm ents, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Department:

i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, le aving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. ii. Onsite reburial of the discovered items as detailed in the treatment plan required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR-1. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur un til all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed. No recordation of sacred items is permitted without the written consent of all Consulting Native American Tribal Governments as defined in Mitigation Measure CR-3 The location for the future reburial area shall be identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City, and concurred to by the Consulting Native American Tribal Governments prior to certification of the environmental document.

MM CR-5 The City shall verify that the following note is included on the Grading Plan:

“If any suspected archaeological resources are discovered during ground –disturbing activities and the Project Archaeologist or Native American Tribal Representatives are not present, the construction supervisor is obligat ed to halt work in a 100-foot radius around the find and call the Project Archaeologist and the Tribal Representatives to the site to assess the si
gnificance of the find."
MM CR-6 If potential historic or cultural resources are uncovered during excavation or construction activities at the project site that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to Pro ject approval, all ground disturbin g F.1.c
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 3 City of Moreno Valley No. Miti gation Measure
activities in the affected area within 100 feet of the uncovered resource must cease immediately and a qualified person meeting the Secretary of the Interior's standards (36 CFR 61), Tribal Representatives, and all site monitors per the Mitigation Measures, shall be consulted by the City to evaluate the fi nd, and as appropriate recommend alternative measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate negat ive effects on the historic, or prehistoric resource. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional archeologist and Tribal Monitors, if needed. Determinations and recommendations by the consultant shall be immediately submitted to the Planning Division for consideration, and implemented as deemed appropriate by t he Community Development Director, in consultation with the State Historic Pr eservation Officer (SHPO) and any and all Consulting Native American Tribes as defined in CR-3 before any further work commences in the affected area. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan.

MM CR-7 If human remains are discovered, no further disturbance shall occur in the affected area until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are potentially Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified within 24 hours of the published finding to be given a reasonable opportunity to identify the “most likely descendant”. The “most likely descendant” shall then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concernin
g the treatment of the remains (California Public Resources Code 5097.98).

MM CR-8 It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuan t to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254
(r).

MM CR-9 Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the Project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre-grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consultin
g Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).

MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Moreno Valley that a qualified paleontologist has been retained by the Project Applicant to conduct monitoring of excavati on activities and has the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the even t that suspected paleontological resources are unearthed.

MM GEO-2 The paleontological monitor shall conduct full-time monitoring during mass grading, trenching, and excavation operations in undisturbed, very old alluvial fan sediments that occur at depths between 1-5 feet below the existing ground surface on the Project Site.

The paleontological monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates an d vertebrates. The paleontological monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow of removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the su bsurface, or if pres ent, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified pal eontological personnel to have a low potential to contain or
yield fossil resources.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 4 City of Moreno Valley No. Miti gation Measure
MM GEO-3 Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage, such as the Western Science Museum in Hemet, California, is required for significant discoveries.

MM GEO-4 A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Moreno Valley prior to building final.

Attachments:

1. Initial Study

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 1 City of Moreno Valley

INITIAL STUDY (IS) FOR

COTTONWOOD & EDGEMONT

PROJECT

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

1. Project Case Number(s): Master Plot Plan (PEN21-0325), Plot Plan (PEN21-0326), and Tentative Parcel Map (PEN21-0327)

2. Project Title: Cottonwood & Edgemont

3. Public Comment Period: February 9, 2023, to March 1, 2023

4. Lead Agency: City of Moreno Valley
Julia Descoteaux, Senior Planner
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92552
(951) 413-3209
[email protected]

5. Documents Posted At:
a. City of Moreno Valley Planning Division Counter, 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92553
b. Moreno Valley Library, 25480 Alessandro Boulevard, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 c. City’s website:
http://www.moreno-valley.ca.us/cdd/documents/about-projects.html

6. Prepared By: T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA, 92602
Contact: David Ornelas

7. Project Sponsor:

Applicant/Developer Property Owner
CDRE Holdings 21 LLC CDRE Holdings 21 LLC
523 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
523 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245

8. Project Location: The 7.94-gross-acre Project Site is located in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. The Project Site is located on the east side of Old 215 Frontage Road, approximately 500 feet south of Cottonwood Avenue and approximately 620 feet north of Bay Avenue. Refer to Figure 1, Regional Map, Figure 2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3, USGS Topographic Map. The Project Site is comprised of the following eight (8) Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 263-190-012, -014, -015, -016, -017, -018, -019, -036.

9. General Plan Designation: Business Park (BP), which provides areas for manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, and distribution, as well as office and support commercial activities. Refer to Figure 4, Existing General Plan Land Use Designation.

10. Specific Plan Name and Designation: Not Applicable.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 2 City of Moreno Valley

11. Existing Zoning: Business Park (BP), which provides for light industrial, research and development, office-based firms, and limited supportive commercial uses. Refer to Figure 5, Existing Zoning.

12. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See below. Also, refer to Figure 6, Aerial Photograph and Figure 7 through Figure 9, Site Photographs.

Land Use General Plan Zoning
Project
Site Undeveloped BP BP
North Undeveloped, Drainage
Channel, Residential
BP
Residential 3 (R3)
Commercial
BP
Residential 3 (R3)
Community Commercial (CC)
South Vacant, Residential BP BP
East Residential, Church BP BP
West1 Warehouse Distribution,
Business/Office Park
Business/Office Park
(B/OP)
Business and Manufacturing
(BMP)

1. Properties located west of Old 215 Front age Road are within the City of Riverside

13. Description of the Site and Project:

Environmental Setting
The 7.94-gross-acre Project Site is vacant and contains end-dumped stockpiles of artificial fill soils adjacent to Edgemont Street, Old 215 Frontage Road, and in the central portion of the Project Site. Ornamental landscaping and concrete debris – likely the remnants of former slab foundations – are intermixed with the end dumped piles. The remaining portions of the Project Site consist of sparse weeds and disced soil.

The Project Site is relatively flat, with site elevations ranging from a highpoint of approximately 1,540 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the southeast corner of the Site to a low point of approximately 1,526 feet amsl in the north portion of the Site. The Project Site generally drains from the south to the north, toward the Edgemont Channel located adjacent to the Site. (CASC, 2021a, p. 1)

The Project Site is underlain by fill material and older alluvial materials. The fill material occurs at depths between 1 and 5 feet and is associated with past development and weed abatement practices at the Site. The fill materials are comprised of silty sand, asphalt grindings, concrete debris, and plastic. The older alluvial material occurs at depths below 5 feet and consists of silty sand with a minor unit of well graded sand with silt. (LOR, 2021, p. 5)

Project Description
The Project provides for the development of the Project Site with two 49,815 sq. ft. light industrial buildings (total of 99,630 s.f.) and related improvements, including paved access and drive aisles, parking, landscaping, lighting, signage, stormwater drainage improvements, and utility connections. The proposed buildings would each include 4,000 s.f. of office space and 9 dock doors; the dock doors are provided on the east side of each building. The site plan for the Project is illustrated in Figure 10, Project Site Plan . The individual site plans for Buildings 1 and 2 are illustrated in Figure 11, Site Plan – Building 1, and Figure 12, Site Plan – Building 2 , respectively. Proposed Master Plot Plan (PEN21- 0325) and Plot Plan (PEN21-0326) provide the specific development plans for the two proposed buildings, as described on the following pages.

The Project also includes a Tentative Parcel Map (PEN21-0327) to merge the eight (8) existing APNs within the Project Site and create two (2) parcels. Building 1 would be constructed on proposed Parcel 1, which would encompass 3.71 net acres. Building 2 F.1.c
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 3 City of Moreno Valley would be constructed on proposed Parcel 2, which would encompass 3.36 acres. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map also would vacate public right-of-way for Old 215 Frontage Road that is no longer needed by the City of Moreno Valley. The vacated public right-of- way segment would be approximately 17 feet wide and would run the entire length of the Project Site’s frontage with Old 215 Frontage Road.

Circulation
Vehicular access to the Project would be provided by three (3) proposed driveways along Old 215 Frontage Road. The middle driveway would be accessible to only passenger vehicles and the northernmost and southernmost driveways would be accessible to both passenger vehicles and heavy trucks. All driveways would be restricted to right turn movements when entering/existing the Project Site. Sight distance at each Project driveway would be reviewed by the City at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans to ensure that standard California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and City sight distances are met.

Parking and Loading
The Project provides a total of 104 parking stalls and a total of 26 truck trailer parking stalls.

Each building would provide 38 standard parking stalls, one (1) electric vehicle (EV) van parking stall, two (2) Clean Air/Van Pool/EV, 7 future EV parking, one (1) accessible van parking stall, and three (3) standard accessible parking stalls. The auto parking stalls for Building 1 would be provided along the western and southern sides of Building 1 and the auto parking stalls for Building 2 would be provided along the western and northern sides of Building 2. The Project would exceed the City’s parking requirements (96 auto parking stalls are required by the City’s Planning and Zoning Code). Additionally, Building 1 would provide 17 truck trailer parking stalls and Building 2 would provide 9 truck trailer parking stalls.

Bicycle parking spaces (racks) would be provided in conformance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 9.11.060(B)(1), which requires bicycle parking spaces be provided at a rate equate to five (5) percent of the total parking spaces. Proposed bicycle parking would be provided adjacent to the office spaces of the proposed buildings, at the southwest corner of Building 1 (1 rack) and northwest corner of Building 2 (1 rack).

Architecture
The Project’s architectural design for each proposed building is provided in Figure 14, Conceptual Architectural Elevations – Building 1 and Figure 15, Conceptual Architectural Elevations – Building 2. Each building would have a maximum height of approximately 41 feet (measured from finished floor to the top of the parapets). Both buildings are proposed to be constructed with painted concrete tilt-up panels and low reflective, blue-glazed glass.

Articulated building elements, including parapets with a varied roofline, wall recesses, awnings, and mullions are proposed as decorative elements. The exterior color palette for Buildings 1 and 2 are comprised of various neutral, earth-toned colors, including shades of white, beige, gray and dark brown with wood-like tile accents (see Figure 16, Conceptual Material Board , Figure 17, Conceptual Colored Elevations – Building 1 , and Figure 18, Conceptual Colored Elevations – Building 2).

Prior to the issuance of building permits to construct the Project, the Project Applicant would be required to submit construction architecture documents/plans to the City for review and approval. The construction document/plans would be required to comply with the City’s Building Code, which is based on the California Building Code and is included in Chapter

8.20 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Landscaping
Figure 19, Conceptual Landscape Plan , depicts the proposed landscape design for the Project. Proposed landscaping would be ornament al in nature and would feature trees, F.1.c
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 4 City of Moreno Valley shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. Trees and groundcover would be concentrated along the Project Site’s frontage with Old 215 Frontage Road and Edgemont Street and along the Project Site’s northern and southern boundaries. Landscaping also is massed at driveways, around the buildings, and in and around automobile parking areas.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the proposed buildings, the Project Applicant would be required to submit final planting and irrigation plans to the City for review and approval. The plans are required to comply with Chapter 9.17 of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, which establishes requirements for landscape design, automatic irrigation system design, and water-use efficiency.

Project Improvements

Public Roadway Improvements
The Project includes the following public roadway improvements in conjunction with development of the Project Site:

1. The Project Applicant would improve the Old 215 Frontage Road segment that abuts the Project Site to its ultimate full section as a Divided Arterial as follows:
a. Construction of a 14-foot-wide vehicle travel lane on the west side of the street; b. Construction of an 18-foot-wide raised center median; c. Construction of a 34-foot-wide travel way (including shoulder) on the east side of the street;
d. Construction of curb and gutter on the east side of the street; and e. Construction of a 12-foot-wide parkway that features a curb-adjacent sidewalk and a bioretention swale (the bioretention swale would straddle the property line and be partially located on the Project Site).

2. The Project Applicant would improve the western side of Edgemont Street along the Project Site’s frontage to its ultimate half-section width as a Local Street as follows:
a. Construction of an 18-foot-wide travel way on the west side of the street; b. Construction of curb and gutter; and
c. Construction of a 12-foot-wide parkway that features a curb-adjacent sidewalk and a bioretention swale.

Water Infrastructure
Box Springs Mutual Water Company (BSMWC) would provide water service to the Project Site. As depicted on Figure 20, Conceptual Utility Plan, the Project would connect to a water line beneath Old 215 Frontage Road; numerous connection points are proposed for indoor, outdoor (i.e., landscape irrigation), and fire protection (i.e., fire suppression system, fire hydrant) services. Under existing conditions, the water line segment beneath Old 215 Frontage Road is sized at a 4-inch-diameter; however, the segment abutting the Project Site would be increased to a 12-inch-diameter as part of the Project (approximately 900 linear feet [LF]). All proposed water facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with BSMWC standards.

The Project would include off-site improvements to the existing 8-inch waterline beneath Cottonwood Avenue; approximately 730 LF of the 8-inch waterline would be upsized to 12 inches.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 5 City of Moreno Valley Sanitary Sewer Service
Edgemont Community Services District (ECS D) would provide wastewater conveyance services to the Project Site. As shown on Figure 20, the Project would connect to an existing 15-inch diameter sewer line beneath Old 215 Frontage Road. All proposed wastewater facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with ECSD standards.

Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
The Project’s stormwater drainage system would capture, treat, and convey flows generated on the Project Site, as well as flows generated within Old 215 Frontage Road and Edgemont Street. The components of the proposed stormwater drainage system are illustrated on Figure 20.

The stormwater drainage system on the Project Site would use a system of ribbon gutters to direct all stormwater flows generated on the Site to an underground detention basin on the east portion of the Project Site (within the truck court for Building 2). The proposed underground basin will direct flows to a proposed sump and pump which would convey flows to a modular wetland system for water quality treatment. After moving through the modular wetland system, treated stormwater runoff flows would discharge to an underground storm drain that would convey flows westerly across the Project Site and northerly off-site to a proposed new connection with the Edgemont Channel. The Project also entails the construction of a new outlet within the Edgemont Channel to receive Project flows. In instances where the underground detention basin reaches capacity, excess flows would bypass the modular wetland system and be routed directly to the Edgemont Channel. The Edgemont Channel is an existing concrete-lined storm drain channel that receives all runoff (as surface sheet flow) from the Project Site under existing conditions.

The Project also provides for the construction of a new public storm drain within the Old 215 Frontage Road segment that abuts the Project Site. The new storm drain is intended to convey storm water runoff generated within Old 215 Frontage Road. A drop inlet would be installed at the southern end of the proposed raised median within Old 215 Frontage Road; this would capture flows carried by the existing center median. The drop inlet would connect to a storm drain pipe that would travel north where it would connect to a new catch basin on the east side of Old 215 Frontage Road (adjacent to the northwest corner of the Project Site) to capture storm water runoff generated on the east side of the street. On the east side of the street, the Project provides for the construction of a bioswale, which would provide water quality treatment for street runoff as flows are conveyed northerly to the aforementioned catch basin. From the new catch basin, all runoff flows would be conveyed easterly and northerly by a new underground storm drain and would discharge to the Edgemont Channel. The Edgemont Channel receives all runoff (as surface sheet flow) from Old 215 under existing conditions.

Lastly, the Project provides for the construction of a new bioswale within the Edgemont Street segment that abuts the Project Site. The bioswale would be located on the west side of the street and provides water quality treatment for collected stormwater flows. The bioswale would connect to the new storm drain that is proposed on the Project Site, which would convey flows across the Site to the Edgemont Channel.

Dry Utilities
Implementation of the Project would result in the installation of conduit for communications cabling along the Project Site’s frontage with Old 215 Frontage Road. Additionally, existing wooden power poles along the Project Site’s frontage with Old 215 Frontage Road would be removed as part of Project construction and the overhead electric transmission lines suspended on these poles would be undergrounded. The removal of the power poles and F.1.c
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 6 City of Moreno Valley the undergrounding of the transmission lines would be performed in coordination with Moreno Valley Utility.

Construction Characteristics

Earthwork and Grading
Construction activities would occur over the entire Project Site. Construction activities also would occur off-site, within the public rights-of-way for Old 215 Frontage Road and Edgemont Street. The area that would be disturbed by Project construction is illustrated on Figure 21, Project Physical Impact Footprint.

The proposed grading plan for the Project Site is illustrated on Figure 22, Conceptual Grading Plan. The Project would result in approximately 16,500 cubic yards of cut and 12,400 cubic yards of fill. Based on the expected shrinkage and compaction of on-site soils, earthwork activities are expected to balance, and no import or export of soil materials would be required. Retaining walls are proposed along segments of the northern and southern boundaries of the Project Site.

Construction Activities
Based on the information provided by the Project Applicant, the Project is anticipated to be constructed over a period of approximately 193 workdays (8 months). Site preparation would occur first, followed by mass-grading and installation of underground infrastructure.

Next, fine grading would occur, surface materials would be poured, and the proposed buildings would be erected, connected to the underground utility system, and painted.

Lastly, landscaping, fencing, screen walls, lighting, signage, and other site improvements would be installed. For purposes of analysis in this IS/MND, construction is assumed to commence in February 2023 and finish in October 2023. The estimated Project construction schedule, organized by general construction stage, is summarized in Table 1, Estimated Construction Schedule.

Table 1 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Days
Site Preparation 02/01/2023 02/28/2023 20
Grading 03/01/2023 03/31/2023 23
Building Construction 04/01/2023 09/29/2023 130
Paving 10/02/2023 10/13/2023 10
Architectural Coating 10/14/2023 10/27/2023 10
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 3-1)

Construction workers would travel to the Project Site by passenger vehicles and materials deliveries would occur by medium- and heavy- duty trucks. Construction equipment is expected to operate on the Project Site up to eight hours per day, six days per week. Even though construction activities are permitted to occur between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays pursuant to Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section

11.80.030(D)(7), construction equipment is not in continual use and some pieces of equipment are used only periodically throughout a typical day of construction. Thus, eight hours of daily use per piece of equipment is a reasonable assumption. Should construction activities need to occur at night (such as concrete pouring activities which benefit from air temperatures that are lower than daytime temperatures), the Project Applicant would be required to obtain authorization for nighttime work from the City of Moreno Valley as specified in Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 11.80.030(D)(7).

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 7 City of Moreno Valley The makeup of the construction equipment fleet that is expected to be used for the Project, and which is utilized for purposes of analysis in this IS/MND, is summarized in Table 2, Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet.

Table 2 Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet
Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per
Day
Site Preparation
Skip Loaders 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8
Grading
Blade 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 4 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8
Building Construction
Crane 1 8
Forklifts 3 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
Welders 1 8
Paving
Blade 1 8
Paving Equipment 1 8
Rollers 2 8
Skip Loaders 1 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, Table 3-2)

Operational Characteristics
At the time IS/MND was prepared, the future occupant(s) of the Project is unknown. The Project Applicant expects that the proposed buildings would be utilized for warehousing/distribution land uses. The proposed buildings are designed with the potential to utilize up to 10 percent of their floor area for cold storage or refrigerated uses. The Project is expected to be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with exterior loading and parking areas illuminated at night. Lighting would be subject to compliance with Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 9.08.100, which states that all outdoor lighting associated with nonresidential uses shall be fully shielded and directed away from surrounding residential uses to reduce glare and light trespass and shall not exceed one-quarter foot- candle minimum maintained lighting measured from within five (5) feet of any property line.

The proposed warehouse buildings are designed such that business operations would be conducted within the enclosed building, except for traffic movement, parking, and the loading and unloading of tractor trailers at designated loading bays. As a practical matter, dock doors on industrial buildings are not occupied by a truck at all times of the day. There are typically more dock door positions on industrial buildings than are needed for receiving and shipping volumes. The dock doors that are in use at any given time are usually selected based on interior building operation efficiencies. In other words, trucks ideally dock in the position closest to where the goods to be carried by the truck are inside the building. As a result, many dock door positions are frequently inactive throughout the day. The Project is expected to use outdoor cargo handling equipment (e.g., yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, F.1.c
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 8 City of Moreno Valley pallet jacks, forklifts) that is only powered by non-diesel engines (e.g., gasoline, natural gas, electric).

During operation, employees, visitors, and vehicles hauling goods will travel to and from the Project Site daily. Pursuant to State law, on-road diesel-fueled trucks that would service the Project are required to comply with various air quality and greenhouse gas emission standards, including but not limited to the type of fuel used, engine model year stipulations, aerodynamic features, and idling time restrictions. Compliance with State law is mandatory and inspections of on-road diesel trucks subject to applicable State laws are conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

14. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?

The City of Moreno Valley is required to consult with interested California Native American tribes regarding the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). The City contacted California Native American tribes with traditional use areas that encompass or are in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project did not received requests for consultation from Native American tribes.

15. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Determination); Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit), Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (drainage infrastructure design); Box Springs Mutual Water Company (domestic water system design/connections); and Edgemont Community Services District (sewer system design/connections).

16. Other Technical Studies Referenced in this Initial Study (Incorporated into this Initial Study by Reference and Provided as Appendices to this Initial Study):

Technical Appendix A1: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis
Technical Appendix A2: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Health Risk Assessment Technical Appendix B: General Biological Resources Assessment for the Cottonwood and Edgemont Project
Technical Appendix C: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Cottonwood & Edgemont Project
Technical Appendix D: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Energy Analysis Technical Appendix E: Preliminary Geotechnical and Infiltration Feasibility Investigation Proposed Industrial Development APNs 263-190- 012, -014, -015, -016, -017, -019 and -036
Technical Appendix F: Paleontological Assessment Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Technical Appendix G: Cottonwood & Edgemont Greenhouse Gas Analysis Technical Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Technical Appendix I1: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan – Old 215 Frontage Road
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 9 City of Moreno Valley Technical Appendix I2: Preliminary Drainage Analysis for APN 263-190-014-019,036 Old 215/Edgemont Street PEN21-0325/LST22-0007
Technical Appendix J1: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis Technical Appendix J2: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Off-Site Improvements Noise Assessment
Technical Appendix K1: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Trip Generation Assessment
Technical Appendix K2: Cottonwood and Edgemont Warehouse Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation
Technical Appendix K3: Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouses (PEN21-0325) Traffic Analysis

17. Acronyms:

ADA - American with Disabilities Act
ALUC - Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AQMP - Air Quality Management Plan
CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
CIWMD - California Integrated Waste Management District CMP - Congestion Management Plan
DTSC - Department of Toxic Substance Control
DWR - Department of Water Resources
EIR - Environmental Impact Report
EMWD - Eastern Municipal Water District
EOP - Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMMP - Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GIS - Geographic Information System
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
GP - General Plan
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HOA - Home Owners’ Association
IS - Initial Study
LHMP - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LOS - Level of Service
LST - Localized Significance Threshold
MARB - March Air Reserve Base

MARB/IP
A- March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport
MSHCP - Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MVFP - Moreno Valley Fire Department
MVPD - Moreno Valley Police Department
MVUSD - Moreno Valley Unified School District
MWD - Metropolitan Water District
NCCP - Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OEM - Office of Emergency Services
OPR - Office of Planning & Research, State
PEIR - Program Environmental Impact Report
PW - Public Works
RCEH - Riverside County Environmental Health
RCFCWCD - Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District RCP - Regional Comprehensive Plan
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 10 City of Moreno Valley RCTC - Riverside County Transportation Commission
RCWMD - Riverside County Waste Management District
RTA - Riverside Transit Agency
RTIP - Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP - Regional Transportation Plan
SAWPA - Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE - Southern California Edison
SCH - State Clearinghouse
SKRHCP - Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan SWPPP - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB - State Water Resources Control Board
USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife
USGS - United States Geologic Survey
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled
VVUSD - Valley Verde Unified School District
WQMP - Water Quality Management Plan
WRCOG - Western Riverside Council of Government

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative F.1.c
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 :

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages .
□ Aesthetics □
Agriculture &
□ Air Quality Forestry Resources
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology & Soils □
Greenhouse Gas
□
Hazards & Hazardous
Emissions Materials
□
Hydrology &
□ Land Use & Planning □ Mineral Resources Water Quality □ Noise □ Population & Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □
Tribal Cultural
Resources
□
Utilities &
□ Wildfire □
Mandatory Findings of
Service Systems Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):

On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, "'71 there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been Lc::,1 made . by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and D 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been □ avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project , nothing further is required.

Date
Julia Descoteaux City of Moreno Valley
Printed Name For
Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 33 City of Moreno Valley F.1.c
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 34 City of Moreno Valley EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead A gency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately su pported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to proj ects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standar ds (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole ac tion involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impac t is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than sign ificant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significan t. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporat ed" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant leve l (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or another CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and st ate where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source lis t should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies ar e free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of eac h issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 35 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code §21099 – Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Response: According to the City’s General Plan, scenic vistas are uninterrupted views of expanses of open land; scenic resources within the Ci ty of Moreno Valley are identified as Box Springs Mountains, Bernasconi Hills, Moreno Peak, the Badlands, San Jacinto Valley, Mystic Lake, San Bernardino Mountain, San Gabriel Mountain, and San Jacinto Mount ains (City of Moreno Valley, 2021a, p. 10-10).

According to General Plan Map ORSC-3, Scenic Resources and Ridgelines, the Project Site is not within or adjacent to a designated scenic resource or with in a view corridor for any of the designated scenic resources in the City (City of Moreno Valley, 2021a, Map OSRC-3).

Due to intervening development and their distance and orientation in relation to the Project Site, prominent, distinct views of t he Badlands, San Jacinto Valley, Mystic Lake, Moreno Peak, and Bernasconi Hills are not available from public viewing areas abutting the Project Site. Scenic resources visible (at least partially) from public viewing areas abutting the Project Site include Box Spring Mountains (2.4 miles north), San Bernardino Mountain (19 miles northeast), San Gabriel Mountain (26 miles northwest), and San Jacinto Mountai n (35 miles southeast). Curren tly, views of the Box Springs Mountains to the north are partially obstructed from Old 215 Frontage Road and Edgemont Street by intervening development and off-site plant materials (i.e., trees). Distant views of the San Gabriel Mountain (looking northwest), San Bernardino Mountain, and San Jacinto Mountain (looking generally east) are provided from Old 215 Frontage Road; howe ver, views to these landforms are obscured by intervening development, off-site plant materials and atmospheric haze. Distant views of the San Gabriel Mountain, San Bernardino Mountain, and San Jacinto Mountain are not provided from Edgemont Street due to intervening development and off-site plants. Currently, public viewing areas abutting the Project Site do not provide uninterrupted view of expanses of open land.

The Project would result in the construction of two approximately 41-foot-tall buildings and the installation of ornamental landscaping – including masses of trees along the subject property boundaries – on the Project Site. Due to the Project Site’s orientation and the placem ent of the proposed buildings and landscaping, the Project is not anticipated to substa ntially obstruct or obsc ure views of Box Springs Mountain from Old 215 Frontage Road or Edgemont Street. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?

Response: The Project Site does not contain any scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and the Site is not within or adjacent to an officially designated State scenic highway corridor (Caltrans, 2022). Accordingly, no impact would occur.

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?

Response: The Project Site is located within the Rive rside-San Bernardino urban area, as defined by U.S. Census Bureau, and determined as part of the 2010 Census (USCB, 2022). Therefore, the Project would be considered to result in a significant adve rse impact under this threshold only if the Project design would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 36 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Implementation of the Project would result in the co nversion of the Site from vacant, undeveloped land to developed land with two warehouse buildings with associated improvements including parking lots, drive aisles, utility infrastructure, ornamental landsc aping, exterior lighting, and signage. The Project’s design, including site layout, architecture, and landsc aping is discussed and illustrated in detail in the Project Description this Initial Study. As previously described, the Project’s architecture incorporates a neutral color palette that would not be visually offensive and also incorporates accent elements, such as colored glass and decorative building elements at the building’s office entries for visual interest.

Additionally, the Project’s landscape plan incorporates low-water-need plant species that can maintain vibrancy during drought conditions. As a condition of approval, the Project Applicant would be required to maintain the proposed building, landscaping and improvements in a state of good repair. The proposed visual features of the Project would ensure a high-quality aesthetic for the site. As part of their standard discretionary permit review process, the City of Moreno Valley reviewed the Project’s design proposal in detail and determined that no component of the Project would conflict with applicable design regulations within the City’s Zoning and Development Code governing scenic quality. No impact would occur.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

Response: Under existing conditions, the Project Site contains no sources of artificial lighting; however, street lights are present along Old 215 Frontage Road and outdoor light fixtures from the surrounding residential uses are present.

The Project would introduce new light sources to the Project Site as necessary for security, safety, and wayfinding. The Project’s lighting elements would include building-mounted fixtures (security lighting and upward/downward facing decorative lighting oriented toward the building) and pole-mounted fixtures in the Project’s truck docking areas and at the Proj ect’s driveway entries along Old 215 Frontage Road.

The Project would be required to adhere to lighting requirements as set forth in the City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code Sections 9.10.110 and 9.16.280. T he Municipal Code lighting standards govern the placement and design of outdoor lighting fixtures to ensure adequate lighting for public safety while also minimizing light pollution and glare and precluding public nuisances (e.g., blinking/flashing lights, unusually high intensity, or needlessly bright lighting). The City would confirm compliance with applicable lighting requirements during future review of build ing permit applications/plans. Mandatory compliance with the Municipal Code would ensure that the Pr oject would not introduce any permanent design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hour s, the amount of glare depends on intensity and direction of sunlight. Proposed exterior building materials primarily include concrete, painted metal, and tempered glass. While window glazing has a potential to result in minor glare effects, such effects would not adversely affect daytime views of surrounding properties, including motorists along adjacent roadways, because the glass proposed for the Proj ect would be low-reflective and set back from the roadway at a distance and proposed landscaping would provide a buffer between all proposed glass surfaces and the public right of way.

For the reasons given above, implementation of the Proj ect would not result in a significant source of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley General Plan 2040
• Chapter 10 – Open Space and Resource Conservation
- Map OSRC-3 –Scenic Resources and Ridgelines

2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway Map Viewer, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057 116f1aacaa
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 37 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

3. United States Census Bureau (UCSB) 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo- areas/urban-rural/2010-urban-rural.html

4. U.S. Census Bureau Urbanized Area Reference Maps,
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua75340_riverside-- san_bernardino_ca/DC10UA75340.pdf

5. Title 9 – Planning and Zoning of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code • Section 9.10.110 – Performance Standards, Light and Glare • Chapter 9.16 – Design Guidelines

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment proj ect; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resour ces Agency, to non-
agricultural use?

Response: According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC), the entire Project Site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” (CDC, 2018) Additionally, under existing conditions, the Project Site is vacant and undeveloped; no agricultural production occurs on-site. Therefore, the implementation of the Project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
Response: The Project Site is zoned for an industrial land use (i.e., Business Park, BP) and is not zoned for an agricultural use (City of Moreno Valley, 2021b). Additionally, there are no lands abutting the Project Site that are zoned for an agricultural use (ibid.). Additionally, as disclosed in the City’s General Plan EIR, there are no land within the City – inclusive of the Project Site – that are actively under a Williamson Act Contract (City of Moreno Valley, 2021c, Figure 4.2-1). Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Re sources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?

Response: The Project Site is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, nor is it surrounded by forest land, timberland, or Timberla nd Production land (City of Moreno Valley, 2021b).

Therefore, the Project has no potential to conflict with any areas currently zoned as forest, timberland, or Timberland Production and would not result in the rezoning of any such lands. As such, no impact would occur.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 38 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
Response: The Project Site and surrounding areas contain urbanized uses and do not consist of forest land. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Accordingly, no impact would occur.

e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in the conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?

Response: “Farmland” is defined in Section II (a) of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” (“Farmland”). As disclosed above under Response II(a), the Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use.

As discussed under Responses II(c) and II(d), the Project would not convert forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

Sources:

1. California Department of Conservation (C DC) California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

2. Moreno Valley Zoning Map, https://www.moval.org/city_hall/general-plan2040/NewZoning.pdf

3. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2040 • Section 4.2 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources

III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Response: The Project Site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or “Basin”). Currently, State, and federal air quality standards are ex ceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response to local air quality conditions, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the St ate and federal ambient air quality standards.

AQMPs are regularly updated to more effectively reduce emissions, ac commodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. The current AQMP, the 2016 AQMP, was adopted by the SCAQMD in March 2017 and the Project’s consistency with the 2016 AQMP is discussed below. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2, and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). The Project’s consistency with these criteria is discussed below.

Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Consistency Criterion No. 1 relates to violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As evaluated under Response III(b) the Project would not contribute air pollutant volumes to the SCAB that would contribute to or exacerbate existing air quality violations. Additionally, as evaluated under Response III(c), the Project would not generate localized criteria po llutant emissions increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, and/or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or t he interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Accordingly, the Project is determined to be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1.

Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 39 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The growth forecasts used in the 2016 AQMP to calculate future regional emissions levels are based on land use planning data provided by lead agencies via their general plan documentation.

Development projects that increase the intensity of use on a specific property beyond the respective general plan’s vision may result in increased stationary area source emissions and/or vehicle source emissions when compared to the AQMP assumptions. However, if a project does not exceed the growth projections in the applic able local general plan, then the project is considered to be consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. The Project would be consistent with the City of Moreno Valley’s General Plan land use designation for the subject property and, therefore, the Project would be consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQMP and would not exceed the AQMP’s long-term emissions projections.

For the reasons stated above, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse environmental impact due to an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, the creation of new violations, the delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP, or the exceedance of growth assumptions in the AQMP. As such, impacts would be less-than-significant.

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?

Response: The Project has the potential to generate air pollution during both construction activities and long-term operation. An Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) was prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads) to evaluate potential criteria pollutant emissions that would result from implementation of the Project. T he Project’s AQIA is included as Technical Appendix A1 to this Initial Study. For a detailed description of the health effects of air pollutants refer to Section 2.4 of the AQIA. In general, air pollutants have adverse effects to hum an health including, but not limited to, respiratory illness and carcinogenic effects; however, based on av ailable modeling it is not feasible to correlate regional criteria pollutant emissions from developmen t projects of the scale of the proposed Project to adverse health effects on a SCAB-wide level (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 11-17, 58-59). The potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse heal th effects from toxic air contaminant emissions is addressed in Response III(c).

The following analysis is based on the applicable significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD for regional criteria pollutant emissions (as summarized in Table 3-1 of the Project’s AQIA). This analysis assumes that the proposed Project would comply with applicable mandatory regional air quality standards, including: SCAQMD Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust;” SCAQMD Rule 431.2, “Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels;” SCAQMD Rule 1113, “Architectur al Coatings;” SCAQMD Rule 1186, “PM 10 Emissions from
Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations;” SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, “Less-Polluting Street Sweepers,” and Title 13, Chapter 10, Section 2485, Division 3 of the California Code of Regulations “Airborne Toxic Control Measure.”

Project Construction Impact Analysis
For purposes of the construction emissions analysis, construction was conservatively expected to occur between February 2023 and October 2023. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) accounts for the implementation and enforcement of California’s progressively more restrictive regulatory requirements for construction equipment and the ongoing replacement of older construction fleet equipment with newer, less- polluting equipment. According to the CalEEMod, construction activities that occur in the near future are expected to generate mo re air pollutant emissions than the same activities that may occur farther into the future. Thus, in the event that the Project’s construction period occurs later than expected by this analysis, Project-related construction emissions would not exceed the values presented herein (Urban Crossroad s, 2022a, p. 40). The Project’ s construction characteristics and construction equipment fleet assumptions were previous ly described in the Project Description to this Initial Study.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 40 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The calculated maximum daily emissions associated with Project construction are presented in Table 3, Peak Construction Emissions. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.1 of the Project’s AQIA.

Table 3 Peak Construction Emissions
Year Emissions (lbs/day) 1
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2023 52.43 51.38 36.30 0.11 7.65 3.66
Winter
2023 52.42 51.74 36.22 0.11 7.65 3.66
Maximum Daily Emissions 52.43 51.74 36.30 0.11 7.65 3.66 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-5)

As shown, the Project’s daily construction emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NO
X) carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. The SCAQMD considers any project-specific criteria pollutant emissions that exceed applicable SCAQMD si gnificance thresholds also to be cumulatively considerable. To put it another way, if a project does not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds, then SCAQMD considers that project’s air pollutant emi ssions to not be cumulatively considerable. Thus, because Project construction would not exceed the SCAQMD regional criteria significance thresholds, implementation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, including any pollutants for which the SCAB does not attain applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards during construction.

Project Operational Impact Analysis
Operation of the Project is expected to generate ai r pollutant emissions from the operation of motor vehicles (including trucks), operation of on-Site equipment, on-Site maintenance activities, and the consumption of energy resources.

The calculated operational-source emissions from the Project are summarized on Table 4, Peak Operational Emissions. Detailed operational model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.2 of the Project’s AQIA.

Table 4 Peak Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Area Source 2.32 4.70E-04 0. 05 0.00 1.90E-04 1.90E-04
Energy Source 0.10 0.92 0.77 5.50E-03 0.07 0.07
Mobile Source 1.69 4.35 18.71 0.06 4.82 1.33
TRU Source 0.04 0.49 0. 61 1.17E-04 0.01 0.01
On-Site Equipment Source 0.22 2.07 1.50 6.33E -03 0.08 0.07 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 4. 38 7.83 21.65 0.07 4.97 1.47 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Area Source 2.32 4.70E-04 0. 05 0.00 1.90E-04 1.90E-04
Energy Source 0.10 0.92 0.77 5.50E-03 0.07 0.07
Mobile Source 1.47 4.61 16.36 0.05 4.82 1.33
TRU Source 0.04 0.49 0. 61 1.17E-04 0.01 0.01
On-Site Equipment Source 0.22 2.07 1.50 6.33E -03 0.08 0.07 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 4. 16 8.09 19.30 0.06 4.97 1.47 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-8)

As summarized in Table 4, Project operational emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would not exceed SCAQMD re gional criteria thresholds. Accordin gly, the Pro ject would not emit substantial F.1.c
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 41 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
concentrations of these pollutants during long-term operation and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violat ion. The Project’s long-term emissions of VOCs, NO X, CO, SO X, PM10 and PM2.5 would be less than significant.

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Response: The area immediately surrounding the Project Site contains a variety of uses, including vacant parcels and parcels developed with industrial , transitional, and legal non-conforming residential uses. Being located near the I-215 corridor and within the overflight corridor of the March Air Reserve Base, the census tract containing the Project Site is in the 99th percentile for pollution burden which, based on the census tract’s demographic characteristics, results in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) ranking the area with in the 95th percentile of communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution (OEHHA, 2022). Although the City of Moreno Valley General Plan designates the Project Site and areas between I-215 Frontage Road and Day Street (approximately 0.25-mile east of the Project Site ) for industrial uses, there are numerous legal non- conforming residential homes in this area.

Notwithstanding the information above, the SCAQMD models and characterizes localized health risks from air pollution exposure via their Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) , which is in its fifth edition (i.e., MATES V). MATES-V extrapolates the excess cancer risk levels throughout the SCAB using mathematical modeling for specific geographic grids. MATES-V estimates an excess carcinogenic risk of approximately 367 in one million for the Project area, placing the Project area within the 70th percentile for cancer risk within the SCAB (SCAQMD, 2021). For comparison, the prior version of SCAQMD’s MATES analysis, MATES-IV, estimated the Project area was in the 89th percentile for cancer risk with an excess cancer risk of 652 in one million (ibid.).

The following provides an analysis of the Project’ s potential to expose sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site to substantia l pollutant concentrations during Project construction and long-term operation. The following analysis is ba sed on analyses contained in the Project’s AQIA and Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (HRA, provided as Technical Appendix A2 to this Initial Study), and utilizes applicable significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD to draw a conclusion of the significance of Project-related impacts.

Localized Emissions Analysis
Table 5, Peak Localized Construction Source Emissions, presents the localized impacts at the sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the Project Site with highest exposure to Project construction activities.

Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.1 of the Project’s AQIA. Localized Project construction emissions would not exceed th e applicable SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant.

Table 5 Peak Localized Construction Source Emissions
Construction
Activity Year Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
2022 2.40 3.62 0.52 0.14
Maximum Daily Emissions 2.40 3.62 0.52 0.14
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 118 602 4 3
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
2022 45.36 33.97 6.32 3.25
Maximum Daily Emissions 45.36 33.97 6.32 3.25
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,577 13 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-11)

Table 6, Peak Localized Operational Source Emissions, presents the localized impacts at the sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the Project Site with highest exposure to Project construction activities.

Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.2 of the Pro ject’s AQIA. Localized
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 42 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
operational emissions from Project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant.

Table 6 Peak Operational Source Emissions
Scenario Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Summer 3.23 3.29 0.39 0.21
Winter 3.24 3.17 0.39 0.21
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.24 3.29 0.39 0.21
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,577 4 2
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-13)

Based on the data presented in Table 5 and Table 6, the Project would not result in substantial localized pollutant concentrations during either construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Analysis for CO “Hot Spots”
A CO “hot spot” is an isolated ge ographic area where localized concentrations of CO exceeds the CAAQS one-hour (20 parts per million) or eight-hour (9 parts per million) standards. A Project-specific CO “hot spot” analysis was not performed because CO attainment in the SCAB was thoroughly analyzed as part of SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment for Carbon Monoxide Plan (1992 CO Plan) (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 54-55).

The SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP and the 1992 CO Plan
found that peak CO concentrations in the SCAB were the byproduct of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and were not the result of traffic congestion. For context, the CO “hot spot” analysis performed for the 2003 AQMP recorded a CO concentration of 9.3 parts per million (8-hour) at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection in Los Angeles County; however, only a small portion of the recorded CO concentrations (0.7 parts per million) were attributable to traffic congestion at the intersection. The vast majority of the recorded CO concentrations at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection (8.6 parts per million) were attributable to unique local meteorological conditions that resulted in elevated ambient air concentrations. In comparison, the busiest intersections in the Project Site vicinity would neither experience peak congestion levels or ambient CO concentrations comparable to the conditions obse rved at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection nor feature atypical meteorological conditions. Further, data from air districts in the State indicate that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, an individual development project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by between 24,000 and 44,000 vehicles per hour in order to generate a significant CO impact. The Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot based on the referenced studies. Based on the relatively low local traffic congestion levels, low existing ambient CO concentrations, and the lack of any unusual meteorological and/or topographical conditions in the Project Site vicinity, the Project is not expected to cause or contribute to a CO “hot spot” (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 55-56 ). Impacts would be less than significant.

Diesel Particulate Emissions Analysis
This section evaluates the potential health risk im pacts to sensitive receptors and adjacent workers associated with the development of the proposed Project, more specifically, health risk impacts as a result of exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) including diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks accessing the Project Site. Detailed air dispersion model outputs and risk calculations are presented in Appendices 2.1 through 2.4 of the Project’s HRA Analysis.

Project Construction Analysis
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction DPM source emissions (i.e., maximally exposed individual receptor, MEIR) is located approximately 19 feet east of the Project Site at an existing residence located at 13571 Edgemont Street. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction DPM source emissions is estimated at 8.15 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, p. 1).

At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be 0.03, which would not exceed the applicable F.1.c
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 43 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
threshold of 1.0 (ibid.). All other re ceptors in the vicinity of the Proj ect Site would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEIR. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity.

Project Operation Analysis
The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operation DPM source emissions (MEIR) is located approximately 19 feet east of the Project Site at an existing residence located at 13561 Edgemont Street. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at 1.63 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, p. 1). At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable si gnificance threshold of 1.0 (ibid.). All other residential receptors in the vicinity of the Project Si te would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEIR. Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of residential receptors to substantial DPM emissions.

Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

The worker receptor land use with the greatest pot ential exposure to Project DPM source emissions (maximally exposed individual worker, MEIW) is an existing church located approximately 107 feet east of the Project Site. At the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.09 in one million which is less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, p. 2). Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0 (ibid.). All other worker receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEIW. Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of worker receptors to substantial DPM emissi ons. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

There are no schools located within 1,320 feet of the Project Site, which is the location with the highest concentrations of Project-related DPM emissions – due to trucks idling on the Site. Proximity to sources of toxics is critical to determining the impact. Based on California Air Resources Board and SCAQMD emissions and modeling analyses, particulate matter pollutant concentrations drop by 70 percent at a distance of 500 feet and by 80 percent at 1,000 feet from the emissions source (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 2). Because there are no schools located within at least 0.25-mile of the Project Site, operations at the Project Site would not expose any school child receptors to substantial concentrations of diesel particulate matter emissions (ibid.). Impacts related to operations on the Project Site would be less than significant. The nearest school campus to the Project Site is Towngate Elementary School, which is located approximately 3,900 feet northeast of the Site. Heavy trucks traveling to/from the Project Site would not utilize City streets that abut the Towngate Elementary School (or any other school within the City). Accordingly, off-site trucking activity related to Project operations would not expose any school child receptors to substantial concentrations of diesel particulate matter emissions. This impact is less than significant.

The land use with the greatest potential increased cancer risk due to exposure to Project construction- source and operational-source DPM emissions is loca ted at 13571 Edgemont Street. At this location, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction and operational DPM source emissions is estimated at 8.88 in one million, which is less than the threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be 0.03, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction and operational activity. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 3)

Conclusion
For the reasons explained under this Response, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 44 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in other emissi ons (such as those leading
to odors adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?

Response: The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with t he Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of concrete and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would mi nimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid wast e regulations. The Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, the Project would not result in other emissions t hat would adversely affect a subs tantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.

Sources:

1. Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis. (Technical Appendix A1)

2. Urban Crossroads, 2023, Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment. (Technical Appendix A2)

3. Office of Environmental Health Hazard As sessment (OEHHA), 2022, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 [software program]. Available online at
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40

4. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2021. MATES Interactive Data Display [software program]. Available online at
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/79d3b6304912414bb21ebdde80100b23?views=Navi gate-the-map

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?

Response: A General Biological Resources Assessment (Technical Appendix B) was prepared for the Project by Alden Environmental, Inc. (Alden), which addresses potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species due to implementation of the Project. The analysis presented below is based on the findings of the General Biological Assessment report. The Project’s off-site improvement area (i.e., the areas where proposed upsized public water lines and public storm drain improvements would be constructed) is disturbed and developed and devoid of natural habitat features.

Special Status Plant Species
The Project Site (including both on-site and off-site components) is approximately 8.3 acres and supports

6.5 acres of non-native grassland, 0.08 acre of disturbed habitat and 1.7 acres of developed land. The Project Site is dominated by non-native grasslands including the red brome (Bromus madritensis), hare barley (Hordeum murinum), and wild oat (Avena fatua). The non-native grassland also supports some native and non-native annual plant species such as fiddleneck ( Amsinckia sp.), red maids (Calandrinia ciliata), and shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). (Alden, 2022, p. 4)

Disturbed habitat typically includes land cleared of vegetation (e.g., dirt roads), land containing a preponderance of non-native plant species such as or namentals or ruderal exotic species that take advanta
ge of disturbance (previously cleared or abandoned landscaping), or land showing signs of past F.1.c
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 45 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
or present animal usage that removes any capability of providing viable habitat. Disturbed habitat occurs adjacent to the existing Edgemont Channel within an area kept cleared of vegetation. (Alden, 2022, p. 4)

Areas with asphalt and concrete are considered developed, although some patches of non-native grasses and some ornamental plantings occur there. Developed also includes the area behind the homes where the existing 4-inch water lines would be upsized to 12-inch lines. And, developed occurs as Old 215 Frontage Road. (Alden, 2022, p. 4)

The Project Site does not support sensitive vegetat ion and no sensitive vegetation communities were observed during Alden’s field survey. (Alden, 2022, p. 4) The Project Site is not within a Narrow Endemic Plant Special Survey Area (NEPSSA) or Cr iteria Area Plant Special Survey Area (CASSA). Moreover, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database queries did not return any records of sensitive plant species on or adjacent to the Project Site (Alden, 2022, p. 5). Accordingly, development of the Project would result in no impact to special-status plant species.

Special Status Wildlife Species
No sensitive animal species were observed or detected on the Project Site. Additionally, CNDDB and USFWS database queries did not return any records of sensitive animal species on or adjacent to the Project Site. The Project Site is not within the bu rrowing owl survey area; therefore, a burrowing owl survey was not required. (Alden, 2022, p. 5)

Conclusion
Notwithstanding the analysis above, implementation of Project would result in removal of vegetation across the Project Site that has the potential to su pport nesting and/or migratory birds that are granted special status by federal and State regulations. The Project’s potential to impact nesting birds and migratory birds is a significant direct impact for which mitigation is required, as discussed below.

MM BR-1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting/ migratory birds to less-than-significant levels by ensuring that pre-construction surveys are conduc ted to determine the presence or absence on the Project Site of protected nesting bird species prior to the commencement of construction activities. If the protected nesting bird species are present, the miti gation measures provide performance criteria that require avoidance and/or relocation of the species in accordance with accepted protocols.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would result in less-tha n-significant impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species with the implementation of mitigation.

Mitigation
MM BR-1 As a condition of approval for all gradi ng permits, vegetation clearing and ground disturbance shall be prohibited during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 through September 15), unless a migratory bird nesting survey is completed in accordance with the following requirements:

a. A migratory nesting bird survey of the project’s impact footprint shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within (3) days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance.
b. A copy of the migratory ne sting bird survey results report shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division. If the survey identifies the presence of active nests, then the qualified biologist shall provide the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division with a copy of maps showing the location of all nests and an appropriate buffer zone around each nest sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impact. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division and shall be no less than a 300-foot radius around the nest for non-raptors and a 500- foot radius around the nest for raptors. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencin
g, within which no ve getation
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 46 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
clearing or ground disturbance shall comme nce until the qualified biologist and City Planning Division verify that the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?

Response: There are no wetland/riparian communities locat ed on the Project Site. The Project Site is relatively flat and does not support any aquatic features necessary for the development of these habitats.

Additionally, the National Hydrography Dataset and National Wetlands Inventory do not show any wetland/riparian resources on the Project Site. (Alden, 2022, p. 5) Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not impact wetland/riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with an established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?

Response: Wildlife movement corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetatio n, or human disturbances. Generally, mountain canyons and/or riparian corridors are used by wildlife as corridors; the Project Site does not contain either of these features. Furthermore, the Project Site is surrounded by human activity in the form of industrial and residential land uses and roadways. Therefore, no impact to a wildlife corridor would occur from implementation of the Project.

Wildlife nurseries are sites where wildlife concentra te for hatching and/or raising young, such as rookeries, spawning areas, and bat colonies. Although no nesting birds or remnant nests were observed on the Project Site by Alden, implementation of the Project could potentially result in significant impacts to biological resources (i.e., avian species and thei r nests) that are protected by State and federal regulations, if active nests are present within or adjacent to the site during construction. Implementation of MM BR-1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to less-than-significant levels by ensuring that pre-construction surveys are conducted to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on or adjacent to the Project Site prior to the commencement of construction activities. If active nests are discovered, this mitigation measure establishes performance criteria that requires avoidance of the nests until it can be determined the nest is no longer active or that the juveniles from the occupied nests can survive independently of the nest.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

Response: Implementation of the Project would result in the removal of trees on the Project Site. The removal of trees is regulated by City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 9.17.030, which requires development projects to conduct a tree survey prior to construction and, if any mature significant trees are to be removed, to replace each removed tree at defined ratios (as specified in Municipal Code Chapter 9.17.030). Prior to removal of any trees from the Project survey area, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 9.17.030 of the City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code. Mandatory compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Code would ensure the Project would not conflict with the City of Moreno Valley’s ordinance regulating tree removal.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 47 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In addition, the City of Moreno Valley Municipal C ode contains provisions for the protection of the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat (refer to Title 8, Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code). The CNDDB and USFWS database queries did not return any records of sens itive animal species on or adjacent to the Project Site. Accordingly, the Project is exempt from the focused survey requirements for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat established by the City’s Municipal Code. The Project Applicant is required by the Municipal Code to contribute a local development impact and mitigation fee, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in implementing the habitat conservation plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat.

With mandatory compliance with standard regul atory requirements (i.e., development impact and mitigation fee payment), the proposed Project would not conflict with any City policies or ordinances related to the protection of t he Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. (The Projec t’s consistency with applicable provisions of the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) are addressed in Response IV(f).)

The City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code also contai ns provisions for the colle ction of mitigation fees to further the implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP (refer to Title 3, Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code). The Project Applicant is re quired by the Municipal Code to contribute a local mitigation fee, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in implementing the Western Riverside County MSHCP reserve system (including the acquisition, management, and long-term maintenance of sensitive habitat areas). With mandatory compliance with standard regulatory requirements (i.e., mitigation fee payment), the proposed Project would not conflict with any City policies or ordinances related to the mitigation fee program associated with Western Riverside County MSHCP. (The Project’s consistency with applicable provisions of the MSHCP are addressed in Response IV(f).)

The City of Moreno Valley does not have any additional policies or ordinances in place to protect biological resources that are applicable to the Project. Mandatory compliance with the above referenced Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapters would ensure that implementation of the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with local policies and ordinances.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or another approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Response: The Project Site is located within the boundaries of the Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan but is not within or adjacent to any Criteria Cells. Required species survey areas for the Project Site were identified using the MSHCP Survey Areas

Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Requirements
The Project Site does not contain wetland/riparian features, or vernal pools on or adjacent to the Project Site regulated by the MSHCP; therefore, the Pr oject would not conflict with Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools. (Alden, 2022, p. 6)

Sensitive Plant Species
The Project Site is not within the NEPSSA or C ASSA; therefore, the NEPSS A requirements are not applicable to the Project and the Project is consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP narrow endemic plant species policies. (Alden, 2022, p. 5)

Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines
The Project Site is not adjacent to any MSHC P conservation area. Consequently, the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines do not apply to the Project. (Alden, 2022, p. 6)

Burrowing Owl
The Project Site is not within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area; therefore, a burrowing owl survey is not required.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 48 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MSHCP and Reserve Assembly Criteria
The Project Site is not located within any Criteria Cells, nor is it identified for potential use for the MSHCP Reserve Assembly. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with MSHCP conservation objectives for the area.

Sources:

1. Alden Environmental, Inc., 2022, General Biological Assessment for the Cottonwood and Edgemont Project. (Technical Appendix B)

2. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.48 – Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Fee Program

3. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.60 – Threatened and Endangered Species

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 14.40.040 – Public Tree Care

5. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 9.17.030 – Landscape Ordinance

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?

Response: The Cultural Resources Assessment (see Technical Appendix C ) prepared for the Project by Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA), which in cluded a comprehensive site survey and archival records search, identified no historical resources on the Project Site (BFSA, 2022a, p. 5.0-2). The potential for buried or masked cultural deposits within the Project Site is considered low to moderate based upon the lack of identified resources on the Project Site and previous impacts to the property (BFSA, 2022a, p. 5.0-5). Notwithstanding, because the Project Site contained multiple structures no later than 1948 (which were later demolished in approximately 1994), BFSA indicated there was the potential for buried historical deposits to be present on the Project Site (ibid.). The potential for Project implementation to directly or indirectly destroy unk nown, significant historic al resources that may be buried or masked on the Project Site is a significant impact and mitigation is required. The Project’s off- site improvement area is disturbed and developed under existing conditions (i.e., cleared, graded, plowed, and/or paved), with no potential to contain historic resources.

MM CR-1 and MM CR-3 through MM CR-9 would ens ure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant historical resource s that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impacts to significant historical resources would be reduced to less-than-significant.

Mitigation
MM CR-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall retain a professional archaeologist to conduct monitoring of a ll ground disturbing activities. The Project Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during Project construction.

The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the contractor and the City, shall develop a CRMP as defined in Mitigation Measure CR-3. The Project Archaeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Work er Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed.

MM CR-3 The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a CRMP in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting Tribe is defined as a Tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2
(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 49 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Project description and location;
b) Project grading and development scheduling;
c) Roles and responsi bilities of individuals on the Project; d) The pre-grading meeting and Cultural Reso urces Worker Sensitivity Training details; e) The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe (s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation;
f) The type of recordation needed for i nadvertent finds and the stipulations of recordation of sacred items; and
g) Contact information of relevant individuals for the Project.

MM CR-4 In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities (inadvertent disco veries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:

a) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Department:

i. Preservation-In-Place of t he cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Onsite reburial of the discovered item s as detailed in the treatment plan required pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR-1. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed. No recordation of sacred items is permitted without the written consent of all Consulting Native American Tribal Governments as defined in Mitigation Measure CR-3 The location fo r the future reburial area shall be identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City, and concurred to by the Consulting Native American Tribal Governments prior to ce rtification of the environmental document.

MM CR-5 The City shall verify that the following note is included on the Grading Plan:

MM CR-6 If potential historic or cultural resources are uncovered during excavation or construction activities at the project site that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to Project approval, all ground disturbing activities in the affected area within 100 f eet of the uncovered resource must cease immediately and a qualified person meeting the Secretary of the Interior's standards (36 CFR 61), Tribal Representatives, and all site monitors per the Mitigation Measures, shall be consulted by the City to evaluate the fi nd, and as appropriate recommend alternative measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate neg ative effects on the historic, or prehistoric resource. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional archeologist and Tribal Monitors, if needed. Determinations and recommendations by the consultant shall be immediately submitted to the Planning Division for consideration, and implemented as deemed appropriate by t he Community Development Director, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and any and all Consulting
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 50 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Native American Tribes as defined in CR-3 before any further work commences in the affected area. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan.

MM CR-7 If human remains are discovered, no further disturbance shall occur in the affected area until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are potentially Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission shall be notifi ed within 24 hours of the published finding to be given a reasonable opportunity to identify the “most likely descendant”. The “most likely descendant” shall then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains (California Public Resources Code 5097.98).

MM CR-8 It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure r equirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lea d Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).

MM CR-9 Prior to final inspection, the developer/permi t holder shall prompt the Project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre-grade meeting. T he Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?

Response: BFSA did not identify any archaeological reso urces on the Project Site during a pedestrian survey (BFSA, 2022a, p. 5.0-2). Given the relati vely gentle slope, valley setting, and lack of exposed bedrock outcrops for the Project, predictive modeling would suggest that if prehistoric archaeological sites are present within the Projec t area, they will likely be artifact scatters or spec ialized resource processing loci that would have developed as a result of prehistoric resource extraction practices (ibid.).

The records search performed by BFSA also did not identify any archaeological resources that had been previously recorded on or abutting the Project Site . Due to the extensive nature of past ground disturbances on the Project Site, the likelihood of di scovering archaeological resources on the Site is considered low (ibid.). Notwithstanding the preceding analysis, there is a possibility that archaeological resources may be present beneath the Project Site’s subsurface and may be impacted by ground- disturbing activities associated with Project construction. If any archaeological resources are unearthed on the Project Site during construction that meet the definition of an archaeolog ical resource cited in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to archaeological resources would be significant.

MM CR-1 and MM CR-3 through MM CR-9 would ens ure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant prehistoric archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground- disturbing activities associated with Project construction. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impacts to significant prehistoric archaeological resources would be reduced to less-than-si
gnificant.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 51 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The Project’s off-site improvement area is disturbed and developed under existing conditions with no potential to contain prehistoric archaeological resources.

c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formally dedicated
cemeteries?

Response: The Project Site does not serve as a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are within the immediate site vicinity (one-mile radius) (BF SA, 2022a, pp. 5.0-1 and 2). Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with the Project’s construction. The Project’s off-site improvement area is developed under existing conditions (i.e., cleared, graded, and/or paved) with no potential to contain human remains. The Project’s off-site improvement area is disturbed and developed under existing conditions with no potential to contain human remains.

If human remains are unearthed during construction activities at the Project Site, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply wi th California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of Human Remains.” According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to belie ve that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native Americ an Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American hu man remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the per mission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site . According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and dispositi on of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials.

With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, any potential impact to human remains, including human remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Project Site would be less than significant.

Sources:

1. Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA), Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Cottonwood & Edgemont Project. (Technical Appendix C) [Note: the Confidential Appendix for this document cannot be provided to the public due to the inclusion of confidential information pursuant to Government Code Section 6254.10.)

2. California Health Code Section 7050.5 – Dead Bodies

3. Public Resources Code Secti on 5097.94(k) – Powers and Duties

4. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 – Na tive American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites

VI. ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?

Response: The analysis below is based on the Energy Analysis (included as Technical Appendix D to this Initial Study) prepared for the Project by Urb an Crossroads and demonstrates that implementation of the Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 52 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Energy Use During Construction
The Project’s construction process would consume el ectricity and fuel. Proj ect-related construction activities would represent a “single- event” demand and would not require on -going or permanent commitment of energy resources. Project construction is estimated to consume approximately 54,749 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, approximately 22,598 gallons of diesel fuel from operation of construction equipment, 7,769 gallons of diesel fuel from construction vendor trips, and 9,741 gallons of fuel from construction worker trips (Urban Crossr oads, 2022b, p. 31). The amount of energy and fuel use anticipated by the Project’s construction activities are typical for the type of scale of construction proposed by the Project and there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 32). Furthermore, construction equipment would be required to conform to the applicable State regulations and CARB emissions standards, acting to minimize energy usage and promote equipment fuel efficiencies. For example, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. As supported by the preceding discussion, the Project’s construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

Energy Use Project Operations
Project-related traffic would consume approximately 78,710 gallons of fuel per year (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 32). The number of daily trips and miles trav eled by Project traffic are consistent with other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration in th e Inland Empire (ibid.). That is, the Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and/or vehicle miles traveled, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and State regulatory actions, and related transition of passenger vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, bio fuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future Project-related gasoline fuel demands per mile traveled below the level disclosed herein.

The location of the Project Site proximate to regional and local arterial roadways (for example, I-215) is expected to minimize the Project vehicle miles traveled within the region. Based on the foregoing, Project transportation energy consumption would not be co nsidered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

Building operations and site maintenance activities associated with the Project would result in the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Natural gas would be supplied to the Project by Southern California Gas Company; electricity would be supplied to the Project by Moreno Valley Utility (MVU).

Energy demands from Project operations are estimat ed at 3,414,316 kilo-British thermal units (kBTU) per year of natural gas and 1,298,765 kWh per year of electricity (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 33). The Project would utilize energy efficient/energy conservi ng designs and ope rational programs as required by State and local building codes, such as Title 24. Uses proposed by the Project are not inherently energy intensive, and Project energy demands in to tal would be comparable to, or less than, other industrial projects of similar scale and configuration (ibid.). Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project’s operational energy demand would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

b) Conflict with or obstru ct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Response: As supported by the proceeding analysis, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Consistency with Federal Energy Regulations

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Transportation and access to the Project Site is pr ovided by the local and regional roadway systems.

The Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project Site (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 35).

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 53 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The Transportation Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
The Project Site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The property selected for the Project facilitates ac cess, acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled and takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems. The Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under TEA-21. The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA-21 (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 35).

Consistency with State Energy Regulations

State of California Energy Plan
The Project Site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The location of the Project Site facilitates access and takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems. The Projec t therefore supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan and woul d not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 36).

California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards The Project would design building shells and buildin g components, such as windows; roof systems:
electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards. The Project also is required by Stat e law to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 36).

Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493)
AB 1493 is not directly applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards; however, is indirectly applicable to the Project because passenger cars and light duty trucks traveling to and from the Project Site are required to comply with the legislation’s fuel efficiency requirements. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493 (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 36).

California Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078)
Established under SB 1078, the California Renewable Portfolio Standards do not directly apply to the Project as it is a statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. Energy directly or indirectly supplied to the Project Site by electric corporations is required by law to comply with SB 1078. On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent, with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of California Renewable Portfolio Standards (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 36).

Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350)
The proposed Project would use energy from MVU, which has committed to diversify their portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of SB 350. Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new commercial developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 36).

Sources:

1. Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2022b. Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Energy Analysis. (Technical Appendix D)

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial ad verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 54 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Document
s/SP_042.pdf
Response: According to a Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Project by LOR Geotechnical Group Inc. (LOR), which is included as Technical Appendix E to this Initial Study, the Project Site is not located on or near an active fault or within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (LOR, 2021, p. 6). Because there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project Site, the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or st ructures to substantial adverse effects related to rupture of a known earthquake fault.

ii) Stron g seismic ground shaking?
Response: The Project Site is in a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. This risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Proj ect would be required to construct the proposed building in accordance with the California Buildin g Standards Code (CBSC), also known as California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 (Part 2), and the Moreno Valley Building Code, which is based on the CBSC with local amendments. The CBSC and Moreno Valley Building Code (Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 8.20) prov ide standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures, and have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions. In addition, the CBSC (Chapter 18) and the Moreno Valley Building Code (Chapter 8.21) require development pr ojects to prepare geologic engineering reports to identify site-specific geologic and seismic conditio ns and implement the site-specific recommendations contained therein, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, selection of appropriate structural systems in order to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground-shaking. The Project Applicant retained a professional geotechnical firm, LOR, to prepare a geologic investigation for the Project Site (see Technical Appendix E ). The geologic investigation included recommendations for design, construction, and grading considerations based on the geological conditions on the Project Site and the Project’s site design. The recommendations included seismic design considerations, geotechnical design considerations, site grading recommendations, construction considerations, foundation design and construction, floor slab design and construction, and pavement design parameters. The geologic investigation complies with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the CBSC and Chapter 8.21 of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code.

In conformance with the Municipal Code, the City
will condition the Project Applicant to comply with the site-specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Geologic Investigation. With mandatory compliance with building code standards and site-specific design and construction measures, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death, involving seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Response: According to the Project’s geologic investigat ion and information contained in the City’s General Plan, the Project Site is in an area with a very low liquefaction susceptibility (City of Moreno Valley, 2021a, Map S-2; LOR, 2021, p. 8). Notwit hstanding, as noted above, the City will require the Project Site be developed in accordance with the latest applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the standard requirements of the CBSC and the More no Valley Building Code, to minimize potential liquefaction hazards. In addition, the Project Applican t would be required via conditions of approval to comply with the grading and construction recommendations contained within the Project’s geologic investigation for the Project Site to further reduce th e risk of seismic-related hazards, including ground failure due to liquefaction. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial hazards associ ated with seismic-related ground failure and/or liquefaction hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.

iv) Landslides?
Response: According to the Project’s geologic investigation, the Project Site is relatively flat and is in an area of the City where landslides are not common; additionall y, during the field survey, no evidence of F.1.c
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 55 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
mass movement was observed on the Project Site (LOR, 2021, p. 6). Moreover, according to the City’s General Plan (refer to Map S-2, Landsliding), the Project Site is located in an area that has a low potential for landslides. The Project would introduce retaining walls along portions of the northern and southern boundaries of the Project Site; however, as required by Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.21, the proposed retaining walls would be constructed in accordance with the site-specific recommendations contained within the geologic analysis for the Project Site (see Technical Appendix E ). Mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained with in the Project Site’s geotechnical report would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-site and abutting off-site areas. Accordingl y, the Project would not be exposed to substantial landslide risks, and implementation of the Project would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) Result in substantial so il erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Response: Grading and earthwork activities associated with Project construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. The Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all devel opment projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program . Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The Project’s SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Proj ect Applicant will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution – including erosion/sedimentation – is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Exampl es of BMPs that may be utilized dur ing construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotex tiles, storm drain inlet protecti on, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. In addition, the Pr oject Applicant would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which would reduce the amount of particulate matter in the air and minimize the potential for wind erosion (SCAQMD, 2005). With m andatory compliance to the requirements noted in the Project’s SWPPP, as well as applicable regulatory requirements, the potential for water and/or wind erosion impacts during Project construction would be less than significant.

Long-term operational impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be precluded by compliance with regulatory measures. To meet the requirements of the City’s Municipal Storm Water Permit, and in accordance Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 8.21.170, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which is a site-specific post- construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants. The WQMP is required to identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from storm water and non-storm water discharges. The preliminary WQMP for the Project, which is provided as Technical Appendix I1 to the Initial Study, identifies non-structural source control BMPs (such as vacuum sweeping of parking lo ts as part of routine maintenance), structural source control BMPs (such as utilizing efficient irrigation systems that minimize overspray), and preventive, low impact development BMPs (such as the use of permeable surfaces across the site, catch basin inserts, and an underground retention system) to minimize erosion. The WQMP also is required to establish a post-construction implementation and maintenance plan to ensure on-going, long-term erosion protection. Compliance with the WQMP will be required as a condition of approval for the Project, as will the long-term maintenance of erosion and sediment control features. Because the Project would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control meas ures to preclude substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to soil erosion.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 56 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Response: As noted under Response VII(a), the Project Site is neither located in an area susceptible to landsliding nor located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable that would result in on- or off-site landslides. No impact would occur.

Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move downslope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is a re gional event. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along the sloping ground. The Project Site’s potential for lateral spreading is considered low due to the Site’s relatively flat topography, distance from slopes, and no potential for liquefaction (as noted under Response VII(a)). The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that would result in lateral spreading. No impact would occur.

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), subsidence is the gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface due to removal or displacement of subsurface earth materials. The Project Site was not previously used for underground mining or groundwater extraction. Therefore, the Project Site has a very low potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is susceptible to subsidence.

Impacts would be less than significant.

According to field investigations performed by LOR as part of the geologic investigation, the Project Site is underlain by relatively dense to very dense older alluvial material; thus, the potential for settlement is very low (LOR, 2021, p. 8). Notwithstanding, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Project’s geologic investigation (which the City of Moreno Valley would assign as conditions of approval pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.21.050), the Project’s grading activities would include the removal of near surface soils down to competent materials and replacement with properly compacted fill, which would preclude potential soil hazards related to settlement and ensure that potential soil hazards related to settlement remain less than significant (LOR, 2021, p. 13).

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?

Response: According to soil testing performed as part of LOR’s geologic investigation of the Project Site, the Site contain soils with a very low expansion potential (LOR, 2021, p. 15). Accordingly, the Project would not create substantial risks to life or property from exposure to expansive soils. No impact would occur.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tank s or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?

Response: The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

Response: A Paleontological Assessment was prepared by BFSA and is included as Technical Appendix F to this Initial Study. According to the BFSA’s assessment, the Project Site is underlain by very old alluvial fan deposits from the Middle to Early Pleistocene era, which have a high paleontological resource sensitivity (BFSA, 2022b, p. 8). If Proj ect grading and excavation activities encroach into previously undisturbed Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits, the Project could result in impacts to important paleontological resources that may exist below the ground surface if they are unearthed and not properly F.1.c
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 57 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
protected. Therefore, the Project’s potential to di rectly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource buried beneath the ground surface is determi ned to be a significant impact and mitigation is required.

Implementation of MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-4 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, with implementation of MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-4, the Project’s potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation

MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Moreno Valley that a qualified paleontologist has been retained by the Project Applicant to conduct monitoring of excavation activities and has the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected paleontological resources are unearthed.

The paleontological monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The paleontological monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow of removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.

MM GEO-3 Recovered specimens shall be properly pr epared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including scr een washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage, such as the Western Science Museum in Hemet, California, is required for significant discoveries.

MM GEO-4 A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of t he specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Moreno Valley prior to building final.

Sources:

1. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc (LOR), Preliminary Geotechnical and Infiltration Feasibility Investigation Proposed Industrial Development APNs 263-190-012, -014, -015, -016, -017, - 018, -019, and -036 Moreno Valley, California. (Technical Appendix E)

2. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Paleontological Assessment for the Cottonwood & Edgemont Project, (Technical Appendix F)

3. Moreno Valley General Plan 2040
• Chapter 6 – Safety
- Map S-2, Liquefaction Hazard
- Map S-3, Landslide Hazards

3. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 8.20 – Moreno Valley Building Code

4. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 9.08.160 – Seismic Hazards

5. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 8.21.050 – Grading Permit Requirements

6. Moreno Valle y Municipal Code Section 9.08.080 – Grading F.1.c
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 58 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?

Response: A Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHGA, included as Technical Appendix G) was prepared by Urban Crossroads to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG ) emissions that would result from Project- related construction and operational activities. The findings of the Project’s GHGA are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.

While estimated Project-related GHG emissions can be calculated, the direct impacts of such emissions on Global Climate Change (GCC) and global warming cannot be determined on the basis of available science because global climate change is a global phenomenon and not limited to a specific locale such as the Project Site and its immediate vicinity. Furthermore, there is no evidence that would indicate that the emissions from a project the size of the proposed Project could directly or indirectly affect the global climate. Because global climate change is the re sult of GHG emissions, and GHGs are emitted by innumerable sources worldwide, the proposed Project would not result in a direct impact to global climate change; rather, Project-related impacts to global climate change only could be potentially significant on a cumulative basis (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 8) . Therefore, the analysis below focuses on the Project’s potential to contribute to global climate change in a cumulatively considerable way.

The City of Moreno Valley has not adopted a numerical threshold for determining the significance of GHG emissions; however, the City has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion used by other agencies, based on substantial evidence. Specifically, the City has selected the 3,000 Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Per Year (MTCO
2e/yr) per year threshold recommended by SCAQMD staff
for residential and commercial sector projects against which to compare Project-related GHG emissions.

If Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold, then Project- related GHG emissions would clearly have a less-than- significant impact. On the other hand, if Project- related GHG emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the Project would be considered a substantial source of GHG emissions. Refer to the Project’s GHGA (see Technical Appendix G ) for a detailed discussion regarding the methodology used by SCAQMD to establish the significance threshold and their rationale in support of its use.

The annual GHG emissions associated with the Proj ect are summarized in Table 7. The methodology used to calculate the Project’s GHG emissions is described in detail in the Project’s GHGA (see Technical Appendix G).

Table 7 Total Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 12.13 2.16E-03 4.77E-04 12.33
Area Source 0.01 3. 00E-05 0.00 0.01
Energy Source 412.53 0.02 5.69E-03 414.80
Mobile Source 664.41 0.02 0.05 679.66
TRU Source 12.70
On-Site Equipment 101.50 0.03 0.00 102.32
Waste 24.48 1.45 0.00 60.66
Water Usage 62.37 0.76 0.02 86.70
Total CO2e (All Sources) 1,369.19
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022c) Table 3-6

As shown above, the Proj ect will result in appro ximately 1,369.19 MTCO 2e emissions annually, which
would not exceed the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial GHG emissions – either directly or indirectly – that would have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 59 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emission of greenhouse gases?

Response: The Project would comply with a number of regulations, policies, plans, and policy goals that would reduce GHG emissions, including the Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which are regulations applicable to the Project. For more information on these regulations as well as other state-wide plans, policies, and regulations associated with GHG emissions that are not applicable to the Project, refer to the Project’s GHGA (see Technical Appendix G).

On October 9, 2012, the Moreno Valley City Council approved an Energy Efficiency and Climate Action Strategy and related GHG analysis. The Energy Efficiency and Climate Action Strategy document identifies potential programs and polic ies to reduce overall City energy consumption and increase the use of renewable energy. The majority of the policie s are directed at municipal operations of the City, but the document also contains recommended policie s for the community at large (including private development projects). These recommended policies include but are not limited to energy efficiency, water use reduction, trip reduction, solid waste dive rsion, and educational policies. The overall goal of the Energy Efficiency and Climate Action Strategy is to ensure that the City is consistent with and would not otherwise conflict with the provisions of AB 32. As demonstrated by the analysis below, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of SB 32, which as a successor to AB 32 requires more stringent GHG emissions reductions than AB 32, and, therefore, would not obstruct implementation of the components of the City’s Energy Efficiency and Climate Action Strategy that are applicable to the Project.

Additionally, as part of the adoption of General Plan 2040, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP).

The CAP establishes an inventory of the City’s baseline (year 2018) GHG emissions, quantifies the City’s long-term GHG emissions, and establishes the m easures the City will implement – including requirements for new development projects to be energy efficient – to achieve the year 2030 GHG emissions reduction goals of SB 32 as well as additional GHG emissions through the General Plan’s horizon year (2040). As demonstrated by the anal ysis below, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of SB 32, and, therefore, would neither c onflict with the CAP nor hinder or delay the City’s ability to meet the GHG emissions reductions targets that are outlined in the CAP.

In April 2015, Governor Edmund Brown Jr. signed Executive Order B-30-15, which advocated for a statewide GHG-reduction target of 40 percent below year 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In September 2016, Governor Brown signed the Senate Bill (SB) 32. SB 32 formally established a statewide goal to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below year 1990 levels by 2030. To date, no statutes or regulations have been adopted to translate the year 2050 GHG reduction goal into comparable, scientifically based Statewide emission reduction targets.

CARB identified measures in their 2017 Scoping Plan Update to identify the measures that would achieve the emissions reductions goals of SB 32. As explai ned in point-by-point detail in Section 3.7 of the Project’s GHGA (refer to Table 3-7 of Technical Appendix G ), the Project would not conflict with applicable measures of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and would not preclude/obstruct implementation of the Scoping Plan Update (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 49-53).

According to research conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and supported by the CARB, California, under its existing and proposed GHG reduction policies (i.e., CARB Scoping Plan), is on track to meet the year 2030 reduction targets established by SB 32 (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 29).

As described above, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan; therefore, the Project would not interfere with the State’s ability to achieve the year 2030 GHG- reduction target established by SB 32.

Rendering a significance determination for year 2050 GHG emissions relative to Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 would be speculative because EO B-30-15 establishes a goal more than three decades into the future; no agency with GHG subject matter expertise has adopted regulations to achieve these statewide goals at the Project-level; and available analytical m odels cannot presently quantify all Project-related emissions in those future years. Further, due to the technological shifts anticipated and the unknown parameters of the re
gulatory framework in 2050, available GHG models and the corresponding technical F.1.c
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 60 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
analyses are subject to limitations for purposes of quantitatively estimating the Project’s emissions in 2050.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not conflict with the State’s ability to achieve the State-wide GHG reduction mandates and would be consistent with applicable policies and plans related to GHG emissions reductions. Impacts would be less than si gnificant.

Sources:

1. Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads). 2022c. Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Greenhouse Gas Analysis. (Technical Appendix G)

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?

Response: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Technical Appendix H) was prepared for the Project by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner). As part of the Phase I ESA efforts, Partner conducted a visual inspection of the Proj ect Site, researched regulatory hazardous materials databases, and reviewed historical reference materials (including aerial photographs, topographic maps, and City of Moreno Valley directories). The analysis below, which incorporates the findings of Partner’s research, addresses the potential effects related to hazardous materials that may be uncovered on the Project Site under existing conditions or may be utilized while constructing and/or operating the Project.

Existing Site Conditions Impacts
The Project Site is vacant and undeveloped and has been so since approximately 1994. Prior to 1994, the Project Site contained multiple residences (f rom at least 1938). Based on a review of historic regulatory agency hazardous materials database s, historic site aerial photographs, and a reconnaissance of the Project Site, SCS determined that the Project Site does not contain any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) (Partner , 2021, p. 6). A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: 1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. Based on the lack of observed or historic hazardous conditions on the Project Site, implementation of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public of environment thro ugh routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials from the Project Site under existing conditions. A less-than-significant impact would occur.

Construction
-Related Impacts
Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractor) would operate on the subject property during construction of the Project. Heavy equipment is typically fueled and maintained by petroleum-based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which is considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. Also, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project Site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater ri sk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the proposed Proj ect than would occur on any other similar construction site.

Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction -related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA), US Department of Transportation regulations listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 49, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act); California Department of Transportation standards; California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), SCAQMD, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Industrial Relations Divi sion of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), better known as Cal/OSHA. With mandatory compliance to applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. Impacts would be less than significant.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 61 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Long-Term Operational Impacts
The Project Site would be used for industrial land uses, which could include warehouse distribution businesses. There is the potential for hazardous materials (e.g., diesel fuel, cleansers, lubricants) to be used during the course of normal daily operations at t he Project Site with these types of users. State and federal Community-Right-to-Know laws allow t he public access to information about the amounts and types of chemicals that may be used by businesses on the Project Site. Laws also are in place that requires businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies a building on the Project Site and that handles haz ardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) will require a permit from the Moreno Valley Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the County of Riverside Fire Department and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regard less of the amount handled by the business. In addition, any business handling at any one time, greate r than 500 pounds of solid, 55 gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material, is required, under Assembly Bill 2185 (AB 2185), to file a Hazardous Materials Business Em ergency Plan (HMBEP). A HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. The intent of the HMBEP is to satisfy federal and State Community Right-To-Know laws and to provide detailed information for use by emergency responders.

If businesses that use or store hazardous materi als occupy the Project, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, use, emission, and disposal of hazardous substances (as described above). With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, us e, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project in crease the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

With mandatory regulatory compliance, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project are determined to be less than significant and mitigation is not required.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?

Response: Accidents involving hazardous materials that could pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment would be highly unlikely during the construction and long-term operation of the Project and are not reasonably foreseeable. As discussed above under Response IX(a), the transport, use, and handling of hazardous materials on the Project Site during construction is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for upset and accidents than would occur on any other similar construction site. Upon buildout, the Project Site would operate as a warehouse distribution center. Based on the operational char acteristics of warehous e distribution centers, it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during a future oc cupant’s daily operations; however, as discussed above under Response IX(a), the Project Applicant would be required to comply with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations related to the tran sport, handling, and usage of hazardous material.

Accordingly, impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant during both construction and long-term op eration of the Project and mitigation would not be required.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 62 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emi ssions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

Response: There are no existing or proposed schools within 0.25-mile of the Project Site (Google Earth, 2022). The nearest existing school to the Project Site is Towngate Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.75-mile northeast of the Project Site. Thus, the Project would not have a significant effect in emitting hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?

Response: Partner conducted a review of hazardous materials databases while preparing the Project’s Phase I ESA (refer to Section 4.0 of Technical Appendix H). Partner determined that the Project Site is not included on any hazardous materials database list, including hazardous materials databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65 962.5 (Partner, 2021, pp. 9-13). No impact would occur.

e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?

Response: The Project Site is located approximately 1.0-mile northwest of the March Air Reserve Base / Inland Port (MARB/IP) Airport. According to the MARB/IPA Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project Site is located within the Inner Approach/Departure Zone (Compatibility Zone B1) and the Primary Approach/Departure Zone (Compatibility Zone C1 ) (RCALUC, 2014, Map A-1).

Properties within Compativility Zones B1 and C1 are subject to relatively high accident hazard potential and noise levels associated with aircraft operations, and sensitive land uses such as schools, hospitals, and congregate care facilities are prohibited; however, uses non-sensitive uses – like the light industrial use proposed by the Project – are allowed within Zones B1 and C1 subject to density restrictions. The Project would be cosnsitent with the density restructio ns of the ALUCP. The Project would not result in safety hazards for people residing or working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant.

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?

Response: The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities under existing conditions, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route (City of Moreno Valley, 2017, p. 97); there is no potential for the Project to adversely affect an existing emergency response or evacuation plan. During construction and at Project buildout, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City. As part of the City’s discretionary review process, the City of Moreno Valley reviewed the Project to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to-and-from the proposed ware house building for public safety and determined that the Project would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not impai r implementation of or phy sically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur.

g) Expose people or struct ures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?

Response: According to Map S-5, Fire Hazard Severity Zones , of the City’s General Plan, the Project Site is not within a fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) or is in proximity to a FHSZ (City of Moreno Valley, F.1.c
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 63 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2021a). No wildlands are located on or adjacent to the Project Site and the Project Site is largely disturbed or devoid of vegetation and surrounded on all sides by developed or maintained properties and paved roads. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. No impact would occur.

Sources:

1. Partner Engineering and Scie nce, Inc. (Partner). 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. (Technical Appendix H)

2. Moreno Valley General Plan 2040
• Chapter 6 – Safety Element
- Map S-5 – Fire Hazard Severity Zones
- Map S-7 – Emergency Evacuation Risk Assessment

3. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017

4. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/17%20- %20Vol.%201%20March%20Air%20Reserve%20Base%20Final.pdf?ver=2016-08-15-145812- 700

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?

Response: As demonstrated in the analysis below, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, t he U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the NPDES program to control direct storm water discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirem ents. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Moreno Valley, including the Proj ect Site, is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.

The Project has the potential to result in water quality impacts during short-term construction activities.

The grading/excavation required for Project implementation would temporarily result in exposed soils that may be subject to wind and water erosion. Al though erosion occurs naturally in the environment, improperly managed construction activities can lead to substantially accelerated rates of erosion that are considered detrimental to the environment. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and the City of Moreno Valley (Municipal Code Chapter 8.10 et seq. and Section 8.21.170), the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit (NPDES Permit). The NPDES Permit is required for all projects that include construction ac tivities, such as clearing, soil stockpiling, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area, as is the case with the proposed Project. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program . Compliance with the NPDES Permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities, including grading. The SWPPP will specify the BMPs that the Project Applicant would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and /or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be ut ilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandba
g barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, F.1.c
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 64 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydr o-seeding. Mandatory compliance wi th the SWPPP would ensure that the Project’s construction does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Stormwater pollutants that may be produced during Project operation include bacterial indicators, metals, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, trash & debris, oil & grease, and toxic organic compounds (CASC, 2021b, p. 22).

The Project Applicant would be required to implement a WQMP to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the pollutants of concern of a development project via BMPs, implementation of which ensures the on-going protection of the watershed basin. The Project’s preliminary WQMP is included as Technical Appendix H to this EIR. As identified in the preliminary WQMP , the Project is designed to in clude structural source control BMPs (including underground detention basin and modular wetland system) as well as operational source controls (including but not limited to: drainage system maintenance, storm drain system stenciling and signage, and implementation of minimal pestici de use) to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater runoff flows before they are discharged from the site. Compliance with the WQMP would be required as a condition of Project approval pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter

8.10 and Municipal Code Section 8.21.170, and long-te rm maintenance of on-site BMPs would be required to ensure their long-term effectiveness. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with long- term operational activities would be less than significant.

Additionally, the NPDES program requires certain land uses, including the industrial land uses proposed by the Project, to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program, unless an exempt ion has been granted. On April 1, 2014, the California State Water Resources Control Board adopted an updated new NPDES permit for storm water discharge associated with industrial activities (referred to as the “Industrial General Permit”). The new Industrial General Permit, which is more stringent than the former Industrial General Permit, became effective on July 1, 2015. Under this currently effe ctive Industrial General Permit, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program or receive an exem ption. Because the permit is dependent upon a detailed accounting of all operational activities and procedures, and the Project’s building users and their operational characteristics are not known at this time, details of the operational SWPPP (including BMPs) or potential exemption to the SWPPP operational ac tivities requirement cannot be determined with certainty at this time. However, based on the performance requirements of the Industrial General Permit, the Project’s mandatory compliance with all applicable water quality regulations would further reduce potential water quality impacts during long-term operation.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantiall y degrade surface or ground water quality during construction or long-term operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?

Response: The Project Applicant does not propose the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction activities on the Project Site. Therefore, the Projec t would not directly extract groundwater resources.

Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project has no potential to substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and the Project’s impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.

Development of the Project would increase impervi ous surface coverage on the property, which would reduce the amount of water percolating down into the underground aquifer that underlies the Project Site and a majority of the City. However, and as noted in the City’s General Plan EIR, the impact of an incremental reduction in groundwater would not be significant as domestic water supplies are not reliant on groundwater as a primar y source (City of Moreno Valle y, 2021c, pp. 4.10-5 ). With buildout of the F.1.c
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 65 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Project, the local groundwater levels would not be substantially adversely affected. Accordingly, buildout of the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

For the reasons stated above, the Project would neither substantially deplete groundwater supplies nor interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial er osion or siltation on- or
off-site?
Response: Under existing conditions, the Project Site drains from the south to the north as surface sheet flow, with runoff ultimately flowing unto the Edgemont Channel. (CASC, 2021a, p. 1)

The Project would mass grade the entire property and construct two light industrial buildings and associated improvements, which would change the Project Site’s existing ground contours and alter the existing drainage patterns interior to the Project Si te. Upon buildout of the Project, stormwater flow generated on the Project Site would flow through the proposed on-site storm drain system and discharge to the Edgemont Channel (as occurs under existing conditions).

Although the Project would alter the subject property’s drainage patterns, such changes would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Under post-development conditions, a majority of the Project Site would be covered with impervious surfaces and, therefore, the amounts of exposed soils on the Project Site would be minimal. Also, as discussed under Response X(a), the Project would construct an integrated storm drain system on-site with BMPs to minimize the amounts of water-borne pollutants carried from the Project Site. The BMPs proposed by the Project are effective at removing sediment from stormwater runoff flows (CASC, 2021b, p. 7). Therefore, stormwater runoff flows leaving the Project Site would not carry substantial amounts of sedimen t. Once stormwater runoff leaves the Project Site, it would be discharged to the proposed public storm drain line running thro ugh the Project Site that will constructed as part of the Project. Because stormwater runoff from the Project Site would be discharged with a relatively low flow rate within an existing, concrete-lined drainage channel (i.e., Edgemont Channel), there is no potential for the Project’s stormw ater runoff to result in substantial erosion as it leaves the Project Site. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- site or off-site, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?

Response: Proposed grading and earthwork activities on the Project Site would alter the Site’s existing drainage patterns but would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the local area, as runoff within the Project Site and from I-215 Frontage Road and Edgemont Street would continue to flow northerly to the Edgemont Channel as occurs under existing conditions. Furthermore, according to a Preliminary Drainage Study prepared for the Project (see Technical Appendix I2), runoff flows discharged from the Project Site during peak storm events would not exceed existing volumes and flow rates (CASC, 2021a, p. 4).

Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff discharged from the site in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site or that would exceed the capacity of the existing st ormwater drainage system servicing the Project Site.

Impacts would be less than significant.

iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Response: The Project’s proposed storm drain system is sized and designed to discharge on-site flows at a volume and rate that does not exceed existi ng conditions and can be accommodated by existing storm drain facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the Pro ject would not create or contribute runoff F.1.c
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 66 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
water that would exceed the capacity of the existi ng stormwater drainage system servicing the Project Site. Impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed under Response X(a), the Project Applic ant would be required to comply with a future SWPPP and the Project’s Preliminary WQMP (Technical Appendix I1), which identify required BMPs to be incorporated into the Project to ensure that near-term construction activities and long-term post- development activities of the proposed Project would not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff.

Therefore, with mandatory compliance with t he Project’s SWPPP and WQMP, the Project would not create or contribute substantial additional source s of polluted runoff, and impacts would be less than significant.

iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Response: According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06065C0745G the Project Site is primarily located within FEMA Flood Zone X (unshaded), with the remainder of the Site (the northeast portion) is located within FEMA Flood Zone X (shaded).

The FEMA Flood Zone X (unshaded) is defined as ar eas of minimal flood hazard, located outside a special flood hazard area (SFHA) and with less than a 0.2 percent annual chance flood. The FEMA Flood Zone X (shaded) is defined as areas of modera te flood hazards, but not within a SFHA, and are between the limits of the 1 percent annual flood and the 0.2 percent annual flood. (FEMA, 2008; FEMA, 2020) Although FEMA Flood Zone X (shaded) is not co nsidered a SFHA, the Project would not place any vertical structures or other improvements on the portion of the Site located within the Flood Zone X (shaded) area that could impede or redirect flood flows. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant.

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Response: The Project Site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone. Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to release pollutants due to 100-year flood inundation (FEMA, 2020). A tsunami is a sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, pr oduced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a seafloor associat ed with large, shallow earthquakes. A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a re servoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. The Project Site is located approximately 45 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Due to distance, the Project would not be subject to tsunami-related inundation. Additionally, there are no enclosed or semi-enclosed bodies of water in proximity to the Project Site. Due to distance, the Project would not be subject to seiche related inundation. No impacts would occur.

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

Response: The Project Site is within the Santa Ana River Basin and Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, as discussed under Response X(a) above, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies nor interfere substantially wi th groundwater recharge and, therefore, is not expected to conflict with or obstruct a sustai nable groundwater management plan. Further, BSMWC produces potable groundwater from the San Bernardino – Riverside Groundwater Basin – South, which is an adjudicated basin (DWR, 2022a; DWR, 2022b). Adjudicated basins are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirement to develop Groundwater Sustainability Plan because such basins already operate under a court-ordered water management plan to ensure their long-term sustainability. No component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management plan for the San Bernardino – Ri verside Groundwater Basin – South. As such, the Project’s construction and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 67 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources:

1. CASC Engineering and Consulting, 2021a, Preliminary Hydrology Calculations. (Technical Appendix I1)

2. CASC Engineering and Consulting, 2021b, Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan. (Technical Appendix I2)

3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – Flood Map Service Center: Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06065C0745G,
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Edgemont%2C%20CA#searchresultsanch or

4. Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) Flood Zones – Glossary https://www.fema.gov/glossary/flood-zones

5. Google Earth Pro

6. Department of Water Resources, Adjudicated Basins Annual Reporting, https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/index.jsp?appid=adjbasin

7. Department of Water Resources, Basin Prioritization https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp- dashboard/final/

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Ph ysically divide an established community?
Response: Development of the Project would not physicall y disrupt or divide the arrangement of an established community. Under existing conditions, the Project Site is bordered by Old 215 Frontage Road on the west, Edgemont Street on the east, and legal non-conforming residences on the north and south. The residences that border the Project Si te on the north and south are separated by existing walls/fencing. Accordingly, the Project would not physically divide an established community because the site is already physically separated from abutting properties. Furthermore, the Project Site is not needed for access to any surrounding properties and development of the Project would not isolate an existing surrounding use. No impact would occur.

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?

Response: The Project would develop the subject property in accordance with its underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations and would not c onflict with any applicable policies contained in the General Plan or applicable zoning regulations/d evelopment standards contained in the Municipal Code. Because the Project would have no conflict with the General Plan and/or zoning regulations, no significant environmental impact would occur from su ch a conflict. Additionally, the Project would not conflict with any applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the SCAQMD’s AQMP, SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Sources:

1. Moreno Valley Zoning Map, https://www.moval.org/city_hall/general-plan2040/NewZoning.pdf

2. Moreno Valley Adopted Land Use Map, https://www.moval.org/city_hall/general-plan2040/GP- LandUseMap.pdf

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?

Response: The Project Site is not within an area known to be underlain by regionally- or local- important mineral resources (City of Moreno Valley, 2021c, p. 4.12-4). Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State of California. In addition, the City’s General Plan EIR does not identify any locally-important mineral resource recovery sites on or within close proximity to the Project Site. No impacts would occur.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 68 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?

Response: Refer to Response XII(a), above. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur.

Sources:

1. Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2040 • Section 4.12 – Mineral Resources

XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?

Response: A Noise Impact Analysis (NIA) was prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads to evaluate Project-related long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts. Additionally, Urban Crossroads prepared a supplemental noise analysis (SNI A) to evaluate Project-related off-site, short- term construction noise impacts. The NIA is included as Technical Appendix J1 and the SNIA is included as Technical Appendix J2 to this Initial Study and their findings are summarized on the following pages.

Refer to Appendices 7.1 through 8.2 of the Project’s NIA for detailed noise calculation worksheets.

Construction Noise Impact
Construction activities on the Project Site would create temporary periods of noise when heavy construction equipment is in operation and would cause a short-term increase in ambient noise levels.

Each construction stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed during that stage. As a result, each stage has its own noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher im pact noise levels than others. The Project’s construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages: 1) site preparation; 2) grading; 3) building construction; 4) paving; and 5) application of architectural coatings. The maximum daytime Project construction noise levels at representative sensitive receptor locations near the Project Site are summarized in Table 8 (refer to Exhibit 8-A of the Pr oject’s NIA for receptor locations). Table 8 also presents maximum daytime (7:01 am – 7:59 pm) construction noise levels at a distance of 200 feet from the Site, which is the standard for evaluation establ ished by the City’s Municipal Code (see Chapter

11.80).

Table 8 Daytime Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction Paving Architectural
Coating
Highest
Levels2
R1 64.0 67.0 65.0 67.0 61.0 67.0
R2 66.9 69.9 67.9 69.9 63.9 69.9
R3 59.4 62.4 60.4 62.4 56.4 62.4
R4 59.2 62.2 60.2 62.2 56.2 62.2
R5 59.9 62.9 60.9 62.9 56.9 62.9
R6 58.4 61.4 59.4 61.4 55.4 61.4
at 200' 58.0 61.0 59.0 61.0 55.0 61.0
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A of the Project’s NIA (see Technical Appendix J1). 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project Site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 8.1 of the Project’s NIA.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 10-2)

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 69 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
As shown in Table 8, maximum construction noise levels are expected to range between 61.0 to 69.9 A- weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent sound level (Leq) at the nearest receiver locations and 61.0 dBA Leq at 200 feet from the property line of the Project Site. Pursuant to Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section

11.80.030(C), a significant impact would occur if Project construction activities were to generate daytime noise levels of 65 dBA Leq or higher when measured at 200 feet from the Project Site boundary. Because Project construction activities would result in maximum noise levels of 61.0 dBA L eq when measured at a distance of 200 feet from the Project Site, construction activities on the Project Site would not exceed the standard established by the Moreno Valley Municipal Code. Noise impacts from daytime construction activities would be less than significant.

There is the potential that specific construction acti vities (i.e., concrete pouring) could occur on the Project Site outside of daytime hours. Because the City’s Municipal Code does not allow construction activities outside of daytime hours by right, the City would be required to approve any nighttime concrete pouring activities, pursuant to Municipal Code Secti on 11.80.030(D)(7). If nighttime construction activities were to occur, noise levels above 60 dBA L eq at 200 feet from the Project Site would exceed the standards established in the City’s Municipal Code (Section 11.80.030(C)). The only Project construction activities that have a reasonable potenti al to occur during nighttime hours are concrete pouring. Noise levels for nighttime concrete pouring are listed in Table 9.

As shown in Table 9, maximum nighttime concrete pour activities would not exceed 51.1 at nearby sensitive receptor locations or 47.2 dBA L eq at a distance of 200 feet fr om the Project Site. Because potential nighttime concrete pouring activities would not exceed 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 200 feet from the Project Site, Project construction would not ex ceed the standard established by the Moreno Valley Municipal Code. Impacts during nighttime construction activities would be less than significant.

Table 9 Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1 Use
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Paving
Construction2
Nighttime
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 Residence 36.6 60 No
R2 Residence 39.3 60 No
R3 Church 41.0 60 No
R4 Residence 47.4 60 No
R5 Residence 51.1 60 No
R6 Residence 46.3 60 No
at 200' - 47.2 60 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-B of the Project’s NIA (see Technical Appendix J1). 2 Paving construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to nearby receiver locations.
3 Exterior noise level standards as shown on Table 3-2 of Technical Appendix J1. 4Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the nighttime construction noise level threshold?
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 10-3)

Off-Site Improvements Construction Noise Impact
To support the Project’s proposed development, off-site water line and storm drain improvements are proposed as part of the Project. As previously discussed, the Project proposes waterline improvements within the existing ROWs for Old 215 Frontage Road and Cottonwood Avenue and proposes a new connection to the existing concrete-lined Edgemont Channel. The Project also includes the construction of a new outlet within the Edgemont Channel.

As with the Project’s on-site construction activities, the Project’s off-site construction activities would be required to comply with the City’s stationary-source noise level limits of 65 dBA Leq when measured at a distance of 200 feet or more from the source during the daytime hours. At 200 feet from the source, the Project’s off-site improvements are calculated to generate a construction source noise level of 63.3 dBA Leq. (Urban Crossroads, 2022g, pp. 1-3) It is antici pated that the off-site improvements would proceed linearly along a proposed alignment and would not take place at one location for the entire duration of construction. Construction noise from th is work would, therefore, be relativel y short term because it F.1.c
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 70 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
would take place for only a matter of days at the analyzed sensitive uses. As water pipe construction work moves linearly along the alignment and farther from sensitive uses, noise levels would be reduced.

The construction noise analysi s shows that the off-site construction noise levels will satisfy the City of Moreno Valley daytime 65 dBA Leq significance thre shold at 200 feet during Project construction activities and impacts would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022g, p. 3)

Operational Noise Impact
Stationary (on-site) noise sources associated with lo ng-term Project operation are expected to include idling trucks, delivery truck and automobile parki ng, delivery truck backup alarms, roof-mounted equipment (e.g., heating/ventilation equipment), as well as noise associated with the loading and unloading of goods. The daytime and nighttime stationary maximum noise levels associated with Project operation at nearby sensitive recept or locations (the same receptor locations used for the construction analysis, above) and at 200 feet from the Project Site are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10 Operational Noise Levels
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 54.6 54.6 65 60 No No
R2 56.5 56.5 65 60 No No
R3 55.0 55.0 65 60 No No
R4 55.9 55.8 65 60 No No
R5 49.4 48.2 65 60 No No
R6 47.5 46.3 65 60 No No
at 200' 52.3 52.1 65 60 No No
1 See Exhibit 8-A of Technical Appendix J1.
2 Project operational noise levels as shown on Tables 9-3 and 9-4 of Technical Appendix J1 3 Exterior noise level standards per Table 4-1 of Technical Appendix J1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. - 7:59 a.m.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 9-5)

As shown in Table 10, the Project’s operational noise levels would comply with the City’s 65 dBA L eq daytime and 60 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standard at a distance of 200 feet from the Project Site. Also, operational noise levels would not exceed 65 dBA Leq (daytime) or 60 dBA Leq (nighttime) at any sensitive receptor in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project’s contribution to the existing ambient noise environment would range between 0.0 and 3.0 dBA L eq during the daytime and between 0.1 and

4.6 dBA L eq during the nighttime, which is not considered a substantial increase based on standards established by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 53-54). Based on the foregoing analysis, operation of the Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of applicable City standards. Impacts would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise Impact
The analysis below addresses potential off-site traffic noise generated from the Project. To evaluate off- site noise increases that could result from Project-related traffic on the roadway system, noise levels were modeled for the following scenarios:

 Existing (2022) With Project
 Opening Year Cumulative (OYC) (2025) With Project

The Existing (2022) With Project scenario is provided solely for informational purposes and will not occur, since the Project will not be fully developed and occupied under Existing conditions. Table 11 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise levels will range from 66.0 to 77.1 dBA CNEL and noise level impacts will range from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA CNEL. As identified in Table 11, the Project’s unmitigated off-site traffic noise level increases would not exceed the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4-1 of Technical Appendix J1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 71 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

Table 11 Existing With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded
?
1 Old 215
Frontage Rd.
n/o Cottonwood
Av. Sensitive 70.8 71.0 0.2 1.5 No
2 Old 215
Frontage Rd.
s/o Cottonwood
Av. Sensitive 71.0 71.2 0.2 1.5 No
3 Old 215
Frontage Rd. s/o Bay Av. Sensitive 70.8 71.0 0.2 1.5 No 4 Old 215
Frontage Rd.
s/o Alessandro
Bl. Sensitive 65.9 66.0 0.1 1.5 No
5 Eucalyptus
Av.
w/o I-215
Ramps
Non-
Sensitive 68.5 68.5 0.0 n/a No
6 Eucalyptus
Av.
w/o Old 215
Frontage Rd.

Non-
Sensitive 71.3 71.4 0.1 3.0 No
7 Eucalyptus
Av.
e/o Old 215
Frontage Rd. Sensitive 68.9 68.9 0.0 1.5 No
8 Alessandro
Bl.
w/o I-215
Ramps SB
Non-
Sensitive 77.1 77.1 0.0 3.0 No
9 Alessandro
Bl.
w/o I-215 NB
Ramps
Non-
Sensitive 76.5 76.6 0.1 3.0 No
10 Alessandro
Bl.
w/o Old 215
Frontage Rd.

Non-
Sensitive 75.7 75.8 0.1 3.0 No
11 Alessandro
Bl.
e/o Old 215
Frontage Rd. Sensitive 73.4 73.4 0.0 1.5 No
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery.
2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. The City of Perris does not consider noise increases to non-noise-sensitive uses to be significant.
3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1 of Technical Appendix J1)?
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 7-5)

The OYC (2025) With Project traffic condition anal ysis determine the potential near-term cumulative circulation system deficiencies. The roadway network under the OYC (2025) With Project scenario is similar to Existing conditions except for new connec tions to be constructed by other known cumulative projects or the Project. To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing (2022) conditions of 6.12 percent (2 percent per year, compounded over 3 years) is included for Opening Year Cumulative (2025) traffic conditions (Urban Crossroads, 2023b, p. 4). Table 12 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise levels will range from 66.3 to 77.4 dBA CNEL and noise level impacts will range from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4-1 of Technical Appendix J1 , land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 72 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table 12 OYC (2025) With Projec t Traffic Noise Level Increases ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded
?
1 Old 215
Frontage Rd.
n/o Cottonwood
Av. Sensitive 71.4 71.6 0.2 1.5 No
2 Old 215
Frontage Rd.
s/o Cottonwood
Av. Sensitive 71.5 71.7 0.2 1.5 No
3 Old 215
Frontage Rd. s/o Bay Av. Sensitive 71.3 71.5 0.2 1.5 No 4 Old 215
Frontage Rd.
s/o Alessandro
Bl. Sensitive 66.2 66.3 0.1 1.5 No
5 Eucalyptus
Av.
w/o I-215
Ramps
Non-
Sensitive 69.2 69.2 0.0 n/a No
6 Eucalyptus
Av.
w/o Old 215
Frontage Rd.

Non-
Sensitive 72.8 72.8 0.0 3.0 No
7 Eucalyptus
Av.
e/o Old 215
Frontage Rd. Sensitive 70.0 70.1 0.1 1.5 No
8 Alessandro
Bl.
w/o I-215
Ramps SB
Non-
Sensitive 77.4 77.4 0.0 3.0 No
9 Alessandro
Bl.
w/o I-215 NB
Ramps
Non-
Sensitive 76.9 76.9 0.0 3.0 No
10 Alessandro
Bl.
w/o Old 215
Frontage Rd.

Non-
Sensitive 76.1 76.1 0.0 3.0 No
11 Alessandro
Bl.
e/o Old 215
Frontage Rd. Sensitive 73.7 73.7 0.0 1.5 No
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery.
2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. The City of Perris does not consider noise increases to non-noise-sensitive uses to be significant.
3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1 of Technical Appendix J1)?
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 7-6)

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
Response: The analysis presented below demonstrates that implementation of the Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Construction Analysis
Construction activities on the Project Site would utiliz e construction equipment that has the potential to generate vibration. Table 13 summarizes Project construction vibration levels at the modeled receiver locations. As shown in Table 13, all receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project Site would be exposed to vibration levels that fall below the significance threshold used by the City of Moreno Valley for this analysis at all receiver locations. Accordingly, Project construction would not generate temporary, excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels and a less than significant impact would occur.

Operational Analysis
Under long-term conditions, the Project would not incl ude nor require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in substantial or perceptible groundborne vibration. Trucks would travel to and from the Project Site on surrounding roadways; however, vibration and groundborne noise levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on smooth, paved surfaces – as is expected on the Project Site and surrounding roadways is minimal. Accordingly, Project operation would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 73 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table 13 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Receiver1
Distance
to Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5 Small
bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 17' 0.005 0.062 0.136 0.159 0.159 0.3 No
R2 19' 0.005 0.053 0.115 0.134 0.134 0.3 No
R3 107' 0.000 0.004 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.3 No
R4 135' 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.3 No
R5 109' 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.010 0.010 0.3 No
R6 128' 0.000 0.003 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.3 No
at 200' 200' 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.3 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A of the Project’s NIA (see Technical Appendix J1). 2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary (Project Site boundary). 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (refer to Table 10-4 of Technical Appendix J1). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 8-5)

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

Response: The Project Site is located within the Air port Influence Area (AIA) for the MARB/IPA and is within an area subjected to high to moderate airport noise. The light industrial land uses proposed by the Project are not sensitive to airport noise (even at high levels) and the Project’s would not conflict with the ALUCP’s land use compatibility standards relat ed to noise (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 24) Accordingly, the Project would not expose people residing or working the Project area to excessive noise levels from a public airport; therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.

Sources:

1. Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Noise Impact Study. (Technical Appendix J1)

2. Urban Crossroads, 2022g, Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Off-Site Improvements Noise Assessment. (Technical Appendix J2)

3. Urban Crossroads, 2022h, Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouses Traffic Analysis (Technical Appendix K3)

4. Moreno Valley General Plan 2040
• Chapter 7 – Noise Element

5. Map N-3 – Future Noise Contours
- Final Environmental Impact Report City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2040 • Section 4.13 – Noise
- Figure 413-3– March Air Reserve Base Noise Contours

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

7. Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulations

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

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 74 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
road or other infrastructure)?

Response: The Project would result in development of the subject property with industrial land uses that would expand employment opportunities in the City of Moreno Valley. It is anticipated that the employment base for both the construction and operational phases of the Project would come from the existing population in the Inland Empire, which comprises western Riverside County and southwestern San Bernardino County. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Riverside-San Bernardino- Ontario region’s civilian labor force contains approximately 2,161,532 persons with approximately 2,038,915 persons employed and 122,617 persons unemployed (approximately 5.7 percent unemployment rate) (USBLS, 2022). Accordingly, the Project region already contains an ample supply of potential employees under existing conditions and the Project’s labor demand is not expected to draw substantial numbers of new residents to the area. Fu rthermore, approximately 86 percent of the City’s residents commute outside of the City for work (SCAG, 2019, p. 21); therefore, the Project would provide job opportunities closer to home for existing and future Moreno Valley residents.

The Project would install new/expanded infrastructure ; however, this infrastruc ture would either be master-planned facilities (meaning the facilities would be installed with or without the Project), upgrades to existing facilities that are needed to correct serv ice deficiencies (meaning that the quality of existing service would improve but no additional system capacity would be added), or would be private facilities for the sole use of the Project (meaning they would not be available for general public use). Accordingly, no significant indirect impacts associated with popul ation growth would result from any Project-related improvements because the Project and its required improvements would not induce substantial growth on surrounding properties.

Based on the foregoing analysis, neither the Project nor any Project-related component would result in substantial, direct, or indirect population growth that would cause a significant direct or indirect impact to the environment. This impact is less than significant.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

Response: The Project Site does not contain any residential structures and no people live on the Project Site under existing conditions. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.

Sources:

1. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) – Profile of the City of Moreno Valley, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/morenovalley_localprofile.pdf?1606013528

2. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics – Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Economy at a Glance, https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca_riverside_msa.htm#eag_ca_riverside_msa.f.p

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Response: Fire protection services to the Project Site are provided by the Moreno Valley Fire Department (MVFD). The Project Site is served by the Towngate Fire Station (Station No. 6) located at 22250 Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 1.4 roadway miles to the northeast of the Project Site. Based on the Project Site’s proximity to existing fire protection facilities, the Project is expected to be adequately F.1.c
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 75 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
served by existing fire protection services, and no new or expanded facilities would be required. The Project Applicant is required to comply with the prov isions of the City of Moreno Valley’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ordinance No. 695), which requires a fee payment that the City applies to the funding of fire protection facilities. The City will collect DIF from the Project Applicant at the time of building permit issuance (based on building square f ootage). The Project’s payment of DIF, as well as increased tax revenues that would result from development of the Project, would be used by the City to help pay for fire protection services and other public services.

The Project would incorporate fire prevention and fire suppression design features to minimize the potential demand placed on the MVFD. The proposed warehouse distribution buildings would be of concrete tilt-up construction. Concrete is non-flammable and concrete tilt-up buildings have a lower fire hazard risk than wood-frame construction. The Project also would install fire hydrants on-site and would provide paved primary and secondary emergency access to the Project Site to support the MVFD in the event fire suppression activities are needed on-site. Lastly, the proposed warehouse distribution building would be equipped with fire sprinklers in accordance with the California and Moreno Valley building codes. Based on its size and scale, the proposed building would likely feature Early Suppression, Fast Response (ESFR) ceiling mounted fire sprinklers (or a comparable fire suppression system) that exceed the fire protection of traditional sprinkler systems. ESFR high output, high volume systems are in ceiling spaces as with conventional fire sprinkler system s, but they incorporate large, high-volume, high- pressure heads to provide the necessary fire protection for industrial buildings that may contain high- piled storage. While most other sprinklers are intended to control the growth of a fire, an ESFR sprinkler system is designed to suppress a fire. To suppress a fire does not necessarily mean it will extinguish the fire but rather it is meant to "knock" the fire back down to its source, making it more manageable for the MVFD to extinguish.

Based on the foregoing, the Project incorporates seve ral design features to minimize fire hazards.

Additionally, the Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection fac ilities and the Project Applicant would pay DIF and the Project would generate other revenues (e.g., tax) t hat would help offset the Project’s demand for fire protection services. Impacts to fire protection facilities would be less than significant.

ii) Police protection?
Response: The Project would introduce two new buildings and employees to the Project Site, which would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services but is not anticipated to require or result in the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. Furthermore, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant wo uld be required to comply with the provisions of Moreno Valley’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ordinance No. 695) (City of Moreno Valley, 2021d). This ordinance requires a fee payment that the City applies to the funding of public facilities, including police protection facilities. The City will collect the Project’s DI F share from the Project Applicant at the time of building permit issuance (based on building square footage). The Project’s payment of DIF fees, as well as increased tax revenues that would result from development of the Project, would be used by the City to help pay for police protection services and other public services. Based on the foregoing, the Project would receive adequate polic e protection service, and would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts to police protection facilities would therefore be less than significant.

iii) Schools?
Response: Implementation of the Project would not create a direct demand for public school services, as the subject property would contain non-reside ntial uses and would not generate any school-aged children requiring public education. The addition of employment-generating uses on the Project Site would assist the City in achieving its goal to provide a better jobs/housing balance within the City and the larger western Riverside County region; therefore, the Project is not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the region and would therefore not indirectly generate school-aged students requiring public education. Because the Project would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project would not create a demand for additional public-school services, the Pro ject Applicant would be required to contribute development F.1.c
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 76 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
impact fees to the Moreno Valley Unified School District in co mpliance with California Senate Bill 50 (Greene) (CA Legislative Info., 1998), which allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. Mandatory payment of school fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Impacts to public schools would be less than significant.

iv) Parks?
Response: As discussed under Responses XVI(a) and XVI(b) below, the Project would not create a demand for public park facilities and would not result in the need to modify existing or construct new park facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not adversely affect any park facility. Thus, no impact would occur.

v) Other public facilities?
Response: The Project is not expected to result in a demand for other public facilities/services, including libraries, community recreation centers, post offices, and/or animal shelters. As such, implementation of the Project would not adversely affect other public facilities or require the construction of new or modified public facilities and no impact would occur.

Sources:

1. City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.42 “Commercial and Industrial Development Impact Fees” – https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_3- chapter_3_42

2. Ordinance 695 Californi a Legislative Information – Senate Bill 50 (Greene), http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_0001-
0050/sb_50_bill_19980827_chaptered.html

XVI. RECREATION – Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?

Response: The Project would develop the subject property with industrial land uses. The Project does not propose any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not resu lt in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park, thus, no impact would occur.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?

Response: The Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off- site recreation facilities.

Additionally, the Project would not expand any existing off-site recreational facilities. Therefore, environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur.

Sources:

1. Project Application Materials – Site Plan

XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?

Response: In accordance with City policy, as established by the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Preparation Guide for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (“Transportation F.1.c
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 77 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Guidelines,” June 2020), the City utilizes a screeni ng threshold of 100 two-way peak hour trips (both actual and PCE trips) to determine whether a devel opment project has the potential to program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system that would require a detailed analysis of project- related traffic volumes and circulation patterns (City of Moreno Valley, 2020, p. 3). When a development project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips, the City considers that project to be a contributor of substantial traffic to local roadways and requi res additional analysis to determine whether the traffic generated by that development project would conflict with City plans, ordinances, and/or policies related to the circulation system. However, where there are no unique circumstances that suggest unacceptable traffic conditions – such as an existing safety problem or substandard operations at nearby intersection or street – and a development project contributes less than 100 peak hour trips, the City has determined that such projects would clearly have no conflict with City plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system.

A Trip Generation Assessment ( Technical Appendix K1 ) was prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads. According to the Trip Generation Assessment , the Project is calculated to generate 67 morning (AM) peak hour trips and 59 evening (PM) peak hour trips. When converted to “passenger car equivalent” (PCE), which weights all classifications of vehicles – including heavy trucks with multiple axles – to allow comparison under a single metric, the Project is calculated to generate 68 PCE AM peak hour trips and 60 PCE PM peak hour trips. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 2) The City has reviewed the Project’s design proposal and reviewed traffic operations in the surrounding area and determined that:
1) the Project would not introduce any design features that would create an unsafe or adverse traffic condition in the area; 2) there are no existing safety problems in the Project vicinity; and 3) there are no substandard traffic facilities in the Project area.

In addition, the Project would not conflict with applicable objectives from the Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element, including Policies C.2-3, C.2-5, C.2-7, C.3-4, C.3-6, and C. 4-4, or with the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. Due to the Project’s consistency with the Moreno Valley General Plan – which SCAG uses as the foundation for its regional land use planning program – as well as the Project Site’s geographic location in proximity to major local and re gional truck routes, the Pr oject would not conflict with the goals and policies of Connect SoCal, including the following goals related to vehicular and non- vehicular circulation: 1) Increasi ng mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods; 2) Enhancing the preservation, security, and re silience of the regional transportation system; 3) Increasing person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system; 4) Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network; and 5) Leveraging new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the City determines t hat the Project would not conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system and im pacts would be less than significant.

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Response: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision “b” establishes criteria for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric. As of July 1, 2020, the automobile delay-based “level of service” (LOS) analysis framework that was historically used as the basis for determining transportation impacts wa s replaced across the State with a VMT-based framework. The City’s Transportation Guidelines, which were adopted in June 2020, establish a VMT analysis methodology and evaluation criteria for devel opment projects that is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision “b.” A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation (VMT Analysis) was prepared for the Project by Urba n Crossroads. The VMT Analysis is included as Technical Appendix K2 to this Initial Study.

As required by the City’s Transportation Guidelin es, the Project was first evaluated against screening criteria to determine if could be clearly shown that implementation of the Project would not generate substantial VMT – and, therefore, be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 – or if additional analysis would be required to fully evaluate the significance of Project-related VMT. One of the screening F.1.c
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 78 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
criteria in the City’s Transportation Guidelines is the “Low VMT Area” criteria, which identifies “efficient” geographic areas in the County – due to proximity to established population centers and/or transportation infrastructure – where development would result in low VMT per person/employee. Development within “Low VMT Areas” is considered beneficial in comparison to development within less developed areas due to the relative ease of access to these areas. The traffic analysis zone (TAZ) where the Project Site is located was found to meet the criteria of a “Low VMT Area” (Urban Crossroads, 2022f, pp. 2-3). Thus, because the Project meets the “Low VMT Area” screening threshold, the Project is clearly presumed to not cause or contribute to a substantial increase in the total citywide and/or regional VMT under the City’s Transportation Guidelines. Accordingly, the Projec t would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision “b;” impacts would be less than significant.

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?

Response: The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along study area roadways under existing conditions. All proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards. If any component of Proj ect construction would occur in the public right-of- way and require the partial or full closure of a sidewalk and/or travel lane, all work would be required to adhere to the applicable construction control practice s that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction Manual , dated January 2021 and published by Caltrans, to minimize potential safety hazards. The City reviewed the Project’s application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced within the City public right-of-way through implementation of the Project. Based on the foregoing information, the Project’s construction and operation would not create or substantially incr ease safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) Result in inadequate emer gency access?
Response: The City of Moreno Valley reviewed the Proj ect’s design and confirmed that the Project’s driveways and internal drive aisles provide adequate access to-and-from the Project Site for emergency vehicles. In addition, the City will review all future Project construction drawings as part of the building permit review and approval process to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained along abutting public streets during construction activities. Specifically, all Project construction materials and equipment would be stored/staged on the Project Site and would not interfere with emergency vehicles traveling along Old 215 Frontage Road or Edgemont St reet. Any Project construction activities that would occur within the Old 215 Frontage Road and Edgemont Street and requires a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or vehicle travel lane would requ ire a traffic control plan that complies with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that must be approved by the City of Moreno Valley to ensure that emergency response is not adversely affected. Based on the Project’s design and required adherence to City requirements for emergency vehicle access, a less than significant impact would occur.

Sources:

1. City of Moreno Valley Transportation Enginee ring Division – Transportation Impact Analysis Preparation Guide for VMT and Level of Service,
https://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/pub-works/transportation/TIA-Guidelines.pdf

2. Southern California Associati on of Governments – Connect SoCal https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176

3. Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2022e. Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Trip Generation Assessment. (Technical Appendix K1)

4. Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2022f. Cottonwood & Edgemont Warehouse Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Evaluation. (Technical Appendix K2)

5. Moreno Valley Master Bike Plan, adopted January 2015

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 79 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, f eature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Re sources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or

ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Response: There are no resources on the Project Site that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local regi ster of historical resour ces as defined by Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) (BFSA, 2022a, pp. 5.0-2 and 5.0-3). Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not impact a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing on a register of historical resources.

As part of the AB 52 consultation process required by State law, the City sent notification of the Project to Native American tribes with possible traditional or cultural affiliation to the Project area. No Native American tribes contacted the City to request formal consultation. Notwithstanding, due to the Project site’s location in an area where multiple Native American tribes are known to hav e a cultural affiliation, there is the possibility that prehistoric archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, could be encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities – although this is considered unlikely due to the pervasive, historic and on-going disturbances that have occurred on the Project site. Were a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, to be found on the Project site during construction – and not protected – a significant impact would occur.

Implementation of MMs CR-1 and MM CR-3 through CR-9, would ensure the pr oper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground- disturbing activities associated with Project development. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impact to significant tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less-than- significant.

Sources:

1. Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA), Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Cottonwood & Edgemont Project, (Technical Appendix C)

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

Response: The Project would construct an on-site net work of water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure and, also, would make upgrades to existing off-site water and storm drainage systems.

The Project includes off-site water line improvements within paved rights of way for Old 215 Frontage Road consisting of 900 linear feet of up graded water lines and Cottonwood Avenue consistin g of 730 F.1.c
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 80 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
linear feet of upgraded water lines. Moreover, the Pr oject includes the off-site construction of a new storm drain line connection between the Project Site and the Edgemont Channel. The Project also provides for the construction of a new outlet within the Edgemont Channel to receive Project flows. The Project would involve utility connections to provide electric power and telecommunications services to the Project Site; connections would be made to existing facilities abutting the Site. Existing above-ground power lines located at the Project Site’s frontage with Old 215 Frontage Road would be undergrounded as part of Project construction. The Project Applicant does not anticipate the need to provide natural gas service to the Project Site (although Project natural gas usage was assumed in the air quality, energy, and greenhouse gas analyses presented earlier in the Initial Study as a conservative measure). The construction of proposed utility im provements has the potential to re sult in environmental effects associated with short-term air pollutant emissions, noise emissions, water quality effects, and traffic movement disruptions that are an inherent part of th e Project’s construction process. However, these impacts already were included in t he construction-level impact analysis provided under Sections III, X, XII, and XVII of this Initial Study and, where significant construction-related impacts are identified under these sections, feasible and enforceable mitigation measures are imposed by this Initial Study to reduce the Project’s impacts to less-than-significant levels . There are no significant environmental impacts specifically related to the construction of the Project’s proposed utility connections/improvements.

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple
dry years?

Response: The BSMWC is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project Site and its 430-acre service area. BSMWC receives approximately 60% of its supply from groundwater and purchases approximately 40% of its supply from the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD). The BSMWC is not known to have any issues with its existing or projected future water supply and the WMWD is projected to have adequate water supplies available to meet WMWD’s estimated water demand through 2045 under normal, historic single-dry and historic multiple-dry year conditions (WMWD, 2021, pp. 6-6 - 6-11).

The BSMWC and WMWD rely on regional growth projections from agencies like SCAG (and these regional growth projections rely on adopted land use maps from local general plans). Because the Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation for the Project Site, the water demand associated with the Project was considered by the local water agencies when projecting future demands. Thus, local water providers would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. The Project’s impact would be less than significant.

c) Result in a determinat ion by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?

Response: Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed by the ECSD, which is under contract with the City of Riverside and transmits sewage to the City of Riverside’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Based upon ECSD’s wastew ater generation rate of 2,000 gpd per acre for commercial/industrial uses, the Project is calculated to generate approximately 15;880 gpd of wastewater requiring treatment (ECSD, 2016, Table 3-1). Wast ewater generated within the ECSD service area is conveyed to the City of Riverside Regional Water Control Plant (RWQCP). Under existing conditions, the City of Riverside’s RWQCP has an excess treatment capacity of approximately 18.6 million gallons per day (mgpd) (46 mgpd treatment capacity – 27.4 m gpd influent flows = 18.6 million gallons excess treatment capacity) (City of Riverside, 2019, Vol. 4, pp. 1-1 & 1-2). Implementation of the Project would utilize approximately 0.09% of t he City of Riverside’s RWQCP da ily excess treatment capacity.

Accordingly, the City of Riverside’s RWQCP has sufficient capacity to treat wastewater generated by the Project in addition to existing commitments. The Project would not create the need for any new or expanded wastewater facility. Because there is adequate capacity at existing treatment facilities to serve the Project’s projected sewer demand, impacts would be less than significant.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 81 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

Response: Implementation of the Project would generate an incremental increase in solid waste volumes requiring off-site disposal during short-term construction and long-term operational activities.

Solid waste generated by the Project would be disposed at the El Sobrante Landfill.

According the CalRecycle, the El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to receive 16,054 tons of refuse per day and has a total remaining capacity of 143,977,170 cubic yards; the El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 20 51 (CalRecycle, 2022a). In February 2022 (the most recent period for which disposal volumes are available), the average da ily disposal at the El Sobrante Landfill was approximately 10,862 tons, which correlates to an excess daily disposal capacity of approximately 5,192 tons (CalRecycle, 2022b).

The analysis below summarizes the Project’s potential to generate solid waste during construction and/or operation that would exceed the disposal capacity of local landfill facilities. As demonstrated in the analysis below, the Project would generate less-than-significant volumes of solid waste.

Construction Impact Analysis
Based on the United States Environmental Pr otection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds (lbs) of solid waste generated for the construction of every 1 s.f. for non-residential uses, Project construction is estimated to generate approximately 216 tons ([99,630 s.f. x 4.34 lbs/s.f.] ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton ≈ 216 tons) (EPA, 2003, Table A-2). CalGreen requires a minimum of 65% of all construction waste be diverted from landfills (by recycling, reusing, and other waste reduction strategies); therefore, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 75.6 tons of construction waste requiring landfill disposal (216 tons x 0.35 = 75.6 tons). The Project’s construction phase is anticipated to last 193 workdays; therefore, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 0.39 tons of solid waste per day (75.6 tons ÷ 193 days = 0.39 tons per day) requiring disposal at a landfill during construction.

Non-recyclable construction waste generated by the Project would be disposed at the El Sobrante Landfill. As described above, this landfill receiv es, on average, below its maximum permitted daily disposal volume; thus, the relatively minimal co nstruction waste generated by the Project is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its maxi mum permitted daily disposal volume. Project construction waste would represent less than one percent of the excess disposal capacity at the El Sobrante Landfill. Furthermore, the El Sobrante Landfill is not expected to reach its total maximum permitted disposal capacities during the Project’s construction period. The El Sobrante Landfill and has sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste genera ted by the Project’s construction phase; therefore, impacts to landfill capacity associated with the Project’s near-term construction activities would be less than significant.

Operational Impact Analysis
Based on a daily waste generation factor of 1.42 p ounds of waste per 100 square feet of industrial building area obtained from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), long-term, on-going operation of the Project would generate approximately 1.17 tons of solid waste per day ([1.42 pounds ÷ 100 s.f.] × 99,630 s.f.] ÷ 2,000 pounds = 0.71 tons per day). Pursuant to AB 939, at least 50 percent of the Project’s solid waste is required to be diverted from landfills; therefore, the Project would generate approximately 0.36 tons of solid waste per day requiring landfilling (1.17 tons ÷ 2 ≈ 0.36 tons per day).

Non-recyclable solid waste generated during long-term operation of the Project would be disposed at the El Sobrante Landfill. As described above, this landfill receives, on average, below its maximum permitted daily disposal volume; thus, the relatively minimal construction waste generat ed by the Project is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its maxi mum permitted daily disposal volume. Project construction waste would represent less than one percent of the excess disposal capacity at the El Sobrante Landfill. Furthermore, the El Sobrante Landfill is not expected to reach its total maximum F.1.c
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 82 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
permitted disposal capacities during the Project’s construction period. The El Sobrante Landfill and has sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste genera ted by the Project’s construction phase; therefore, impacts to landfill capacity associated with the Project’s near-term construction activities would be less than significant.

e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

Response: The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), signed into law in 1989, established an integrated waste management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. In addition, the bill established a 50 percent waste reduction requirement for cities and counties by the year 20 00, along with a process to ensure environmentally safe disposal of waste that c ould not be diverted. Per the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Act, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the County of Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (C IWMP), which outlines the goals, policies, and programs the County and its cities implement to create an integrated and cost-effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of AB 939 and its diversion mandates. (RCDWR, 2022)

In order to assist the City of Moreno Valley and the County of Riverside in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, the Project’s building user(s) would be required to work with future refuse haulers to develop and implement feasible waste reduction programs, including source reduction, recycling, and composting. Additionally, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub Res. Code § 42911) , the Project is required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials where solid waste is collected. The collection areas are required to be shown on construction drawings and be in place before occupancy permits are issued. (CA Legislative Info, 2005) Additionally, in compliance with AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program), the future occupant(s) of the proposed Project would be required to arrange for recycling services if the occupant generates four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week (CA Legislative Info, 2011). The implementation of these mandatory requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and diverted to landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant.

Sources:

1. California Legislative Information – Public Resources Code § 42911 – California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, Effective January 1, 2005, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNu m=42911.

2. California Legislative Information – Assembly Bill 341 Solid Waste: Diversion, Approved October 5, 2011,
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB341

3. City of Riverside, 2019. Update Of The Int egrated Master Plan For The Wastewater Collection And Treatment Facilities, Volume 4. Available at:
https://riversideca.gov/publicworks/sewer/master-
plan/2019%20Sewer%20Master%20Plan%20Volume%204.pdf

4. Riverside County Departm ent of Waste Resources – Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2022, https://www.rcwaste.org/business/planning/ciwmp

5. CalRecycle – SWIS Site/Facility Details: El Sobrante Landfill. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402. Accessed October 19, 2020.

6. CalRecycle – Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 83 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wild fire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

Response: According to the California Department of Fo restry and Fire Protection (CalFire) and the City’s General Plan, the Project Site is not identified as being within or located near a State responsibility area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire haza rd severity zone (VHFHZ) (City of Moreno Valley, 2021a, Map S-5; CalFire, 2022). T herefore, the Project would not exac erbate wildfire hazard risks or expose people or the environmental to adverse envir onmental effects related to wildfire. No impacts would occur.

Sources:

1. California Department of Forestry and Fire Pr otection (CalFire) – Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

2. Moreno Valley General Plan 2040
• Chapter 6 – Safety Element
- Map S-5 – Fire Hazard Severity Zones

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?

Response: All impacts to the environment, including impacts to habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre-historical resources were evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Throughout this Initial Study, where impacts were determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce those impacts to less-than-signific ant levels. Accordingly, with incorporation of the mitigation measures imposed throughout this Initia l Study, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment and impacts would be less than significant.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 84 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current project, and the effects of probable
future projects.)?

Response: As discussed throughout this Initial Study, implementation of the Project would result in effects to the environment that are individually limit ed after the application of the mitigation measures imposed throughout this Initial Study. Notwithstanding, there is the potential that one or more of the Project’s limited direct effects on the environment could be cumulatively considerable when considered with the environmental effects of other development projects. The analysis provided below evaluates the potential for the Project to have cumulatively considerable environmental impacts.

Aesthetics
The Project represents an infill re-development Project in an urban environment. The Project Site is in a developing area, with existing and under construction industrial land uses to the west of the Site. No scenic resources are located in the Project area with limited prominent views of distant landforms. All development in the immediate vicinity of the Project would be required to comply with the development regulations and design standards contained in the City ’s Municipal Code, which would ensure that minimum standards related to visual character and quality are met to preclude adverse aesthetic effects (e.g., size, scale, building materials, lighting). Accordingly, the Project’s aesthetic impacts would not be cumulatively-considerable.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Project result in no impact on agricultural and forestry resources. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact under this topic.

Air Quality
Based on SCAQMD guidance, any direct exceedance of a regional or localized threshold also is considered to be a cumulatively considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions below applicable regional and/or localized thresholds are not considered cumulatively considerable. As discussed in the preceding analysis, the Project would not exceed SCAQ MD’s regional threshold for criteria pollutants during construction or operation of the Project. Therefore, Project-related construction and operation emissions are not considered cumulatively-considerable.

Biological Resources
The Project Site does not support any sensitive plant or wildlife species, ripari an, or sensitive natural habitat, or federally-protected wetlands; therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact under these resource s. Although the Project Site is highly disturbed and fragmented from other open space areas under existing conditions, the Project Site does contain habitat for nesting birds. Therefore, there is the potential that nesting bi rds could be present on the Project Site prior to construction and there also is the potential that other development project sites in the Project area also could support bird nests. The Project’s potential impacts to nesting birds would be cumulatively considerable. MMs BR-1 would reduce the Project’s cumulative effects to less-than- significant levels.

Cultural Resources
Implementation of the Project has the potential to impact masked/buried historic and/or prehistoric archaeological resources on the Project Site and, therefore, would result in a significant cumulative impact in the event any of such resources were found on-site during construction. MMs CR-1 through CR-9 would require the Project Applicant to im plement monitoring and recovery programs in conformance with accepted protocols for historic and prehistoric archaeological resources in the event these resources are found during Project construction. With implementation of MMs CR-1 through CR- 9, potential cumulative impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 85 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Energy
The Project’s construction and operation energy cons umption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. In addition, all cumulative projects would also be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code, which establishes standards for energy efficiency and “green” construction.

Therefore, implementation of the Project would resu lt in a less-than-significant cumulative impact to energy.

Geology and Soils
Potential effects related to geology and soils are inherent ly site-specific; therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively-con siderable impact under this topic. Furthermore, all development projects would be required to comply wi th applicable federal, State, and local regulations that are in place to preclude adverse geology and soils effects, including effects related to strong seismic ground shaking, fault rupture, soil erosion, and ha zardous soil conditions (e.g., liquefaction, expansive soils, landslides).

Notwithstanding the information above, there is the potential for the Project to contribute to the cumulative loss of important fossil resources in the region. Although development of the Project Site would not impact any known paleontological resources, the Projec t Site is underlain by alluvial and alluvial fan deposits with a high paleontological sensitivity for lar ge, terrestrial Ice Age ve rtebrates. Other projects within the region atop similar alluvial and alluvial fan deposits also could have the potential to impact unknown, subsurface paleontological resources during ground-disturbing activi ties. Therefore, the potential for development on the Project Site to impac t subsurface paleontological resource deposits is a cumulatively-considerable impact. Application of MMs GEO-1 through GEO-4 would reduce the Project’s cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described earlier in the Initial Study, global c limate change (GCC) occurs as the result of global emissions of GHGs. An individual development project does not have the potential to result in direct and significant GCC-related effects in the absence of cu mulative sources of GHGs. The CEQA Guidelines also emphasize that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impa cts analysis (See CEQA Guidelines § 15130[f]).

Accordingly, the preceding analysis reflects a cumulative impact analysis of the GHG emissions related to the Project. As concluded under Response VIII(a) and (b), the Project would not result in a cumulatively-considerable impact related to GHG emissions.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potential effects related to hazards and hazardous ma terials are inherently site-specific and related to conditions that exist on an individual property or potential operations. Furthermore, federal, State, and local regulations are in place to ensure proper handling, transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials and preclude significant impacts under this topic.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction and operation of the Project and other projects in the Santa Ana River watershed have the potential to result in water quality impacts, including erosion and sedimentation. However, in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations , all development projects would be required to implement plans during construction and opera tion (e.g., SWPPP and WQMP) to preclude adverse effects to water quality, which would avoid a cumulatively-considerable impact.

The Project and other projects in the Santa Ana Ri ver Basin would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations in order to preclude flood hazards both on- and off-site. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations would require on -site areas to be protected, at a minimum, from flooding during peak storm events (i.e., 100-year st orm) and that proposed development would not expose downstream properties to increased flooding risks during peak storm events. Accordingly, a cumulatively-considerable effect related to flooding would not occur.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 86 City of Moreno Valley Land Use and Planning
The Project would not physically divide an establ ished community, or conflict with applicable land use/planning documents; therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively- considerable impact related to land use and planning.

Mineral Resources
The Project would have no impact on mineral resources. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact under this topic.

Noise
Noise levels diminish rapidly with distance; therefore, for a development project to contribute to a noise- related cumulative impact it must be located in close proximity to another development project or source of substantial noise. There are no known active, pending, or planned construction projects in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site that would overlap with the Project’s proposed construction schedule. Although the Project Site is adjacent to active construction projects on the west side of Old 215 Frontage Road, simultaneous construction of the Project and these other development projects is not expected to occur because the Project is subs tantially “behind” these other development proposals as the Project still needs to complete the City’s discretionary review process before being considered for approval by the City’s decision-makers (and, if approved, would still require the City’s review and issuance of construction permits). The proposed Old 215 Industrial Park project is not expected to result in substantial cumulative construction noise – alth ough its construction may overlap with the Project – because the Old 215 Industrial Park project site is located approximately 0.25-mile south of the Project Site without a clear line of sight to the Project Site . Due to attenuation from distance and intervening development, construction noise from the Old 215 Industrial Park project would not result in considerable cumulative effects at sensitive receptors near the Project Site.

Under long-term operating conditions, the Project would comply with the City of Moreno Valley noise ordinance and would not produce substantial noise or noticeable vibration at the Project Site; all nearby development projects would similarly be required to comply with applicable noise and vibration control regulations, which would avoid a cumulatively considerable impact.

Population and Housing
The Project would not implement land uses that generate new residents and would not require the construction of replacement housing. Accordingl y, the City has anticipated – and planned for – the growth that would occur on the Project Site and there is no potential for the Project to result in an adverse, cumulatively-considerable environmental effect related to population and housing.

Public Services
All development projects in the City of Moreno Valley, including the Project, would be required to pay development impact fees, a portion of which would be used by the City for the provision of public services, to offset the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and police protection services.

Furthermore, future development would generate an on-going stream of property tax revenue and sales tax revenue, which would provide funds that could be used by the City of Moreno Valley for the provision of fire and police protection services. The Project would not directly result in the introduction of new residents to the City and, therefore, would have no potential to result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to resident-serving public facilities such as schools, parks, libraries, and other public facilities or services.

Recreation
The Project would have no impact to recreation facilities. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact under this topic.

Transportation
The Project would not conflict with any City polic ies addressing the circulation network and would not generate VMT that would have the potential to contribute to a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not contribute to any adverse, cumulatively considerable transportation effects.

Tribal Cultural Resource
Development activities of the Project Site would not impact any known tribal cultural resources. However, there is the remote potential that such resources are buried beneath the surface of the Project Site and F.1.c
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project Page 87 City of Moreno Valley

ISSUES & SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
could be impacted during construction. Other projects within region would similarly have the potential to impact unknown, subsurface tribal cultural resources during ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, the potential for development on the Project Site to impact s ubsurface tribal cultural resource deposits is a cumulatively considerable impact. Application of MMs CR-1 and MM CR-3 though CR-9 would reduce the Project’s cumulative impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Utilities and Service Systems
Development of public utility infrastructure is part of an extensive planning process involving utility providers and jurisdictions with discretionary review authority. The coordination process associated with the preparation of infrastructure plans is int ended to ensure that adequate public utility services and resources are available to serve both individual development projects and cumulative growth in the region. Each individual development project is subject to review for utility capacity to avoid unanticipated interruptions in service or inadequate supplies. Coordination with the utility providers would allow for the provision of utility services to the Project and other developments. The Project and other planned projects are subject to connection and service fees to offs et increased demand and assist in facility expansion and service improvements (at the time of need). Because of the utility planning and coordination activities described above, cumulatively considerable impacts to utilities and service systems would not occur.

Wildfire
The Project Site is not located in of within proximity to an SRA or very high fire hazard area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would result in no adverse impacts associated with wildfire.

c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Response: The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this Initial Study. In instances where the Project has potential to result in direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings (air quality and associated effects on human health from air pollu tants, and construction-related noise and potential effects on hearing impairment), project design feature best practices and mitigation measures have been applied to ensure impacts to not rise above a level of significance. With required implementation of project design features and the mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not involve any activities that would result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative

Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP)

Cottonwood & Edgemont Project
Moreno Valley, California

Lead Agency
City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92552

Applicant
CDRE Holdings 21 LLC
523 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245

CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602

Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
Master Plot Plan (PEN21-0325)
Plot Plan (PEN20-0326)
Tentative Parcel Map (PEN20-0327)

February 2023
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution 2023-__ Cottonwood & Edgemont IS_MND (2023-02-09) (6240 : Master Plot Plan, a Plot Plan and a Tentative Cottonwood & Edgemont Project
City of Moreno Valley Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 1 of 10 ends

Moreno Valley City CouncilMay 2, 2023

Moreno Valley City Council
May 2, 2023