PLANNING_COMMISSION_RESOLUTION_NO_2024_32.pdf — Moreno Valley City Council, November 19, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

1 Resolution No. 2024-32
October 24, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-32

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY

COUNCIL APPROVE AND ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT,

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND CERTIFY THE FINAL

SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED

PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES AN AMENDMENT TO THE AQUABELLA

SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley is a general law city and a municipal corporation of the State of California (City); and
WHEREAS, T/Cal Realty II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Applicant”), is the owner of 668.6 acres of real property, shown on page 1-5 of the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment (PEN 23-0109), and the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Project Applicant has applied for General Plan Amendment (PEN 23-0127), Change of Zone (PEN 24-0041), Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment (PEN 23-0109), Tentative Tract Map No. 38850 (PEN 23-0118) and Development Agreement (PEN23-0119) (collectively the “Project Approvals” or “Proposed Project”); and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2023, the Project Applicant submitted a SB 330 Preliminary Application to the City and paid the requisite permit processing fee; and WHEREAS, the City’s has concurred that the Applicant timely submitted the remaining documents needed to process the SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Proposed Project, as required by Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(1); and WHEREAS, in September 2023, the 2040 General Plan and related Zone changes were in effect for the Proposed Project’s residential component in that the City’s 2040 General Plan was adopted by Resolution No. 2021-47 in June 2021, and the related Zone changes were adopted by Ordinance No. 981 in June and August 2021, and there were no pending court orders prohibiting the application of the 2040 General Plan and related Zone changes to the Proposed Project at the time the SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Proposed Project was submitted; and WHEREAS, the City’s Housing Element, as modified in October 2022 and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), was also in effect (Resolution 2022-67) at the time the SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Proposed Project was submitted; and
2 Resolution No. 2024-32
October 24, 2024
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the Applicant’s requested Project Approvals, and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1, and the State CEQA Guidelines2, the City prepared a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the Proposed Project, which was completed by May 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR evaluated the Proposed Project’s consistency with both the 2040 General Plan and the 2006 General Plan, and it was found, determined and concluded that the Proposed Project was consistent with both the 2040 General Plan and the 2006 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the above, pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code section 65589.5(j)(1), the Proposed Project, which contains a residential component, cannot be denied for inconsistency with the 2006 General Plan, which was not in place as of September 6, 2023, when the SB 330 Preliminary Application was submitted; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to ensure that the applicable General Plan and related zoning, as they existed as of September 6, 2023, when the SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Proposed Project was submitted, aligns with the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City’s 2040 General Plan, related zoning, and certified Housing Element were “ordinances, policies, and standards” under the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code section 65589.5(o), which were vested or locked in place for the Proposed Project , and the Proposed Project was appropriately evaluated for consistency with the 2040 General Plan and zoning, as they existed on September 6, 2023, at the time the SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Proposed Project was submitted; and
WHEREAS, in May 2024, the Riverside County Superior Court issued a Judgment and Writ (“Writ”) directing that the City set aside certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR due to inadequacies identified in the Final Program EIR as to the issues of baseline, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), air quality, and energy use; and set aside approval of the 2040 General Plan and related Zoning Amendments until those errors were corrected; and
WHEREAS, other than the Climate Action Plan (CAP), the 2040 General Plan itself was not found defective; and
WHEREAS, the Court further did not prohibit the City from acting with respect to land use issues (Sierra Club v. City of Moreno Valley, CVRI2103300, April 12, 2024, Minute Order); and
1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177 2 14 California Code of Regulations §§15000-15387 3 Resolution No. 2024-32
October 24, 2024
WHEREAS, in compliance with the Writ, on June 25, 2024, the Moreno Valley City Council unanimously voted to adopt Resolution No. 2024-37, entitled “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California Setting Aside Resolution No 2021-46, Resolution No. 2021-47 Related to MoVal 2040 General Plan Update, Climate Action Plan, and Final Program Environmental Impact Report”; and WHEREAS, in further compliance with the Writ, on June 25, 2024, the Moreno Valley City Council unanimously voted to approve (first reading) Ordinance No. 1014, entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Repealing Ordinance No. 981 Regarding 2040 MoVal General Plan Zoning,” which the Moreno Valley City Council unanimously adopted (second reading) on September 3, 2024, which took formal effect 30 days thereafter; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2024, Hon. Judge Chad Firetag issued an “Order Discharging Writ” in which it was ordered, judged and decreed that since the City complied with, and adequately demonstrated its compliance with the Preemptory Writ of Mandate issued by the Court on May 6, 2024, the Writ was fully discharged; and WHEREAS, state housing law — including SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act — requires the City to process and consider approval of this Proposed Project, that includes a residential component, based on the 2040 General Plan and related Change of Zone zoning designations and regulations in place at the time the SB 330 Preliminary Application for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for public and agency comment and proper notification was provided in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines;, with the public comment period commencing on May 31, 2024, through July 15, 2024, after which the City prepared the Final SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023100145) (Final SEIR); and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR has been completed, and has analyzed the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR contains the information required by CEQA Guidelines § 15132, including, without limitation, the Draft SEIR and all revisions and additions thereto, comments on the Draft SEIR received from various agencies, organizations, companies, individuals and other interested parties, and the City’s responses to the comments received on the Draft SEIR; and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR finds and concludes that all potentially significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Proposed Project have been identified in the Final SEIR and, with the implementation of the mitigation measures defined and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level except for those impacts identified in the Final SEIR, which cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level; and 4 Resolution No. 2024-32
October 24, 2024
WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the Proposed Project, the purpose of which, as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15093, is to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks that shall be considered when determining whether to approve the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations is based on substantial evidence that the benefits of the Proposed Project, each of which has been determined to be, by itself and independent of the other benefits of the Proposed Project, is a basis for overriding, outweighing, and accepting the Proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts identified in the Final SEIR; and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR finds, determines and concludes that implementation of the Proposed Project will have specific significant environmental impacts even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR, including the reasonable range of alternatives identified in Chapter 7 of the Final SEIR, and that the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and considered, along with the Proposed Project ’s CEQA Findings of Fact; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.02.200 (Public Hearing and Notification Procedures) of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code and Government Code section 65905, a public hearing was scheduled before the Moreno Valley Planning Commission for October 24, 2024, and notice thereof was duly published and posted on the Proposed Project site and the City’s website and mailed to all property owners of record within 600 feet of the Proposed Project site; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2024, the Planning Commission, after providing the required notice, conducted the duly-noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Final SEIR and the Proposed Project at which time all interested persons were provided with an opportunity to testify and present evidence.

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

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

Section 2. EVIDENCE AND RECORD
That the Planning Commission has considered all the evidence submitted in the record of proceedings for consideration of the Final SEIR, including, but not limited to, the following:
5 Resolution No. 2024-32
October 24, 2024
• Final Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 218 (State Clearinghouse No. 93113076) (1999);
• Specific Plan 218 (1999);
• Moreno Valley Field Station Specific Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2003);
• Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment (December 2005);
• Moreno Valley Field Station Specific Plan Final Amendment Environmental Impact Report Addendum (2005);
• General Plan Amendment (PPA04-0070), Specific Plan 218 Amendment (PA04-082), Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-0069) and Development Agreement (PA04-0005) (2005);
• Conditional and final letters issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2004 and 2005 (LOMR 04-09-073P and 90-09-08R; CLOMR 06- 09-A709R);
• Moreno Valley General Plan (2006);
• Permit-200501583-JPL, April 25, 2006, and extended June 2011; • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in January 2006; • County of Riverside Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fee of $322,450 paid in June 2006;
• Water Quality Management Plan approved by the City in October 2007 (PA04-0069);
• Master Plan of Service approved by the Eastern Municipal Water District in June 2007;
• Mass Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Permit issued by the City in July 2007 (Permit No. PK05-0266 and City ID 2611);
• Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, SAA No. 1600-2005-0146-R6 and SAA No. 1600-202-0173-R6 (Revision 1), in 2006 and 2013, respectively; • City Council Resolution No. 2021-46 (June 15, 2021) (certifying Final Program EIR for the MoVal 2040 General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan, and adopting findings, overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring and reporting program under CEQA);
• City Council Resolution No. 2021-47 (June 2021) (approving the MoVal 2040 General Plan Update, Climate Action Plan, and Climate Action Plan appendices, which superseded the 2006 General Plan);
• City Council Ordinance No. 981 (June 15, 2021, introduction/first reading and August 3, 2021, adoption/second reading);
• Adopted Circulation Map (Updated October 2021);
• City’s Housing Element (as modified in October 2022 and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)); • City Council Resolution 2022-67 (October 2022);
• HCD Letter to City dated October 11, 2022;
6 Resolution No. 2024-32
October 24, 2024
• Conclusions of Fiscal and Economic Impacts for the Proposed Project and Conclusions of Fiscal Impact Analysis (“FIA”) for the Proposed Project (2) prepared by DTA (2023);
• Proposed Project’s SB 330 Preliminary Application and payment receipt (September 6, 2023) and related e-mails;
• Moreno Valley 2040 General Plan and all other relevant provisions contained therein, as it existed on September 6, 2023, when the Proposed Project’s SB 330 Preliminary Application was submitted to the City;
• Climate Action Plan, as it existed on September 6, 2023, when the Proposed Project’s SB 330 Preliminary Application was submitted to the City; • Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code and all other relevant provisions referenced therein, as it existed on September 6, 2023, when the Proposed Project’s SB 330 Preliminary Application was submitted to the City;
• Statement of Decision, Sierra Club v. City of Moreno Valley, Case No.

CVRI2103300 (March 5, 2024);
• Transfer of Management Agreement between T/CAL Realty II, LLC, and the San Jacinto Basin Resource Conservation District (March 27, 2024); • Joint Response to City’s Objections filed by the Sierra Club and the Attorney General (March 29, 2024);
• Minute Order (April 12, 2024) (Sierra Club v. City of Moreno Valley, Case No.

CVRI2103300);
• Adopted Land Use Map (Updated April 2024);
• Zoning Map (Updated April 2024);
• Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project, including appendices (May 2024); • Judgment, Sierra Club v. City of Moreno Valley, Case No. CVRI2103300 (May 6, 2024);
• Peremptory Writ of Mandate, Sierra Club v. City of Moreno Valley, Case No.

CVRI2103300 (May 6, 2024);
• Resolution No. 2024-37, entitled “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California Setting Aside Resolution No 2021-46, Resolution No. 2021-47 Related to MoVal 2040 General Plan Update, Climate Action Plan, and Final Program Environmental Impact Report”;
• Ordinance No. 1014, entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, Repealing Ordinance No. 981 Regarding 2040 MoVal General Plan Zoning,” which the Moreno Valley City Council unanimously adopted (second reading) on September 3, 2024, which took formal effect 30 days thereafter;
• Order Discharging Writ, issued by Hon. Judge Chad Firetag on September 19, 2024.
• Notice of Termination of Coverage Under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities 7 Resolution No. 2024-32
October 24, 2024
(Construction General Permit), Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No.

CAS00002 (as Amended) (May 28, 2024)
• Completion of Compensatory Mitigation Requirements Notification No. 1600- 2012-0173-R6, Moreno Valley Field Station (Aquabella) Project from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (June 25, 2024); • Notice of Preparation of Revised EIR for MoVal 2040: The Moreno Valley Comprehensive General Plan Update, Municipal Code and Zoning Amendments (including Zoning Atlas) and Climate Action Plan (July 30, 2024), including attached exhibits;
• Email from Andrew Daymude (Project applicant representative) to the Community Development Director withdrawing development agreement application (PEN23-0119) (July 31, 2024);
• Email from Andrew Daymude (Project applicant representative) to Planning Official Robert Flores reinstating development agreement application (PEN23-0119) (October 2, 2024);
• Final SEIR for the Proposed Project, including appendices (State Clearinghouse No. 2023100145) (October 2024);
• Application and related material and information pertaining to General Plan Amendment (PEN 23-0127), Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment (PEN 23- 0109), Change of Zone (PEN 24-0041), Tentative Tract Map No. 38850 (PEN23-0118), Development Agreement (PEN23-0119) (2024); • Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 38850 (PEN 23-0118); • All public notices issued by the City of Moreno Valley with regard to the Proposed Project (2023-2024);
• All staff reports, attachments, and related documents prepared by the City of Moreno Valley for the Proposed Project (2024);
• All minutes and transcripts of all public meetings and public hearings held by the City of Moreno Valley related to the Proposed Project (2023-2024); • Permitted Uses Table 9.02-020-1;
• Permitted Uses Table 9.02-020-2;
• Revised Zoning Atlas Map Pages;
• Revised Mixed-Use Overlay Map;
• Testimony, and/or comments from the Applicant and its representatives during the public hearing;
• Testimony and/or comments from all persons provided in written format or correspondence at, or prior to, the public hearing; and • All documents and websites used, referenced, or incorporated by reference in completing both the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR for the Proposed Project.

Section 3. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
That based on the substantial evidence included in the Recitals, Exhibits and evidence contained in the record of proceedings, as set forth above, and the findings 8 Resolution No. 2024-32
October 24, 2024
set forth in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which finds that all potentially significant environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the development allowed by the Proposed Project have been identified in the Final SEIR and that the implementation of the mitigation measures defined and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), attached hereto as Exhibit B, will be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level, except for those impacts identified in the Final SEIR as significant and unavoidable.

Section 4. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
That based on the substantial evidence included in the Recitals, Exhibits and evidence contained in the record of proceedings, as set forth above, the findings set forth in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, and the CEQA Findings of Fact, as set forth in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Section 5. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
That based on the substantial evidence included in the Recitals, Exhibits and evidence contained in the record of proceedings and the findings, as set forth above, the findings set forth in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), attached hereto as Exhibit B, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council finds and determines that since the economic, social, and environmental considerations associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable significant impacts described in the Final SEIR, the City Council approve and adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Section 6. RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND

CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SEIR
That based on the substantial evidence included in the Recitals, Exhibits and evidence contained in the record of proceedings and the findings, as set forth above, the findings set forth in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), attached hereto as Exhibit B, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit C, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), attached hereto as Exhibit B, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and approve and certify the Final SEIR for the Proposed Project, attached hereto as 9 Resolution No. 2024-32
October 24, 2024
Exhibit D, and require a Notice of Determination be filed and posted, as required by CEQA, after the adoption of the City Council Resolution approving and certifying the Final SEIR for the Proposed Project becomes final, as specified by Section 9.14.050 of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code.

Section 7. NO SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION
That based on the substantial evidence included in the Recitals, Exhibits and evidence contained in the record of proceedings, as set forth above, the above findings and the findings set forth in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby finds that no significant new information, as defined CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a), has been received by the Planning Commission after the circulation of the Draft SEIR that would require recirculation and that all of the information added to the Draft SEIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the already adequate Draft and Final SEIRs pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(b).

Section 8. CEQA COMPLIANCE
That the Planning Commission hereby certifies that: (a) it has reviewed the Final SEIR prior to taking any action to recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial the Proposed Project; (b) that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and (c) that the Planning Commission has complied with all of procedural and substantive requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 9. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS
That the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Final SEIR reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis.

Section 10. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
That all provisions of any resolution in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 11. EFFECTIVE DATE
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 12. SEVERABILITY
That if 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 as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 13. CERTIFICATION
10 Resolution No. 2024-32
October 24, 2024
That the Planning Commission Secretary shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th day of October 24, 2024.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

PLANNING COMMISSION
____________________________________
Erlan Gonzalez, Chairperson
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Robert Flores, Planning Official
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________________
Steven B. Quintanilla, City Attorney
Exhibits:

Exhibit A: Findings of Fact
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit C: Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit D: Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report with Errata and Response to Comments
Exhibit A
Findings of Fact
1 EXHIBIT A
CEQA Findings of Fact
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023100145)
I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has conducted an extensive review of the Aquabella Project, which consists of Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment (PEN 23-0109), the General Plan Amendment (PEN 23-0127), the Change of Zone (PEN 24-0041), Tentative Tract Map No. 38850 (PEN 23-00118), and Development Agreement (PEN 23-0119) and which review considered a 1999 environmental impact report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 93113076), a 2003 Supplemental EIR, a 2005 addendum to the previous EIRs, a 2024 Draft Subsequent EIR (“SEIR”), and a 2024 Final SEIR, along with associated technical studies. • On September 23, 2023, the City published and circulated a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) that identified the environmental issues that the City anticipated would be analyzed in the Aquabella Project’s Draft SEIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and other interested parties.
• On October 25, 2023, a revised NOP was published and circulated to the same recipients. • On November 15, 2023, the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from the responsible agencies and the public.
• On May 30, 2024, the City published and filed a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR. • On May 30, 2024, a Notice of Completion for the Draft SEIR was filed with the County Clerk and a copy sent to the State Clearinghouse.
• The public review period for the Draft SEIR ran from May 31, 2024, to July 15, 2024. 14 written comments were received from six public agencies, five organizations, and one individual. The written comments concerned the Aquabella Project’s potential impacts on air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gases, hazards, land use, noise, traffic and public utilities. • The Draft SEIR and its technical appendices were available for public review throughout the comment period in person at City Hall, located at 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley; on the City’s website at http://www.moreno-valley.ca.us/cdd/documents/aboutprojects.html; and on the State Clearinghouse CEQAnet web portal.
• The City provided written responses to the public agencies that had provided written comments.
• The Final SEIR has been completed, comprised of an Errata to the Draft SEIR, all comments received on the Draft SEIR, written responses to comments, the revised SEIR, and technical 2 appendices (collectively, “Final SEIR”). The Final SEIR was made available for public review by posting it on the City’s website.
• On or about October 14, 2024, notice of the Planning Commission’s October 24, 2024, hearing to consider the Final SEIR and associated entitlements was published in the Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation within the City, posted on the City’s website and mailed to those who had requested written notice.

II. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING
Before using a draft EIR prepared by another entity or through a third-party contractor, the City is required to subject the draft to its own review and analysis such that the draft EIR circulated for public review reflects the City’s independent judgment (Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c), CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e).) The City must also certify the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment (Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 (c), CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a)(3), Friends of La Vina v.

County of Los Angeles (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1455).

The applicant for the Aquabella Project retained the independent consultant firm of Dudek to prepare the Draft and Final SEIRs for the Aquabella Project. The City is the lead agency for the preparation of the Final SEIR. The City has received and reviewed both the Draft and the Final SEIR prior to certifying the Final SEIR and prior to making any decision to approve or disapprove the Project. The City conducted screencheck reviews to ensure technical accuracy and completeness of the Draft SEIR and technical studies prior to its release for public review. The City has further considered agency and public input, technical responses, and clarifications provided as part of the public comment process. Thus, City staff and technical personnel from various City departments have reviewed and considered both the Draft and Final SEIR, and such review was accomplished using the City’s and technical personnel’s independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission and City Council will also undertake their own independent review and consideration of the Draft and Final SEIR prior to their respective noticed, public hearings.

Finding: Consistent with Public Resources Code § 21082.1 and CEQA Guidelines § 15084, the City and its decision makers find they have conducted an own independent review and analyses of the Draft and Final SEIR. The City and its decision makers find that the Draft and Final SEIR comply with the requirements of CEQA and reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis pursuant to CEQA.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Finding: The environmental setting of the Aquabella Project, commonly referred to as the “baseline,” is set forth in Sections 2 and 4 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the information in Sections 2 and 4 concerning the site’s environmental setting complies with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15125. 3 Facts in Support of the Finding: Sections 2 and 4 of the Final SEIR sets forth the history of the Aquabella Project site, the site’s land use setting, the site’s existing physical and environmental conditions, all as required by CEQA Guidelines § 15125.

IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Finding: The description of the Aquabella Project is set forth in Section 3 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that that the information in Chapter 3 complies with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15124.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Section 3 of the Final SEIR sets forth the Aquabella Project’s location and boundaries, the Aquabella Project’s objectives, its characteristics and related environmental review, and consultation and intended uses of the Final SEIR, as required by CEQA Guidelines § 15124.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
A. INTRODUCTION AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Public Resources Code Section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

As indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of 4 the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].) While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v.

City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible].)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines sections 15093, 15043[b]; Pub. Resources Code Section 21081(b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be 5 produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
These findings constitute the City’s best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Facts in Support of the Finding set forth in the following sections state the City’s reasons for making each finding and the rationale connecting the evidence to its conclusions.

B. GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES
Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, it is the Planning Commission’s intent to adopt all mitigation measures applicable to the Aquabella Project that are recommended in the Final SEIR. If a measure has, through inadvertence or error, been omitted from the conditions of approval of the Tentative Tract Map or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, approval of the Tentative Tract map repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the Final SEIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR and as shown in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact.

C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION The Planning Commission hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Aquabella Project are no impact or a less than significant effect, and therefore, do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.

1. Aesthetics
a. Scenic vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on aesthetics were analyzed in Section 4.1 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not have a significant impact on any scenic vista.

Facts in Support of the Finding: No scenic vistas or vantage points are identified in the City’s 2040 General Plan. Concerning landforms and natural features that are identified in the 2040 General Plan as scenic resources, a after reviewing various views, Section 4.1.4.2 6 of the Final SEIR concludes that, while visual simulations prepared for the Project depict blockage of views to these local and regional landforms, mobile views to the Bernasconi Hills, San Bernardino Mountains, and the Badlands from foreground vantage points located on public roads adjacent to the Project site would have been partially to fully obstructed by the two-story buildings across the Project site previously evaluated and found to result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas with the 2005 Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment (SPA). While the Project would increase density at the Project site and develop larger-scale buildings compared to the 2005 Aquabella SPA, the Project would result in similar visual impacts to City-identified scenic resources/scenic vistas. Thus, impacts to scenic vistas would be similar to prior project approvals and less than significant. b. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on aesthetics were analyzed in Section 4.1 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not have a significant impact on any scenic recourses.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Section 4.1.4.2 of the Final SEIR determined that the Aquabella Project site is not located adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, a designated state scenic highway. The nearest eligible scenic highway, State Route (SR)-74 between Interstate 5 and Blackburn Road, is located approximately 8 miles south of the Project site. The closest officially designated scenic highway, SR-243, is located over 18 miles east of the Project site.

Due to distance and intervening elements/features including terrain, landscaping, and development, the Aquabella Project site is not visible from the nearest eligible or officially designated state scenic highway. Given that the Aquabella Project site is not located near an officially designated or eligible state scenic highway, as with the prior approvals, implementation of the Aquabella Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.
c. Public Views
Threshold: In an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on aesthetics were analyzed in Section 4.1 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the 7 Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not have a significant impact on any public views.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is in an urbanized area, and thus is evaluated for its potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. After reviewing the zoning and general plan designations for the Aquabella site, Section 4.1.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project would not conflict with regulations or zoning governing scenic quality. Compliance with development regulations and design standards in the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment would ensure consistency with the 2040 General Plan and zoning regulations and policies governing scenic quality. Impacts would be similar to the 2005 Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment and be less than significant.
d. Light or Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project were analyzed in Section 4.1 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not introduce a new substantial source of light or glare compared to the prior approvals.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the prior approvals, the City’s applicable Municipal Code requirements for lighting, and the specific measures in the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment designed to minimize lighting and glare impacts – such as shielding on lighting fixtures, appropriate directional placement, and limited use of reflective materials – Section 4.1.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the impact of light and glare resulting from the development of the Aquabella Project’s introduction of new sources of substantial light or glare would be less than significant.

2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
a. Loss of Important Farmland
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on agricultural and forestry resources were analyzed in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Based 8 on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not convert mapped Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Section 4.2.4.2 of the Final SEIRfound that there is no land at the Aquabella Project site or within off-site improvement areas designated by the California Department of Conservation as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Thus, the Aquabella Project would not directly convert farmland to non-agricultural use. This is a reduced impact compared to the original Specific Pla (SP) 218, as the site no longer includes designated Prime farmland.

Further, the Aquabella Project would not result in the indirect conversion of farmland, for example, as a result of development pressures on nearby designated farmland (defined as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Farmland). First, the Aquabella Project site has been out of agricultural production since the 1980s, has been planned for residential development since the 1990s, and was graded for development in the early 2000s (see Section 4.2.1). Second, the Aquabella Project site is in an infill area surrounded by urbanized, developed land. There is no designated Prime, Unique, or Statewide Farmland on the Project site or the Aquabella Project vicinity. Third, the 2040 General Plan and Zoning identifies the area encompassing the site for Downtown Center, urban development, as shown in Figure 2-3, 2040 General Plan Land Use Designations, and Figure 2-4, Zoning Designations. Fourth, no land in the City is designated for continued agricultural use, as farmland conversion to urban uses has been and continues to be driven by economic and environmental (irrigation) factors. Accordingly, the Aquabella Project would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Farmland.
b. Farmland Zoning and Williamson Act Contracts
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on agricultural and forestry resources were analyzed in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not conflict with any agricultural zoning designation for the Aquabella Project site or a Williamson Act contract.
9 Facts in Support of the Finding: Section 4.2.4.2 of the Final SEIR found that The City does not contain areas zoned for agricultural uses. Additionally, the Aquabella Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. As such, no impact would occur. c. Forest Land Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g])? Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on agricultural and forestry resources were analyzed in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not conflict with any zoning designation for forest land, for timberland or for Timberland Production.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Section 4.2.4.2 of the Final SEIR found that the City does not contain land zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland production.

The Project site is not zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland production. As such, the current Project would have no impact on existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production.
d. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on agricultural and forestry resources were analyzed in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not result in the loss of any forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Section 4.2.4.2 of the Final SEIR found that the Aquabella Project site is composed of 668.6 acres of relatively flat land that does not contain forest resources. Further, approximately 437 acres of the Aquabella Project site have been previously graded. There is no land designated as forest land on the Aquabella Project site or in the City. As such, the Aquabella Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. No impact would occur. e. Conversion of Agricultural or Forest Land
10 Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on agricultural and forestry resources were analyzed in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not result in 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 the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the use and development of nearby land, Section 4.2.4.2 of the Final SEIR found that the Aquabella Project site is located in an infill area surrounded by urbanized, developed land. There is no designated Prime, Unique, or Statewide Farmland onsite or in the Project vicinity. The small amount of remaining active farming in the City is located north of State Route 60 in the northeast portion of the City. This farming will not be directly or indirectly impacted by the Aquabella Project due to its significant distance from the Aquabella Project site. Further, The City does not contain any forestland, timberland, or timberland production zones. No impact would occur related to the indirect conversion of forest land. As a result, the Aquabella Project would not involve changes to the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

3. Air Quality
a. Odors
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on air quality were analyzed in Section 4.3 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project site would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the various emissions and uses that would result from the development of the Aquabella project, Section 4.3.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that odors produced during construction would disperse rapidly and would generally occur in magnitudes that would not effect a substantial number of people and that the impacts would be less than significant. The Aquabella Project would not 11 create new sources of odors during operation and that the impact would be less than significant.

4. Biological Resources
a. Impact on Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Community Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on biological resources were analyzed in Section 4.4 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U. S, Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the location and content of the two riparian vegetation communities on the Aquabella Project site, Section 4.4.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the riparian community located within the Line F mitigation channel will not be disturbed and that the remaining riparian community is small and fragmented so that the impacts of the loss of these fragments will be less than significant. b. Impact on State or Federally Protected Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on biological resources were analyzed in Section 4.4 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not 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.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Aquabella project site, the California Fish and Game Code, the U.S. Fish and Game Code, the Porter-Cologne Act and requirements imposed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S.

Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Section

4.4.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that there were no vernal pools on the Aquabella 12 Project site. The riparian area at the eastern terminus of the Riverside County flood control channel on the Project site with a drainage that joins the channel is relatively small, surrounded by residential development and is heavily disturbed through ongoing human activity (off-road vehicles, pedestrian traffic, and human activities), such that the overall biological functions and values of this small segment of the drainage are considered to be relatively low. As such, impacts to this drainage, in and of itself, would not be considered a substantial adverse effect on state- or federally protected wetlands or other aquatic resources. Therefore, any such impacts would be less than significant.

Further, any development in this area that would result in dredging or fill of the drainage and/or removal of associated riparian vegetation would be expected to trigger the need for agency permits from CDFW, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to impacts to a jurisdictional resource, which would ensure additional mitigation or avoidance measure that would further reduce this less than significant impact.
c. Interference with Movement of Wildlife or Migratory Fish, or Impedance of Use of Nursery Sites
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on biological resources were analyzed in Section 4.4 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Aquabella Project site, its infill location, and its surrounding residential and commercial development and major arterial roads, Section 4.4.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that because the development of the Project site would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors. Because of the extensively disturbed nature of the site and its lack of native habitat, the Aquabella Project would also not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (bat roosts or maternity sites, bird nest rookeries, etc.). Potential impacts on these resources would be less than significant.
f. Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans 13 Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on biological resources were analyzed in Section 4.4 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Pla or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Section 4.4.4.2 of the Final SEIR found that the Aquabella Project site is subject to the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, has complied with MSHCP survey requirements, and therefore there would be no conflict with the Plan. The Aquabella Project site is outside of the Stephen’s Kangaroo Habitat Conservation Plan core area but within its fee area. The Aquabella Project paid the required fee in 2006, so there is no conflict with that plan. Therefore, the development of the Aquabella Project will have no impact on any habitat conservation plan.

5. Cultural Resources
a. Substantial Adverse Change in Significance of Historical Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on cultural resources were analyzed in Section 4.5 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing historical photographs, surveys and maps concerning the Aquabella Project site, Section 4.5.4.2 of the Final SEIR found that there no historic-age structures or other historic-age resources are present within the Aquabella Project area and, accordingly, no impact to a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would occur.

6. Energy
a. Wasteful or Inefficient Use of Energy During Construction and Operation Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
14 Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on the use of energy were analyzed in Section 4.6 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during the construction or operation of the Aquabella Project.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the use of electricity, natural gas, petroleum and renewable energy during both the construction and operation of the Aquabella Project, Section 4.6.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project would use renewable energy on site as determined to be feasible and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, including electricity, natural gas, or petroleum, during Project construction or operation. Among other things, the Project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 Energy Code requirements, provide rooftop solar PV, develop all-electric buildings (excepting restaurants), and decrease fuel demands through reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Impacts would be less than significant.
b. State and Local Plans for Renewable Energy or Energy Consumption Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on the use of use of energy were analyzed in Section 4.6 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not conflict with any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the requirements of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the California Green Building Code, the measures in the City’s 2040 General Plan (as it existed on September 6, 2023, the date of submittal of an SB 330 compliant application) related to energy efficiency and conservation and mitigation measures imposed to mitigate impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, Section 4.6.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.

7. Geology and Soils
a. Risk of Loss, Injury or Death
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
15 a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
b. Strong seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Landslides?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on geology and soils were analyzed in Section 4.7 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving (i) the 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 Aquabella Project area or based on evidence of a known fault, (ii) strong seismic ground shaking, (iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and (iv) landslides.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing geotechnical reports for the Aquabella Project site, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, the California Building Code, the seismic design features of the structures to be built on the Aquabella project site, the prior grading and earthwork on the site, and the City’s requirements for the issuance of a grading permit, Section 4.7.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the impacts related to fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction and landslides would be less than significant.
b. Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on geology and soils were analyzed in Section 4.7 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After review the current status of the Aquabella Project site and best management practices consistent with the national pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit and the proposed landscaping, hardscape and stormwater drainage control features, Section 4.7.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the impacts of both construction and operation of the Aquabella Project on soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less then significant. 16 c. Location on Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on geology and soils were analyzed in Section 4.7 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that could become unstable as a result of the Aquabella Project and possibly result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the geotechnical report for the Aquabella Project site, prior grading and current state of the site, final design recommendations, the possibility of undocumented fill or relatively loose/soft subsurface materials and the California Building Code, Section 4.7.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that impacts related to unstable soils, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence due to construction collapsible soils would be less than significant. d. Location on Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on geology and soils were analyzed in Section 4.7 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) and would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the geotechnical report for the Aquabella Project and the requirements of the California Building Code, Section 4.7.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that impacts from any moderate to highly expansive soils would be less than significant.
e. Soils Incapable of Supporting Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
17 Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on geology and soils were analyzed in Section 4.7 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not involve any soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

Facts in Support of the Finding: As set forth in Section 4.19.1the Eastern Municipal Water District will provide wastewater collection and treatment to the Aquabella Project. Section 4.7.4.2 of the Final SEIR concludes that there be no impact on soils because of the use of septic tanks or alternate water disposal systems because the Aquabella Project will not use either one.

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a. Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in Section 4.9 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the condition of the Aquabella Project site, construction and uses proposed, applicable requirements of Resource Conservation Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, applicable sections of the California Code of Regulations, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the rules concerning Hazardous Materials Business Plans and the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures, the California Environmental Reporting System, Section 4.9 of the Final SEIR concluded that with adherence to federal, state, and local rules and regulations, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. b. Location on Hazardous Material Site
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as 18 result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in Section 4.9 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the list of sites on the sites contained in the Cortese List, produced pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5, and the location of the Aquabella Project site, Section 4.9.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the site is not on the Cortese List and, therefore, there is no impact. c. Location in Vicinity of Public Airport
Threshold: Would the Project be 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, and as such result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area?
Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in Section 4.9 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the Aquabella Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport nor would it result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Aquabella Project.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the March Air Reserve Base (March ARB) Airport Influence Area as well as the location of the March ARB and other airports relative to the Aquabella Project site, Section 4.9.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project site is outside of all airport land use compatibility and noise contours. Therefore, there no impact would occur.
d. Impairment of Adopted Emergency or Evacuation Plan
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in Section 4.9 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the 19 Aquabella Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing previous studies of the roads — internal and external — to the Aquabella Project, the City’s Engineering Standards for roads, the requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department and the California Fire Code, the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment, the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and its requirements for fire and safety and the Circulation Element of the City’s 2040 General Plan as it existed on September 6, 2023 (the date of submittal of an SB 330 compliant application), Section 4.9.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project would not result in the implementation or operation of any new project features that would result in impairment or interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The impact would be less than significant. e. Significant Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Wildland Fires Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in Section 4.9 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Aquabella Project’s urban infill location outside a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as well as the impacts of a wildfire on public services, transportation and those who will reside or work within the Aquabella Project site, Section 4.9.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires, and the impacts of a wildland fire would be less than significant.

9. Hydrology and Water Quality
a. Substantially Alter Drainage
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surface, in a manner which would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) 20 impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hydrology and water quality were analyzed in Section 4.10 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surface, in a manner which would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the prior project analyses, as well as the Aquabella Project’s existing site conditions and Stormwater Management Report, Section 4.10.4.2 of the Final Report concluded that the impacts related to the impedance of flood flows would be less than significant. b. Risk Release of Pollutants during Floods, Tsunamis, or Seiches Threshold: Would the Project risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation from flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche zones?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hydrology and water quality were analyzed in Section 4.10 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to Aquabella Project inundation from flood hazards, tsunami or seiche zones.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the prior project analyses, inland location of the Aquabella Project site, the City’s Municipal Code dealing with Flood Damage Prevention and Implementation, the National Flood Insurance Plan and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 100-year flood map, Section 4.10.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that, with implementation of the required drainage control improvements and the ability for the lakes to provide flood storage control, the Aquabella project’s potential impact related to release of pollutants due to Aquabella Project inundation from flood hazards, tsunami or seiche zones would be less than significant.

The Aquabella Project site is predominantly outside any flood hazard zone and is located inland, outside of any tsunami hazard zone or seiche hazard zone. 21 10. Land Use and Planning
a. Division of an Established Community
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on land use and planning were analyzed in Section 4.11 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not physically divide an established community.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the location and physical development of the Aquabella Project and surrounding development, Section 4.11.4.2, concluded that the Aquabella Project would have less than significant impact related to physically dividing an established community.
b. Conflict with Land Use Plan or Policy Adopted to Mitigate Environmental Effect Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on land use and planning were analyzed in Section 4.11 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.

Facts in Support of the Fining: After reviewing the Aquabella Project in Section

4.1.4.2 in the Final SEIR for consistency with both the 2024 General Plan and the 2006 General Plan, the City’s Zoning and Municipal Codes, the City’s Climate Action Plan (as it and the 2040 General Plan existed on September 6, 2023, the date of submittal of an SB 330 compliant application), the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Section 4.11.5 in the Final SEIR, at page 4.11-71, concluded that the Aquabella Project was consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan goals and policies and all applicable local and regional plans and that impacts would be less than significant.

11. Mineral Resources
a. Known Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project 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? 22 Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on mineral resources were analyzed in Section 4.12 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the location of the Aquabella Project site, the California State Mining and Geology Board’s designation of Mineral Resource Zones in the City, the California Department of Conservation Mineral Resources Mapping and the Mineral Resource Zones shown in the City’s 2040 General Plan as it existed on September 6, 2023 (the date of submittal of an SB 330 compliant application), Section 4.12 of the Final SEIR concluded that there are no known mineral resources on the Aquabella Project site and its development will have no impact. b. Mineral Resource Recovery Site
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on mineral resources were analyzed in Section 4.12 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

12. Noise
a. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on noise were analyzed in Section 4.13 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the 23 Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the California Department of Transportation Vibrations Standards, the City’s Municipal Code concerning vibration, and the Aquabella Project’s Noise Technical Report, Section 4.13.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the impacts due to vibration from construction and operation of the Aquabella Project would be less than significant.
b. Aircraft Noise
Threshold: 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 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: No Impact. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on noise were analyzed in Section 4.13 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the Aquabella Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, nor would it expose people residing or working in the Aquabella Project area to excessive noise levels.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the March Air Reserve Base (“March ARB”) Airport Influence Area and the location of March ARB and other airports relative to the Aquabella Project site, Section 4.13.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project site is outside of all airport land use compatibility and noise contours and, therefore, that there will be no impact related to excessive noise from airport from operations.

13. Population and Housing
a. Unplanned Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on population and housing were analyzed in Section 4.14 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not induce substantial unplanned growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
24 Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the direct and indirect impacts of the Aquabella project in light of the 2040 General Plan population forecasts, Regional Housing Needs Assessment of the City’s housing needs and the extension of infrastructure and the on-site jobs that will be created, Section 4.14.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project would be consistent with the City’s population growth and housing projections so that direct impacts would be less than significant. Permanent jobs would mostly be associated with the Town Center land use and schools so that the Aquabella Project is not anticipated to cause significant numbers of people to relocate for employment purposes and, therefore, the construction and operation of the Aquabella Project is not anticipated to induce substantial unplanned population growth related to employment, and impacts would be less than significant. The Aquabella Project is located on an infill site surrounded by existing development on all sides. Certain utility improvements on site (water, wastewater, and dry utility) and the Nason Street realignment and construction were approved and completed under the original SP 218 and 2005 Aquabella SPA approvals so that while additional utility improvements would need to be built on site to accommodate the Project, utilities would connect to existing utilities and be appropriately sized to the Project. Therefore, like the prior project approvals, the current Project would result in less than significant impacts related to indirect population growth.
b. Displacement of People or Housing
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on population and housing were analyzed in Section 4.14 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Section 4.14.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Implementation of the Aquabella Project would not displace any existing housing or people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.

14. Public Services
a. New or Altered Governmental Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need 25 for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
- Fire Protection
- Police Protection
- Schools
- Parks
-Other public facilities
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on public services were analyzed in Section 4.15 of the Final EIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physical 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 fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other facilities.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the impacts on fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and other public facilities, including library facilities and health services, Section 4.15.4.2 concluded that the impacts related to the provisions of new or physically altered facilities for all of the categories of public services would be less than significant.

15. Recreation
a. Increased Use of Existing Facilities
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on recreation were analyzed in Section 4.16 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
26 Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the City’s 2040 General Plan policies dealing with recreational facilities, existing City and regional recreational facilities, the park and recreational facilities which are part of the Aquabella Project and the Quimby Act in-lieu fees that will be paid in connection with the Aquabella Project, Section 4.15.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that, with the provision of on-site park facilities, as well as the contribution of an appropriate in-lieu fee, impacts of the Aquabella Project related to the substantial deterioration of existing park facilities would be similar to prior approvals and less than significant.
b. Provision of Recreational Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on recreation were analyzed in Section 4.16 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical impact on the environment.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Recreational facilities proposed as part of the Aquabella Project are considered throughout the Final SEIR, and mitigation provided.

Section 4.16.4.2 of the Final SEIR determined that construction or expansion of parks in the City resulting from the City’s land dedication or in-lieu fee payment requirement could result in environmental impacts, such as conversion of habitat, water pollution during construction, or increased noise. However, the location, timing, and impact of construction or expansion of such facilities is unknown and not reasonably foreseeable at this time. Such park construction or expansion would be required to comply with the law, including CEQA, which would require separate environmental review, compliance with regulations, and the adoption of mitigation to reduce any identified significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant.

16. Transportation
a. Conflict with Program or Policy Addressing the Circulation System Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
27 Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on traffic were analyzed in Section 4.17 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the Aquabella Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Circulation Element of the City’s 2040 General Plan as it existed on September 6, 2023 (the submittal date of an SB 330 compliant application), the Southern California Association of Government’s (“SCAG”) 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS” or “Connect SoCal 2020”) as it existed on September 6, 2023, and, even though not applicable, as it was adopted in April, 2024 (“Connect SoCal 2024”), Section

4.17.5.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that Aquabella Project was consistent with the 2040 General Plan’s Circulation Element and that the impacts of the Aquabella Project on bike, pedestrian and transit facilities would be less than significant and that the Aquabella Project would also be consistent with both the Connect SoCal 2020 and Connect SoCal 2024 and that impacts to both would be less than significant. As designed, the Aquabella Project would provide appropriate circulation improvements, improve and enhance active (bike, pedestrian, scooter) transportation, and expand transit access and facilities. b. Vehicle Miles Traveled
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on traffic were analyzed in Section 4.17 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the Aquabella Project would not be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b).

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Aquabella Project’s Transportation Project Design Features, the traffic to be generated by the Aquabella Project,SB 743 (signed in 2013), SB 375 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008), SB 1358 (the Complete Streets Act), AB 1317 (signed in 2023), the Caltrans Transportation Impact Study Guide, CEQA Guidelines § 15063.4, SCAG’s RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal 2024 (even though not applicable), the Western Riverside County Council of Governments Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program, Riverside County’s travel demand forecasting model, the City’s 2040 General Plan Circulation Element as it existed on September 6, 2023, and its Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, Section 4.17.5.2 of the Final SEIR determined that the Aquabella Project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b) and that the impact of the Aquabella Project 28 on vehicle miles traveled would be less than significant. The Aquabella Project’s VMT per capita with project conditions under existing and Horizon Year (2045) scenarios would not exceed the Citywide per capita VMT for Moreno Valley. Project VMT per service population would also be less than significant under existing and Horizon Year scenarios. c. Traffic Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on traffic were analyzed in Section 4.17 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the Aquabella Project would not substantially increase traffic hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing all geometric design features of the Aquabella Project, including access to the site, and of-ramp queuing at the I-215 ramps and SR-60 interchanges, Section 4.17.5.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project would not increase hazards because of a roadway design feature or incompatible uses and that the impacts would be less than significant. d. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on traffic were analyzed in Section 4.17 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the Aquabella Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the location of the Aquabella Project site, the Circulation Element of the City’s 2040 Plan as it existed on September 6, 2023 (the date of submittal of an SB 330 compliant application) and the City’s Traffic Control Plan Guidelines & Checklist and its Emergency Operations Plan, the capabilities of the Moreno Valley Fire Department and the Aquabella Project’s Wildfire Evacuation Plan, Section 4.17.5.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the development of the Aquabella Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and that the impact would be less than significant.

17. Utilities and Service Systems
a. Relocation or Construction of Utilities and Service Systems 29 Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on utilities and service systems were analyzed in Section 4.19 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Aquabella Project’s impacts on the provision of water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas and telecommunications facilities, Section 4.19.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that, similar to prior approvals, the impacts of the Aquabella Project on utilities and service systems would not require the construction or relocation of any facilities or public utilities or service systems which could cause significant environmental effects. b. Availability of Sufficient Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on utilities and service systems were analyzed in Section 4.19 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Aquabella Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Aquabella Project’s water needs, its Conceptual Potable Water Plan and its Conceptual Recycled Water Plan and the Water Supply Assessment provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District, Section

4.19.4.2 of the Final SEIR, concluded that the EMWD would continue to be able to meet the Aquabella Project’s demand for water reasonably foreseeable future developments during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Adequacy of Wastewater Treatment
30 Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on utilities and service systems were analyzed in Section 4.19 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will have available to it adequate wastewater treatment, as determined by the wastewater provider that will serve the Aquabella project, to serve the Aquabella Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Aquabella Project’s wastewater generation and sewer demand and the existing capacity and future surplus wastewater treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment provider, EMWD, Section

4.19.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the impacts on that capacity would be less than significant.
d. Solid Waste Reduction
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on utilities and service systems were analyzed in Section 4.19 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the amount of solid waste that the Aquabella project will generate, the available capacity of the two landfills available to take the solid waste generated by the Aquabella Project, the City’s requirements for waste and recyclable storage areas and the submission of a waste management and recycling plan for approval by the City prior to the issuance of building permits and the requirements of the California Green Building Code, Section 4.19.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the impacts on the capacity of the landfills would be less than significant. e. Management and Reduction of Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 31 Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on utilities and service systems were analyzed in Section 4.19 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will comply with federal, state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, SB 1383, AB 341, AB 1826, and the City’s requirements for waste and recyclable storage areas and the submission of a waste management and recycling plan for approval by the City prior to the issuance of building permits, Section

4.19.4.2 of the Final SEIR concludes that the Aquabella Project would be in compliance with all federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wastes. Therefore, as with prior approvals, impacts would be less than significant.

18. Wildfire
a. Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan
Threshold: Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on wildfires were analyzed in Section 4.20 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the City’s Local hazard Mitigation Plan, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, the Aquabella Project’s Wildfire Evacuation Plan, the results of a study using microscopic, multimodal traffic flow modeling software and the education program required by Product Design Feature PDF-WF-1, Section

4.20.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the impacts of the Aquabella Project on the evacuation of the Aquabella Project site would be less than significant. b. Exacerbation of Wildfire Risks
Threshold: Would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, or other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on wildfires were analyzed in Section 4.20 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not 32 exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose Aquabella project occupants to pollutants concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds or other factors.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the location in an urban infill area, status and development of the Aquabella Project site, and compliance with City and State fire code standards, Section 4.20.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded the Aquabella Project would not represent a significant fire risk and would not exacerbate wildfire risk.

Additionally, in the case of a wildfire, Project occupants would be advised on strategies to limit exposure by their local health and air quality officials to reduce exposure to pollutants. Impacts related to exposure of Aquabella Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would be less than significant.
c. Infrastructure that May Exacerbate Fire Risk in State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ)
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on wildfires were analyzed in Section 4.20 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area or VHFHSZ. Further, after reviewing the new roads to be constructed, the undergrounding of utilities serving the Aquabella Project site and the local and State standards regulating fire risk, Section 4.20.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment beyond those already disclosed in this Final SEIR and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Significant Risks to People or Structuresin SRA or VHFHSZ Threshold: Would the Project 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?
33 Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on wildfires were analyzed in Section 4.20 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project will not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area or VHFHSZ. After reviewing the Aquabella Project’s status and location, the geotechnical report for the Aquabella Project and the drainage for the Aquabella Project, Section 4.20.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that Given that the Aquabella Project would not increase risks of flooding or landslides on site and the Aquabella Project does not represent a significant fire risk, impacts related to exposure of people to significant risks related to runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant.
e. Other Applicable Significance Criteria
Finding: Less than Significant. After reviewing criteria established for hazards and hazardous materials, transportation and public services and City and State fire code standards that relate to wildfires and evacuation, Section 4.20.4.2 of the Final SEIR, at page 4.20-20, concluded that the Aquabella Project is not anticipated to result in increased frequency, duration, or size of wildfires, or additional exposure of people or structures to wildfires; impacts would be less than significant.

D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The Planning Commission hereby finds that, for each of the following significant effects identified in the Final SEIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Aquabella Project which avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant effect to a less than significant level.

1. Air Quality
a. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on air quality were analyzed in Section 4.3 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project site would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations after the imposition of specified mitigation measures.
34 Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the air quality emissions expected to be generated by the development of the Aquabella Project, the traffic expected to be generated by the Aquabella Project, a construction health risk assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Section 4.3.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that, during construction, the localized significance thresholds for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 could be exceeded resulting in a potentially significant impact. Project construction health risks for sensitive receptors were also identified as potentially significant for exceeding the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk – Residential off site, Maximum Individual Cancer Risk – Residential on site, and Maximum Individual Cancer Risk – Other Non-Residential Sensitive Receptor off site (Vista del Lago High School). Potential cumulative health risks would also be potentially significant.

Section 4.3.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that Aquabella Project-generated impacts associated with CO hotspots during construction and operation would be less than significant. Operation of the Aquabella Project would also result in less than significant impacts related to exceeding LST thresholds, operational health risks for sensitive receptors, and cumulative operational health risks. The health risk from valley fever is also less than significant during construction and operation.

Section 4.3.7 of the Final SEIR concluded that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the Aquabella Project’s construction impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be reduced to less than significant. MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7 would reduce localized criteria air pollutant emissions below the applicable localized significance thresholds so that the impact would then be less than significant. These measures require that the Project minimize off-road equipment exhaust, restrict idling times, implement a dust control plan, and utilize supercompliant low-VOC paints. The health risk assessment shows that, after incorporation of MM-AQ-2, the Residential Maximum Individual Cancer Risk residential off site, Maximum Individual Cancer Risk residential on site and the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk for another non-residential sensitive receptor (Vista del Lago High School) off site would be reduced below the applicable thresholds and less than significant, the toxic air contaminant health risk impacts would be less than significant, and cumulative construction-related health risks would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7

2. Biological Resources
a. Impact on Sensitive or Special Status Species
35 Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less than Significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on biological resources were analyzed in Section 4.4 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife1 or the U. S. Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Final SEIR reviewed the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“MSHCP”), the California Fish and game Code, the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MTBA”), special species plants, special species wildlife, Burrowing owl, least Bell’s vireo, fairy shrimp, Crotch’s bumble bee and other special status species, and their habitat, which are, or might be, found on the Aquabella Project site, Section 4.4.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the development of the Aquabella Project would have no substantial adverse impact, and would therefore be less than significant, on special status plants. The Final SEIR determined that the potential for special status species to occur on the site was low due to its highly disturbed nature, and the only special status wildlife likely to be present on the Aquabella site were burrowing owls and least Bell’s vireo. Further, burrowing owl, least Bell’s vireo, San Diego fairy shrimp, and vernal pool fairy shrimp are listed as covered species under the MSCHP but are subject to presence/absence surveys. The surveys identified no burrowing owls or active burrows (though one individual was observed during fairy shrimp surveys) and no state- or federally listed fairy shrimp species. For burrowing owl, the Final SEIR determined the conservation measures included in the MSHCP for this species would mitigate any impact to these species to less than significant. Further, because Section 3503, and in particular Section 3503.5, of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take of active nests of most raptor and other avian species, MM-BIO-1 would be implemented as part of the Project to ensure compliance with these regulations, as well as the federal MBTA, to further minimize less than significant impacts.

No least Bell’s vireo nests were observed but the species was observed in the preserved riparian area adjacent to the site and just outside this area onsite. The Final SEIR determined the conservation measures included in the MSHCP for this species would mitigate any impact to these species to less than significant. Further, in conformance with 1 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife was formerly the Department of Fish and Game. 36 several recommended measures in the MSCHP to minimize direct impacts to least Bell’s vireo and to ensure compliance with the protection provisions of Sections 3503 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA, MM-BIO-2 is included.

Potential impacts to other special status species were determined to be less than significant. The imposition of MM-BIO-3 would ensure compliance with the Sections 3503, 3503.5, and/or 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, as well as the federal MBTA, and would minimize the impacts on other avian species that might be found on the Aquabella Project site.

Mitigation Measures: MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-3
b. Potential Conflict with Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on biological resources were analyzed in Section 4.4 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation or ordinance after the imposition of a specified mitigation measure.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After a review of the Aquabella Project site and the City’s Municipal Code dealing with the removal of trees, Section 4.4.4.2 of the Final SEIR found that the only trees subject to the City tree removal ordinance were located within a riparian area and, with the imposition of MM-BIO-4 there would be no conflict with the City’s tree removal ordinance. Development of the Aquabella Project will not conflict with any other local policies or ordinances designed to protect or otherwise regulate biological resources.

Mitigation Measures: MM-BIO-4

3. Cultural Resources
a. Substantial Adverse Change in Significance of Archaeological Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on cultural resources were analyzed in Section 4.5 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 37 archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 after the imposition of specified mitigation measures.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing Eastern Information Center records, aerial photographs and archaeological and pedestrian surveys of the Aquabella Project site, Section 4.5.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that no new or more severe significant impacts would result from the Aquabella Project beyond those discussed in prior CEQA analyses. Impacts to archaeological resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, would be less than significant. However, while there is an extremely low potential to encounter previously unidentified subsurface cultural/archaeological deposits, unknown cultural resources could be encountered. Impacts would therefore be considered potentially significant. Section 4.4.7 of the Final SEIR concluded that mitigation measures MM CUL-1 through MM-CUL-6 and MM-CUL-9 would be implemented to ensure proper treatment should unknown archaeological resources be discovered. With the imposition of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-6 and MM-CUL-9, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, MM-CUL-3, MM-CUL-4, MM-CUL5, MM-CUL-6, and MM-CUL-9. b. Disturbance of Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on cultural resources were analyzed in Section 4.5 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries after the imposition of specified mitigation measures.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing archival research an updated pedestrian survey of the Aquabella Project site, Section 4.5.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that no new or more severe significant impacts would result from the Project beyond those discussed in prior CEQA documents, and impacts to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be considered less than significant. However, while the possibility to disturb human remains is extremely low, unknown human remains could be encountered. Impacts would therefore be considered potentially significant.

Section 4.4.7 of the Final SEIR concluded that mitigation measures MM CUL-7 and MMCUL-8 would be implemented to ensure proper treatment should human remains be discovered during grading, in compliance with California Health and Safety § 7050.5. With the imposition of MM-CUL-7 and MM-CUL-8, impacts would be less than significant. 38 Mitigation Measures: MM-CUL-7 and MM-CUL-08

4. Geology and Soils
a. Destruction of Unique Paleontological Resources or Site or Geological Features Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on geology and soils were analyzed in Section 4.7 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or geological feature after the imposition of a specific mitigation measure.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After conducting a paleontological resources inventory, including a search through the records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles and the Western Science Center, reviewing published geological mapping and published and unpublished geological and paleontological reports and a pedestrian survey of the Aquabella Project site, Section 4.7.4.2 concluded that, in the event that intact paleontological resources are discovered on the Aquabella Project site, ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the Aquabella Project, such as grading and large diameter (greater than 2 feet) drilling during site preparation and trenching for utilities, have the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. Without mitigation, the potential damage to paleontological resources during construction would be a potentially significant impact. Section 4.7.7 of the Final SEIR concluded that the implementation of mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 would reduce the impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant by ensuring proper monitoring and recovery of such resources during those activities.

Mitigation Measures: MM-GEO-1.

5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Generation of Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions or Conflict with an Applicable Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases
Thresholds: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on greenhouse gas emissions were analyzed in Section 4.8 of the Final SEIR. Based 39 on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment nor would the Aquabella Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases, after the imposition of a specific mitigation measure.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Final SEIR evaluated the impacts of the Aquabella Project on greenhouse gas emissions in three ways: consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) as it existed on September 6, 2023 (the date of submittal of an SB 330 compliant application); consistency with the California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (“2022 Scoping Plan”), Appendix D; and consistency with the greenhouse gas-related goals of the SCAG’s RTP/SCS (that is, with Connect SoCal 2020 and also, even though not applicable because it was adopted after September 6, 2023, with Connect SoCal 2024). After reviewing each of the three ways to determine consistency in detail, first Section 4.8.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that because a General Plan Amendment is needed in order to develop the Aquabella Project, the Project cannot rely on the CAP for CEQA streamlining. The Final SEIR thus evaluates GHG impacts using two other methodologies, described below and in Section 4.8.4.2.

Nonetheless, the Final SEIR explains the Aquabella Project would be consistent with the CAP’s voluntary measures and would result in per capita emissions of just 2.34 MT CO2e, well below both the CAP’s target of 4.0 MT CO2e per capita and its anticipated achievement of 3.62 MT CO2e per capita.

As to consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, the Aquabella Project would potentially conflict with one attribute of Table 3 of Appendix D, Local Actions, recommendations for key attributes of residential and mixed-use development prior to mitigation. The Aquabella Project was shown consistent with all key attributes based on substantial evidence, which included evidence that the Project’s design to include 50% mid-rise units would achieve at least equivalent vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas reductions compared to 20% deed restricted low-income housing. It would also naturally provide “housing affordable to lower income residents.” However, the Aquabella Project was determined to potentially conflict with the electrification attribute because all residential and non-residential development would use all-electric appliances except for restaurants, which would be allowed to have gas appliances. The imposition of mitigation measure MM-GHG-1 would reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by 76 MT CO2e thereby achieving an equivalent reduction to the elimination of natural gas within restaurant uses. As such, the Aquabella Project would not conflict with the State’s climate goals, and accordingly, the Aquabella Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with the implementation of MM-GHG-1.
40 The Final SEIR also concluded that the Aquabella Project would be consistent with the RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal 2020) as it existed on September 6, 2023, because the Aquabella Project would comply with the RTP/SCS’s applicable strategies of focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations and promoting a green region. As the Aquabella Project would be consistent with the RTP/SCS, it would result in a less than significant impact.

Further, the Aquabella Project would also be consistent with the same strategies in Connect SoCal 2024 and would therefore result in a less than significant impact, though this updated plan is not applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: MM-GHG-1.

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a. Release of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in Section 4.9 of the Final SEIR.

Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment after the imposition of specified mitigation measures.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the previous analyses of hazardous materials in surface soils, the existence of dump sites and methane, previous grading and earthwork at the site, other potential accidental releases of hazardous materials, the proposed operation of the Aquabella Project and groundwater, Section

4.9.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the impacts could be potentially significant related to surface soils, dump sites and methane, and groundwater. The Final SEIR, Section 4.9.4.2, determined impacts would be and less than significant for other potential accidental releases of hazardous materials and operation of the Aquabella Project.

Section 4.9.7 of the Final SEIR concluded that grading and excavation activities associated with construction of the Project could result in releases of hazardous materials from impacted soils and soil vapor. Mitigation measure MM-HAZ-1 requires characterization and evaluation of soil and soil vapor, and appropriate controls through a soil management plan (SMP) and a soil vapor mitigation plan (SVMP), which would mitigate impacts related 41 to contaminated soils. The former dump site areas would be characterized and closed as described in MM-HAZ-2 mitigating related impacts, including methane impacts, to less than significant with mitigation. Contaminated groundwater could be released to the onsite lakes or incidentally from former agricultural wells during operation of the Aquabella project. Characterization and treatment of groundwater through the imposition of MMHAZ-3 and management of on-site wells through the imposition of MM-HAZ-4 would reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous material related to groundwater to less than significant with mitigation. Management of on-site wells through the imposition of MM-HAZ-4 would also include procedures for communication with Eastern Municipal Water District to either maintain or replace wells associated with ongoing Groundwater Sustainability Plan-related monitoring and planning.

Mitigation Measures: MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-2, MM-HAZ-3, and MM-HAZ-4 b. Hazardous Emissions or Materials Near Schools
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in Section 4.9 of the Final SEIR.

Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school after the imposition of a specified mitigation measure.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the location of existing nearby schools, the schools to be constructed within the Aquabella Project site, and the possible existence of contaminants in surface soils, Section 4.9.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that impacts during construction were potentially significant. However, the distance of proposed school sites from the dumpsite meant that impacts on the schools resulting from methane were less than significant and that the impacts on the schools from the operation of the Aquabella Project would be less than significant. Section 4.9.7 of the Final SEIR concluded that the imposition of MM-HAZ-1 would reduce the impacts on the school during construction of the Aquabella Project to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: MM-HAZ-1

7. Hydrology and Water Quality
a. Violate Water Quality Standards or and Waste Discharge Requirements 42 Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hydrology and water quality were analyzed in Section 4.10 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface of ground water quality after the imposition of specified mitigation measures.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing previous studies of hydrology/hydraulics, water quality, drainage and lake design for the Aquabella Project, the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Water System Permit and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, a Eastern Municipal Water District’s 2020 study conducted as part of its Perris North Groundwater Monitoring Project, and the Aquabella Project’s Stormwater Management Report, Section 4.10.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the impacts from stormwater runoff would be less than significant. However, impacts to some existing onsite wells and related to the use of groundwater due to uncertain groundwater quality would be potentially significant. Section 4.10.7 concluded that the imposition of mitigation measure MM-HAZ-3 and MM-HAZ-4 would reduce the impacts to less than significant by providing for the decommissioning of discontinued wells, additional groundwater characterization, and treatment of groundwater to meet applicable water quality standards.

Mitigation Measures: MM-HAZ-3 and MM-HAZ-4.
b. Substantially Decrease Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Recharge Threshold: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hydrology and water quality were analyzed in Section 4.10 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Aquabella project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin after the 43 imposition of specified mitigation measures.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing prior project analyses, the California Department of Water Resources’ designation of the San Jacinto Water Basin, the Eastern Municipal Water District’s (“EMWD”) Groundwater Sustainability Plan (“GSP”) for the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin (“SJGB”), EMWD’s Urban Water Management Plan, and the Aquabella Project’s Water Demand Analysis, Section 4.10.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project could exacerbate the reduction in groundwater storage beyond what was considered in the current Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin so that its impacts on groundwater supplies would be potentially significant. Mitigation measure MM-HYD-2 requires coordination with EMWD and the relevant Groundwater Sustainability Agency to ensure that any groundwater extraction is consistent with the goals of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and sustainable management of the basin. Section

4.10.7 of the Final SEIR concluded that the imposition of this mitigation measures MMHYD-2 would reduce the impacts related to groundwater demand to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: MM-HYD-2.
c. Conflict with or Obstruct Water Quality or Groundwater Management Plan Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on hydrology and water quality were analyzed in Section 4.10 of the Final SEIR.

Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or a sustainable groundwater management plan after the imposition of a specified mitigation measure.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit and its Municipal Separate Storm Water System Permit and the Eastern Municipal Water District’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Section 4.10 of the Final SEIR concluded that the Aquabella Project would not conflict with a water quality control plan. However, because the Aquabella Project was not considered as part of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and, therefore, depending on the volumes of water that would be extracted for the initial filling of the lake, as well as annual maintenance requirements, there could be potentially significant impacts related to the sustainable management of the groundwater basin.

With the implementation of mitigation measures MM-HYD-1, MM-HYD-2, and MM-HAZ- 44 4, the potentially significant impact related to conflict with a water quality control plan or a sustainable groundwater management plan would be reduced to less than significant. Implementation of MM-HYD-1 and MM-HYD-2 would ensure coordination with EMWD is accomplished prior to any groundwater extraction to ensure any extraction is consistent with, and will not impede, the GSP for the SJGB. In addition, implementation of the Project may also include abandonment of an existing groundwater well (referred to as the UCR Scott well) that has been designated by EMWD as Representative Monitoring Point in the GSP. Abandonment or any other interference with this well could obstruct implementation of the GSP by removing a monitoring data point that is being used as part of the monitoring of groundwater levels in the subbasin. Implementation of MM-HAZ-4 would ensure that coordination with EMWD is done prior to any modifications or abandonment of any wells on site.

Mitigation Measures: MM-HYD-1, MM-HYD-2, and MM-HAZ-4.

8. Noise
a. Ambient Noise Levels
Threshold: Would the Project result in 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?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on noise were analyzed in Section 4.13 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Aquabella Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies after the imposition of specified mitigation measures.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing prior project analyses, the location of the Aquabella Project site and its surroundings, the noise limits recommended by the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, the City’s Municipal Code, and the Project’s Noise Technical Report, modeling anticipated construction, operational, and traffic noise of the Aquabella Project, Section 4.13.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that construction noise impacts would be potentially significant during Phases 4 and 5 of construction for exceeding the FTA’s recommended limit of 80 dBA Leq-8hr. Impacts of construction noise would also be potentially significant at certain residences along the site’s boundary where noise would exceed ambient levels. Construction traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. 45 Section 4.13.4.2 and 4.13.7 of the Final SEIR concluded that, with the implementation of mitigation measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, impacts related to construction noise would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Section 4.13.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that Aquabella Project operational traffic noise impacts would be potentially significant due to noise increases above ambient levels. Section 4.13.4.2 and 4.13.7 of the Final SEIR concluded that, with implementation of MM-NOI-3, which requires the use of traffic-calming measures on several road segments to reduce traffic noise, impacts related to traffic noise would be less than significant.

Section 4.13.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that operational noise impacts would be within acceptable limits and not significantly increase ambient noise above existing levels. Operation noise impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: MM-NOI-1, MM-NOI-2, and MM-NOI-3.

9. Tribal Cultural Resources
a. Substantial Adverse Change in Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC 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?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on tribal cultural resources were analyzed in Section 4.18 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project site would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, 46 feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), or (ii) a resource determined by the Planning Commission, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code § 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code § 5024.1(c), the Planning Commission has considered the significance of the resource to a California Native American.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the prior grading and earthwork, existing site conditions, records maintained by the Eastern Information Center and the Native American Heritage Commission, information received from six tribes, and consultation with three tribes, Section 4.18.4.2 of the Final SEIR concluded that, while there have been no tribal cultural resources found to date, the discovery of buried tribal cultural resources would result in a potential significant impact to tribal cultural resources. However, as discussed in Section 4.5, there is an extremely low potential to encounter previously unidentified subsurface cultural/archaeological deposits or human remains in light of substantial prior site disturbance associated with prior agricultural use and grading under prior approvals. Further, implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-1 through MM-CUL-9, would ensure proper treatment of unknown tribal cultural resources and ensure such potential impacts would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-9.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION The Planning Commission hereby finds that despite the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR and in these Findings to substantially lessen significant environmental effects, the following environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. These unavoidable impacts are overridden by the benefits of the Aquabella Project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore in Section IX below.

1. Air Quality
a. Conflict with an Applicable Air Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on air quality were analyzed in Section 4.3 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project site would 47 conflict with the implementation of an applicable air plan.

Construction: Section 4.3.4.2 concluded that emissions resulting from the Project construction would exceed the criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for VOC and NOx emissions, which would result in a potentially significant impact by potentially conflicting with the AQMP under Consistency Criterion No. 1. However, Section

4.3.7, concluded that the Aquabella Project’s construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds after implementation of mitigation measures MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7, and would thus would not conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 1 with mitigation incorporated. MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7 reduce construction impacts by construction equipment exhaust minimization and other emission reductions, limits on truck and equipment idling, dust control, notification of construction activities, super compliance low-VOC paint, and low-VOC cleaning supplies and paint education. Impacts would be less than significant with this mitigation incorporated.

Operation and Overlap of Construction and Operation: Section 4.3.4.2 concluded that Project operational emissions and overlapping operational and construction emissions would result in exceedances of regional thresholds for emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. As such, the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions are considered potentially significant, and the Project would have the potential to increase the frequency or severity of a violation in the federal or state ambient air quality standards, which is a potential conflict with the AQMP under Consistency Criterion No. 1. Section 4.3.7 concluded that the Aquabella Project would result in operational criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s thresholds of significance after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, which include MM-AQ-7 through MM-AQ-11. MM-AQ-7 through MM-AQ-11 reduce operational and overlapping impacts through requiring super compliance low-VOC paint, low-VOC cleaning supplies and paint education, use of zero emission landscape equipment, and other landscape maintenance equipment reduction measures. However, impacts would remain significant, such that this would still conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 1 and present a significant and unavoidable inconsistency with the AQMP. 48 Section 4.3.4.2 also concluded the Project would be inconsistent with Consistency Criterion No. 2, which concerns exceeding the assumptions in the AQMP. It explained that, while the project would be consistent with 2040 General Plan growth projections and thus overall regional forecasting (i.e., the RTP/SCS), it would focus development in the City’s Downtown Center and create an denser land use pattern in a manner that was not considered in SCAG’s more localized projections used for SCAQMD modeling and, consequently, was not considered in the 2022 AQMP. The implementation of MM-AQ-1 would ensure that the appropriate residential and employment growth projections at the Project site would be incorporated into the next RTP/SCS and, therefore, the following AQMP. As noted in Section __ of the Final SEIR, the applicant informed SCAG of the Aquabella Project prior to adoption of Connect SoCal 2024 and has been informed the Project has been added to SCAG’s specific plan database for future plan development.

SCAQMD has not identified the next target year for updating the AQMP and therefore there is an anticipated interim period where SCAG RTP/SCS localized growth projections and SCAQMD’s AQMP do not reflect the appropriate residential and employment growth at the Aquabella Project site. While this will eventually be resolved with updates of both plans, the Aquabella Project would still conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 2 and the Aquabella Project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures: MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-11.
b. Cumulative Increase in Criteria Pollutants
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on air quality were analyzed in Section 4.3 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project site would result in a cumulatively net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Aquabella region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state air quality standard.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the air quality emissions expected to be generated by the development of the Aquabella Project based on detailed modeling (see the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Report, Appendix D to the Final SEIR), the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards, nonattainment of the South Coast Air Basin for O3, PM10 and PM2.5 and the emissions expected from the development of the Aquabella Project, Section 4.3.4.2 and Section 4.3.7 of the Final SEIR concluded as follows:
49 Construction: The Aquabella Project’s construction emissions of VOC and NOx would be potentially significant. MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7 will be implemented to reduce the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions during construction, which require that the Project minimize off-road equipment exhaust, restrict idling times, implement a dust control plan, and utilize super-compliant low-VOC paints. With these measures, construction impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.

Operation and Overlap of Construction and Operation: The Aquabella Project’s operational emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 would be potentially significant and the concurrent construction and operation of the Aquabella Project would result in emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s thresholds and would be potentially significant. The Aquabella Project would implement mitigation to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Mitigation measures MMAQ-8 through MM-AQ-11 would reduce VOC emissions attributable to cleaning supplies and architectural coatings, as well as reduce emissions attributable to the use of landscaping equipment. However, with the implementation of MM-AQ-8 through MMAQ-11, operation of the Aquabella Project and overlap of construction and operation would continue to exceed the criteria air pollutant operational thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, resulting in a cumulatively considerable net increase in a nonattainment criteria air pollutants. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures: MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-11.

VI. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
A. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WHERE THE IMPACT IS NOT CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE

1. Areas of Less Than Significant Impact Without Mitigation Various Sections of Chapter 4 of the Final SEIR determined that the impacts from the development of the Aquabella Project related to Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems and Wildfire would be less than significant without mitigation (“areas of less than significant impact without mitigation”).

Finding: Not Cumulatively Considerable. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on areas of less than significant impact without mitigation were analyzed in Sections 5.3.1 (Aesthetics), 5.3.2 (Agricultural and Forestry Resources), 5.3.3 (Air Quality),

5.3.4 (Biological Resources), 5.3.5 (Cultural Resources), 5.3.6 (Energy), 5.3.7 (Geology and 50 Soils), 5.3.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), 5.3.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality),

5.3.11 (Land Use and Planning), 5.3.12 (Mineral Resources), 5.3.13 (Noise), 5.3.14 (Population and Housing), 5.3.15 (Public Services), 5.3.16 (Recreation), 5.3.17 (Transportation), 5.3.19 (Utilities and Service Systems) and 5.3.20 (Wildfire) of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts on any of them for the reasons set forth therein.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Cumulative Project List set forth in Table 5-2 for areas of less than significant impact without mitigation, except for Transportation which used both the Cumulative Project List and the Summary of Projections methodology, and after reviewing the corresponding Sections of Chapter 4 of the Final SEIR, including all of the thresholds of significance set forth in the Section of Chapter 4, each of the Sections cited in the Finding concluded that the impacts of the development of the Aquabella Project on the area analyzed would not be cumulatively considerable.

2. Areas of Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Various Sections of Chapter 4 of the Final SEIR determined that the impacts from the development of the Aquabella Project on Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources would be less than significant with mitigation (“areas of less than significant impact with mitigation”).

Finding: Not Cumulatively Considerable. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on areas of less than significant impact with mitigation were analyzed in Sections

5.3.3 (Air Quality), 5.3.4 (Biological Resources), 5.3.5 (Cultural Resources), 5.3.7 (Geology and Soils), 5.3.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), 5.3.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials),

5.3.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality), 5.3.13 (Noise) and 5.3.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources) of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts on any of them with the mitigation measures identified for the Aquabella Project’s individual impacts incorporated.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Cumulative Project List set forth in Table 5-2 for areas of less than significant impact without mitigation, except for Greenhouse Gas Emissions which used the Summary of Projections methodology, and the corresponding Sections of Chapter 4 of the Final SEIR, including all of the thresholds of significance set forth in the Sections of Chapter 4, each of the Sections cited in the Finding concluded that the impacts resulting from the development of the Aquabella Project 51 would not be cumulatively considerable with mitigation measures incorporated.

Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified for the individual impacts of the Aquabella Project, described above, would be implemented to substantially lessen or avoid identified significant effects. No further mitigation is identified or required.

B. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WHERE THE IMPACT IS SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE Section 4.3.4.2 of the Final SEIR determined that the impacts from the development of the Aquabella Project on Air Quality would be significant and unavoidable.

Finding: Cumulatively considerable and significant. Potential impacts of the Aquabella Project on air quality were analyzed in Section 5.3.3 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would have a not cumulatively considerable impact on the emission of VOC or NOx during construction, on the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or the emission of odors. However, the Aquabella Project would result in a cumulatively considerable and significant impact on air quality because it would have a conflict with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality Management Plan and because it would result in a net increase of various non-attainment criteria pollutants (VOC, NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PM10) during operation.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the air quality emissions expected to be generated by the development of the Aquabella Project based on detailed modeling (see the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Report, Appendix D to the Final SEIR), Summary of Projections for the South Coast Air Basin, and the analysis of air quality impacts at Section 4.3.4.2, including all of the thresholds of significance set forth in that Section, the Section 5.3.3 concluded that the impacts resulting from the development of the Aquabella Project (as mitigation) on air quality would not be cumulatively considerable on the emission of VOC or NOX during construction, on the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or the emission of odors. However, the Aquabella Project would, based on this analysis have a cumulatively considerable and significant impact on air quality because it would have a conflict with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality Management Plan (page 5- 13) and because it would result in a net increase of various non-attainment criteria pollutants (VOC, NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PM10) during operation.

Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified for the impacts of the Aquabella Project on air quality, described above (MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-11), would be implemented to substantially lessen identified significant effects. However, effects 52 would remain cumulatively considerable.

VII. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
A. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Requirement: Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the ways the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), a Project could be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would:
• Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas); • Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or • Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines state that it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

Finding: The potential for the Aquabella Project to induce economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing was analyzed in Section 6.2 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that the development of the Aquabella Project would not result in significant impacts related to stimulating or inducing additional population growth, either directly or indirectly, that has not been planned as part of local or regional growth projections.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the Aquabella Project’s location in an urban infill area, the residential and commercial development called for with the Aquabella Project, its required and proposed infrastructure, the City’s 2040 General Plan, the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment, SCAG’s RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal 2020), and ConnectSoCal 2024 (for informational purposes) Section 6.2 concludes that the Aquabella Project would not result in significant impacts related to stimulating or inducing additional population growth, either directly or indirectly, that has not been planned as part of local or regional growth projections.

B. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE EFFECTS DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AQUABELLA PROJECT Requirement: Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, require 53 that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the project be implemented. Generally, a project could result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

Finding: The potential for the Aquabella Project to cause irreversible effects was analyzed in Section 6.4 of the Final SEIR. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission finds that that the development of the Aquabella Project would not require a large commitment of nonrenewable resources or result in infrastructure which supports or induces future growth.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the amount of the materials and the energy that will be consumed in connection with the construction and operation of the Aquabella Project and the existence of the infrastructure needed to service the Aquabella Project site after it is fully built out, Section 6.4 of the Final SEIR concluded that the development of the Aquabella Project would not result in a large commitment of these resources when taking into consideration, among other things, the global use of the construction materials, the substantial generation and use of renewable solar and electricity resources, the prohibition against the use of natural gas except for restaurant appliances, electric vehicle charging, and the declining use of fossil fuels over the Aquabella Project’s lifetime.

VIII. ALTERNATIVES
A. ALTERNATIVES REJECTED WITHOUT ANALYSIS
Finding: Potential alternate uses and locations for the Aquabella Project and site were rejected without environmental analysisin Sections 7.3.1, 7.3.2 and 7.3.3. Based on the entire record, the Planning Commission rejected them because the uses proposed would not satisfy the Aquabella Project objectives and because alternative locations are not available and, even if available, would not satisfy the Aquabella Project’s objectives.

Facts in Support of the Finding: After reviewing the uses previously rejected in the prior environmental review of the Aquabella Project site and the objectives for the 54 Aquabella Project, found at page 7-2, Section 7.3.1 of the Final SEIR, at page 7-4, identified the prior rejections of the No Project and a Reduced Density alternatives, Section 7.3.2, at page 7-4, rejected the only commercial, office and retail development of the Aquabella site because of its failure to satisfy the basic Aquabella Project objectives and Section 7.3.2 rejected an alternative site because of its failure to meet several of the basic Aquabella objectives and because no alternative site capable of meeting many of the objectives is available.

B. ALTERNATIVES REJECTED AFTER ANALYSIS
Finding: Seven (7) potential alternatives to the Aquabella Project were analyzed in Sections 7.4 through 7.6 of the Final SEIR for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives. The Planning Commission has considered them based on the entire record and rejects them as infeasible because of their failure to satisfy many of the objectives of the Aquabella Project or because the environmental impacts were either similar to, or greater than, those resulting from the development of the Aquabella Project.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Final SEIR evaluates the impact of each of the seven alternatives on Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality and Noise; the Feasibility of each alternative; and their ability to satisfy the Aquabella Project Objectives, as set forth in Sections 7.4.1 through

7.4.7 and Table 7-1 of the Final SEIR. The Alternatives included:

1. Alternative 1: No Project - No Development (Zero Units/No Development)

2. Alternative 2: Previously Approved Aquabella 2005 Specific Plan Amendment (2,702 Units)

3. Alternative 3: 2040 General Plan Downtown Center (2,702 Units/1,804,000 sf commercial/retail)

4. Alternative 4: Reduced Density -10,000 Units

5. Alternative 5: Reduced Density -7,500 Units

6. Alternative 6: Increased Commercial

7. Alternative 7: Increased Density 20,000 Units
The Final SEIR identified the environmentally superior alternative as Alternative 5:

Reduced Density (7,500 Units), in Section 7.6. Having considered the potential alternatives to the Aquabella Project evaluated in the Final SEIR in light of their environmental impact, feasibility, and ability to satisfy the Project objectives, as required by CEQA, there is nothing to show that any of the alternatives would result in lesser environmental impacts, be feasible to implement, or satisfy the Project objectives to the same extent as the Aquabella Project. This section describes the alternative concepts that 55 were considered and the reasons underlying their rejection.

1. Alternative 1: No Project – No Development (Zero Units/No Development) Description: Under Alternative 1: No Project- No Development, the Aquabella Project site would retain its land use entitlements under the 2005 SPA but would remain undeveloped under existing conditions and no physical development would occur. Maintenance activities, weed abatement, and management of the Line F riparian mitigation channel would continue to occur. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.1)
Impacts: As the site would remain in undeveloped condition, compared to the Aquabella Project, Alternative 1: No Project- No Development would have reduced impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.1 and 7.5) Concerning air quality, it would not conflict with the AQMP or result in exceedances of criteria pollutant emissions for VOC or NOx. There would not be significant and unavoidable impacts due to exceedances of established thresholds for emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 related to operational pollutant emissions.

On biological resources, while this alternative would not result in potential impacts to trees regulated by the City’s Municipal Code, Project mitigation would also reduce impacts to biological resources below significance. Alternative 1 would not potentially disturb cultural, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources since no construction would occur. No new sources of GHG emissions would exist. This alternative would not have the potential to encounter and expose potentially hazardous materials to the public or the environment through ground-disturbing construction activities; but would also not resolve or cleanup existing trash, small areas of soil contamination, or wells onsite.

Because no lakes would be filled with groundwater, there would be no impacts from groundwater quality, and no impact to surface water or groundwater quality. Noise impacts related to construction and operational activities would not occur.

Project Objectives:

Alternative 1: No Project- No Development would not meet any Aquabella Project Objectives 1-8 because it would not provide any residential housing, new schools, high quality parks, trails, other recreation facilities, or a Downtown Center, as envisioned by the 2040 General Plan. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.1) Finding:

The Planning Commission rejects Alternative 1: No Project- No Development, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any Project Objectives and is infeasible; (2) the alternative would result in greater 56 land use impacts, as the alternative would not be consistent with the General Plan land use designation or further the City’s General Plan goals and policies for the area; (3) the alternative is infeasible as it is not economically viable and unsuitable for the site to leave this infill site undeveloped; and (4) the alternative is infeasible as it would not achieve the objectives or vision of the 2040 General Plan, which designates and envisions the site for Downtown Center development. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.1)

2. Alternative 2: Previously Approved Aquabella 2005 Specific Plan Amendment Description: Under Alternative 2: Previously Approved Aquabella 2005 Specific Plan Amendment, the Aquabella Project site would retain its land use entitlements under the 2005 SPA and buildout of the remainder of the Aquabella SPA would occur as currently approved. This would include development of up to approximately 2,922 single-family and multi-family homes (approximately 2,702 age-restricted), 25 acres of commercial development, 40 acres of lakes, clubhouse facilities, a potential 300-room hotel facility, trail and bicycle paths, and other amenities. Improvements and development that has already been completed would continue to be implemented. No General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Specific Plan Amendment, or further CEQA review would be required. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.2)
Impacts: Compared to the Aquabella Project, Alternative 2: Previously Approved Aquabella 2005 Specific Plan Amendment would have reduced impacts to air quality, cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.2 and 7.5) All other impacts would be similar to the Aquabella Project.

Concerning air quality, the reduced scope of operations and age-restricted use would reduce operational air pollutant emissions compared to the Project. However, this alternative would result in similar construction impacts on a similar footprint, and would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to exceeding emissions thresholds during construction, exceeding emissions thresholds during operation, and inconsistency with the AQMP. Impacts to cultural resources (including tribal and paleontological) would be slightly reduced but similar as a result of the development footprint. Impacts would be mitigated below significance. GHGs would be reduced due to reduced construction vehicles, reduced residences, and reduced vehicle trips during operation. Like the Project, impacts would be less than significant. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and hydrology/water quality would be similar to the Project due to the same footprint and Alternative 2 similarly implementing the lake system. Alternative 2 would still require mitigation for traffic and construction noise impacts and, like the Project, would have a less than significant noise impact with mitigation incorporated. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.2 and 7.5) 57 Project Objectives:

Alternative 2: Previously Approved Aquabella 2005 Specific Plan Amendment would meet Aquabella Project Objectives 1, 3, and 4 to a lesser extent compared to the Project by building fewer residences.

While it would support the maintenance and growth of community-serving facilities per Objective 7, it would not provide schools. This alternative would also not meet Objective 8, because although it would provide housing, it would not keep pace with the projected demand for housing and provide only a fraction of the needed housing to meet existing and projected demand due to the age-restricted availability of the housing units. Alternative 2 would not meet Objectives 2, 5, or 6 because it would not provide a broad housing mis or include or support integrated infrastructure, multi-modal transportation and public transit options, intelligent transportation systems or carshare/bikeshare facilities. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.2.)
Finding:

The Planning Commission rejects Alternative 2: Previously Approved Aquabella 2005 Specific Plan Amendment, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet the Project Objectives to the same extent as the Project, fails to meet Objectives 2, 5, or 6, and is infeasible; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project related to air quality, and all other impacts would be similar to the Project (less than significant with mitigation incorporated); (3) the alternative is infeasible as it is no longer feasible or desirable to develop an age-restricted community at this Downtown Center infill location; and (4) the alternative is infeasible as it has not been substantially developed since its approval almost 20 years ago, such that it is not capable of being successfully accomplished in a reasonable time; and (5) the alternative is infeasible as it would not achieve the objectives or vision of the 2040 General Plan, which designates and envisions the site for Downtown Center development. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.2.)

3. Alternative 3: 2040 General Plan Downtown Center (2,702 Units/1,804,000 sf) Description: Under Alternative 3: 2040 General Plan Downtown Center, the site would be developed pursuant to its land use designation under the 2040 General Plan. This development would consist of approximately 2,702 residential units, 808,000 square feet of commercial uses, 781,000 square feet of office space, and 215,000 square feet of retail. This alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment if 2040 General Plan is in effect but would require a Specific Plan Amendment to increase commercial uses to accommodate 1,804,000 square feet of commercial, office, and retail uses. It would also require tentative tract map or site plan approval by the City, as well as further CEQA review. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.3)
Impacts: Compared to the Aquabella Project, Alternative 3: 2040 General Plan Downtown Center would have slightly reduced impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and reduced 58 hydrology and water quality impacts. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.3 and 7.5) All other impacts would be similar to the Aquabella Project. On air quality, while residential use would decrease, commercial, retail and office uses would increase, as would emissions associated with their construction and operation. In addition, Alternative 3 would likely increase VMT and associated impacts compared to the Project. Impacts associated with air quality would be similar under Alternative 3 when compared to the Project, and would remain significant and unavoidable. As the footprint would be similar, this Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to biological and cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources, and would require mitigation.

While residential GHG emissions would be less with this Alternative 3, increased development of commercial, office, and retail uses would result in increased GHG emissions related to these uses, including induced vehicle miles traveled from visitors and employees traveling to the Project site, truck emissions, and commercial/office/retail building and operational emissions. Like the Project, Alternative 3 would be required to demonstrate consistency with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Update and RTP/SCS.

Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and hydrology/water quality would be reduced compared to the Project as the lake system would not be constructed, reducing impacts from groundwater such that MM-HAZ-3 and MM-HYD-1, MM-HYD-2, and MM-HYD-3 would not be required. Noise impacts of this alternative would be similar to the Project as any reductions in residential noise from fewer homes would be offset by increases in commercial, office, and retail noise and related traffic noise. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.3 and 7.5)
Project Objectives:

Alternative 3: 2040 General Plan Downtown Center would only partially meet Objectives 1 and 7 because it would not provide for the development of schools and instead devote the majority of land for commercial, office, and retail space. This alternative would not meet Objectives 2, 5, 6 or 8 to the same extent as the Project as the 2,702 residential units would not provide a broad mix of housing or efficiently use the site in a manner that best takes advantage of its infill location in the Downtown Center. Alternative 3 would not meet Objectives 5 and 6 to the same extent as the Project due to lower-level circulation and connectivity with local and regional employment centers and public transit hubs. Alternative 3 would not meet Objective 8, because it would not keep pace with the projected demand for housing and only provide a fraction of needed housing to meet the demand. This alternative would partially meet Objective 3: it would provide for a vibrant downtown center but the land uses as identified in the 2040 General Plan Land Use Element do not identify a lake or promenade. Finally, this alternative would meet Project Objective 4 because it would provide for implementation of a Downtown Center, diversify the local economy, and implement neighborhood development. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.3.) Finding:
59 The Planning Commission rejects Alternative 3: 2040 General Plan Downtown Center, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet the Project Objectives to the same extent as the Project, fails to meet Objective 8, and is infeasible; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project related to air quality, and all other impacts would be similar to the Project (less than significant with mitigation incorporated); and (3) the alternative is infeasible as it is undesirable to develop 1,804,000 square feet of commercial uses on the site. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.3.)

4. Alternative 4: Reduced Density – 10,000 Units
Description: Under Alternative 4: Reduced Density – 10,000 Units, the site would be developed with 10,000 units, with all other project features (parks, lakes, infrastructure) remaining the same compared to the Aquabella Project. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.4) Impacts: Compared to the Aquabella Project, Alternative 4: Reduced Density – 10,000 Units would have reduced or slightly reduced impacts to air quality, GHGs, and noise. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.4 and 7.5) All other impacts would be similar to the Aquabella Project. Related to air quality, the reduced scope of development would have corresponding emission reductions. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. As the footprint would be similar, this Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts to biological and cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources, and, like the Project would require mitigation. Due to reduced units and residents (and associated transportation needs) GHG emissions would be reduced slightly with this Alternative 4. Like the Project, impacts would be less-than-significant. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and hydrology/water quality would be similar to the Project, as the footprint would be the same and lake system incorporated. Reductions in noise would be seen corresponding with the reduced unit count and traffic noise; however, construction noise would be similar, and noise impacts would still require mitigation. Like the Project, noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.4 and

7.5)
Project Objectives:

Alternative 4: Reduced Density – 10,000 Units would meet Project Objectives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, to a lesser extent when compared to the current Project, by providing residential units, schools, public services, commercial, and recreational uses, and creating a vibrant Downtown Center connected to Project features and regional job centers through internal circulation and connectivity, but developing fewer residential units. It would partially meet Objectives 2 and 8, but would not contribute as many residential units towards the City’s existing and projected housing goals. Alternative 4 would contribute fewer residential units toward the goal stated in Objective 2, to achieve a better balance of jobs-to-housing and facilitate housing and job growth in central Moreno Valley (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.4.) 60 Finding:

The Planning Commission rejects Alternative 4: Reduced Density – 10,000 Units, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet the Project Objectives to the same extent as the Project and is infeasible; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project related to air quality, and all other impacts would be similar to the Project (less than significant with mitigation incorporated); (3) the alternative is infeasible and undesirable as it fails to maximize use of the site and would not contribute as many residential units towards the City’s existing and projected housing goals; and (4) the alternative is infeasible and undesirable as it would not facilitate housing and job growth in this central area of the City. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.4.)

5. Alternative 5: Reduced Density – 7,500 Units
Description: Under Alternative 5: Reduced Density – 7,500 Units, the site would be developed with 7,500 units, 25 acres of commercial uses, a 40-acre lake complex, 40 acres of parks, open space, and recreation, and 40 acres of schools. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.5) Impacts: Compared to the Aquabella Project, Alternative 5: Reduced Density – 7,500 Units would have reduced or slightly reduced impacts to air quality, GHGs, and noise. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.5 and 7.5) All other impacts would be similar to the Aquabella Project. Related to air quality, the reduced scope of development would result in corresponding emission reductions. However, air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. As the development footprint would be similar, this Alternative 5 would result in similar impacts to biological and cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources, and, like the Project would require mitigation. Due to reduced units and residents (and associated transportation needs) GHG emissions would be reduced slightly with this Alternative 5.

Like the Project, impacts would be less-than-significant. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and hydrology/water quality would be similar to the Project, as the footprint would be the same and lake system incorporated. Reductions in noise would be seen corresponding with the reduced unit count and traffic noise; however, construction noise would be similar. Construction and operational traffic noise impacts would still require mitigation. Like the Project, noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.5 and 7.5) Project Objectives:

Alternative 5: Reduced Density – 7,500 Units would meet Project Objectives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, to a lesser extent when compared to the current Project, by providing residential units, schools, public services, commercial, and recreational uses, and creating a vibrant Downtown Center connected to Project features and regional job centers through internal circulation and connectivity, but developing fewer residential units. It would partially meet Objectives 2 and 8, but would not contribute as many residential units 61 towards the City’s existing and projected housing goals. Alternative 5 would contribute fewer residential units toward the goal stated in Objective 2, to achieve a better balance of jobs-to-housing and facilitate housing and job growth in central Moreno Valley (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.5.) Finding:

The Planning Commission rejects Alternative 5: Reduced Density – 7,500 Units, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet the Project Objectives to the same extent as the Project and is infeasible; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project related to air quality, and all other impacts would be similar to the Project (less than significant with mitigation incorporated); (3) the alternative is infeasible and undesirable as it fails to maximize use of the site and would not contribute as many residential units towards the City’s existing and projected housing goals; and (4) the alternative is infeasible and undesirable as it would not facilitate housing and job growth in this central area of the City, reducing the total number of residents and jobs related to building maintenance, landscaping, schools, and other indirectly related employment opportunities compared to the Aquabella Project. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.5.)

6. Alternative 6: Increased Commercial
Description: Under Alternative 6: Increased Commercial, the Project would develop up to 150,000 square feet of commercial. The Project would otherwise remain the same, developing 15,000 residential units, 40-acre lake complex, 40 acres of parks, open space, and recreation, and approximately 40 acres of schools. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.6) Impacts: Compared to the Aquabella Project, Alternative 6: Increased Commercial, would increase impacts to air quality. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.6 and 7.5) All other impacts would be similar to the Aquabella Project. Related to air quality, the increased scope of development would result in corresponding emission increases during construction. During operation, the increased commercial uses would be anticipated to draw or induce increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from visitors and employees of the additional commercial buildings.

This increase in VMT is directly related to the emissions of criteria pollutants VOC NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Air quality impacts would be worsened and, as with the Project, would be significant and unavoidable. As the development footprint would be similar, this Alternative 6 would result in similar impacts to biological and cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources, and, like the Project would require mitigation. Due to increased vehicle travel and VMT, GHG emissions would be increased with this Alternative

6. But, as with the Project, this alternative would be anticipated to implement design features and mitigation measures to demonstrate consistency with the City’s CAP and CARB Scoping Plan Update. It would also not conflict with the RTP/SCS. GHG impacts would be less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and hydrology/water quality would be similar to the Project, as 62 the footprint would be the same and lake system incorporated. Increases in noise would be seen corresponding with the increased commercial construction and commercial traffic noise. As with the Project, these impacts would require mitigation, which is anticipated to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. (Final SEIR, Section

7.4.6 and 7.5)
Project Objectives:

Alternative 6: Increased Commercial would meet Project Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, to a similar extent to the Project by providing residential units, schools, public services, commercial, and recreational uses, and creating a vibrant Downtown Center connected to Project features and regional job centers through internal circulation and connectivity. It would meet Objective 2 to a lesser extent compared to the Project.

This alternative would also meet Objective 5, but to a lesser extent compared to the Project, because the scope of commercial development may induce additional and further trips from outside the area in a manner that may increase VMT and associated GHG emissions (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.6.) Finding:

The Planning Commission rejects Alternative 6: Increased Commercial, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet the Project Objectivesto the same extent as the Project and is infeasible; (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts related to air quality and would not avoid or substantially reduce any other Project impacts. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.6.)

7. Alternative 7: Increased Density – 20,000 Units
Description: Under Alternative 7: Increased Density – 20,000 Units, the Project would develop up to 20,000 residential units. The Project would otherwise remain the same, developing 49,900 square feet of commercial, 40-acre lake complex, 40 acres of parks, open space, and recreation, and approximately 40 acres of schools. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.7) Impacts: Compared to the Aquabella Project, Alternative 7: Increased Density – 20,000 Units, would increase impacts to air quality. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.7 and 7.5) All other impacts would be similar to the Aquabella Project. Related to air quality, the increased scope of development would result in corresponding emission increases during construction.

During operation, the increased residential uses would result in additional vehicle trips, which is associated within increased emissions of criteria pollutants VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Air quality impacts would be worsened and, as with the Project, would be significant and unavoidable. As the development footprint would be similar, this Alternative 7 would result in similar impacts to biological and cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources, and, like the Project would require mitigation. Due to increased vehicle travel, GHG emissions would be increased with this Alternative 7. But, as with the Project, this alternative would be anticipated to implement design features, 63 mitigation measures, and reduction strategies to demonstrate consistency with the City’s CAP, CARB Scoping Plan Update, and RTP/SCS. GHG impacts would be less-thansignificant with mitigation incorporated. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and hydrology/water quality would be similar to the Project, as the footprint would be the same and lake system incorporated. Increases in noise would be seen corresponding with the increased residential construction and traffic noise. As with the Project, mitigation would be required for construction and traffic noise impacts, which would be anticipated to be reduced to less than significant levels. (Final SEIR, Section

7.4.7 and 7.5)
Project Objectives:

Alternative 7: Increased Density – 20,000 Units would meet all Project Objectives to a similar or better extent compared to the Project by providing residential units, schools, public services, commercial, and recreational uses, and creating a vibrant Downtown Center connected to Project features and regional job centers through internal circulation and connectivity. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.7.) Finding:

The Planning Commission rejects Alternative 7: Increased Density – 20,000 Units, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would result in increased impacts related to air quality and would not avoid or substantially reduce any other Project impacts; and (2) the alternative is infeasible and undesirable as it would result in greater density and a more compact design than is deemed suitable for the site at this time. (Final SEIR, Section 7.4.7.)
Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-1

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that, upon certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), “the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.” This chapter contains the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that has been developed for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project (Amendment 2) (Project). This MMRP has been developed in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This MMRP also contains the list of Project Design Features (PDFs) incorporated into the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment and the design of the Project in Table 1. The mitigation measures in Table 2 are coded by alphanumeric identification consistent with the EIR. The following items are identified for each mitigation measure:
• Mitigation Monitoring. This section of the MMRP lists the stage of the proposed project during which the mitigation measure would be implemented.

It also lists the party that is responsible for implementing the mitigation measure, and the agency responsible for monitoring implementation to ensure that the mitigation measure is implemented properly. • Verification of Compliance. This section of the MMRP provides a location for the implementing party and/or enforcing agency to make notes and to record their initials and the compliance date for each mitigation measure.

The City of Moreno Valley (City) must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval.

Table 1. Project Design Features
Air Quality
PDF-AQ/GHG-1: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. The Project applicant or designee shall provide electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure that meets or exceeds 2022 California Green Building Standards Code Tier 2 standards to encourage use of EVs, consistent with Appendix D, Table 3, of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan. The Project provides a total of 23,772 parking spaces. Of that amount, the Project shall install (a) 9,509 (or 40%) Level 2 240-volt (v) electric vehicle receptacles in Project parking structures and (b) 3,566 (or 15%) Level 2 240 v electric vehicle supply equipment (or stations) in Project parking lots or remaining garages.

SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-2
Table 1. Project Design Features
PDF-AQ/GHG-2: No Wood-Burning Fireplaces or Stoves and No Natural Gas Fireplaces. The Project applicant or designee shall install only electric fireplaces in residential units. Project residential units are prohibited from having wood-burning or natural gas fireplaces or wood-burning stoves.

PDF-AQ/GHG-3: Require All-Electric Development. All Project-related residential and non-residential development shall use all-electric appliances and end uses (including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; water heating; and induction cooking) with the exception of restaurant land uses within the retail/food and beverage space (estimated at approximately 14,970 square feet of the Project’s Town Center use of 49,900 square feet of commercial/retail use and 300,000 square feet of hotel use, totaling 349,900 square feet). Swimming pool and spa equipment and water heating shall also use electricity or solar instead of natural gas. (This PDF is largely consistent with Appendix D, Table 3, of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Update, which recommends all-electric appliance uses without any natural gas connections or any propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.) PDF-AQ/GHG-4: Provision of Rooftop Solar. The Project applicant or designee shall provide rooftop photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on all residential and non-residential buildings in accordance with the requirements of the version of Title 24, Part 6, of the California Building Standards Code and California Green Building Standards Code in effect at the time of building permit application to provide an on-site source of renewable energy. The swimming pools’ and spas’ heating demand shall be served by a minimum of 50% solar water heating.

The following table identifies the building type, size, PV generation per square foot, and the annual solar production (kilowatt-hours).

Building Type Building Size
PV Generation per
Square Foot
(kWh/sf/year)
Annual Solar
Production
(kWh)
Multifamily low-rise 6,750,000 3.16 21,330,000
Multifamily midrise 6,750,000 3.79 25,582,500
Hotel 300,000 0.62 186,000
Elementary schools 192,000 3.03 581,760
Middle school 85,000 3.03 257,550
Restaurants 14,970 0.76 11,377
Retail 34,930 4.95 172,904
Total 48,122,091
Note: kWh/sf/year = kilowatt-hour per square foot per year; kWh = kilowatt-hour.

PDF-AQ/GHG-5: LED Lighting. The Project applicant or designee shall install light-emitting diode (LED) outdoor lighting in public spaces at the Project site in compliance with dark skies design considerations and policies of the City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2040 and shall install LED lighting in all Project residential units at the time of construction.

SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-3
Table 1. Project Design Features
PDF-AQ/GHG-6: Energy Efficient Appliances.. The Project applicant or designee shall install ENERGY STAR-rated appliances for residential refrigerators, dishwashers, clothes washers, ceiling fans, and non-residential commercial refrigerators.

PDF-AQ/GHG-7: Energy Smart Meters. The Project applicant or designee shall install real-time energy smart meters within all residential and non-residential development.

PDF-AQ/GHG-8: Cool Pavements. The Project applicant or designee shall install cool pavements to reduce the potential for the urban heat island effect. Outdoor pavements, such as internal walkways and patios, shall use paving materials with three-year Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of 0.28 or initial SRI of 0.33.

PDF-AQ/GHG-9: Solid Waste Reduction. The Project applicant or designee shall implement a solid waste reduction strategy that includes, at a minimum, storage areas for recyclables and green waste in new construction and food waste storage (community composting zones). Solar-powered compacting trash and recycling containers shall be provided within the public areas of the Project site. The Project applicant or designee shall contract with a commercial solid waste company to provide, remove, and replace solid waste containers at all residential and commercial facilities.

PDF-AQ/GHG-10: Establish a Local Farmer’s Market. The Project applicant or designee shall establish a local farmer’s market for Project residents and surrounding area that provides local sources of food by the time or before Project development obtains certificate of occupancy for the 500th residential unit.

PDF-AQ/GHG-11: Tree Planting. The Project applicant or designee shall include an urban and parkland tree planting program for carbon sequestration at a minimum of one tree per dwelling unit or a total of 30,000 trees planted at Project buildout. If a tree dies, the Project applicant or designee shall plant a new replacement tree as enforced through the covenants, conditions, and restrictions within 30 years of planting. Trees planted may include, but are not limited to, southern magnolia, California sycamore, American elm, slash pine, and white ash.

PDF-AQ/GHG-12: Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan. The Project applicant or designee shall implement a Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan that includes the following minimum requirements:

Indoor Conservation Features and Operations:
• Install low-flow fixtures: In the residential units, install low-flow toilets at 1.28 gallons per flush, faucets at 1.2 gallons per minute, showerheads at 1.8 gallons per minute, and kitchen faucets at 1.8 gallons per minute. In common areas, install faucets at O.5 gallons per minute and urinals at max of 0.25 gallons per minute/flush. (These fixtures use less water while maintaining efficient performance.)
• Install dual-flush toilets: These toilets offer two flush options—one for liquid waste less than 1 gallons per minute and another for solid waste at 1.28 gallons per minute. (This allows the appropriate use of water for flushing needs.) • Use water-efficient appliances: The Project applicant or designee shall install energy-efficient and water-saving appliances like dishwashers and washing machines with the ENERGY STAR label only. • Implement hot water recirculation system: The Project applicant or designee shall implement a recirculation system for hot water systems to ensuring low to no wasted water while waiting for water to reach desired temperature. • Incorporate leak detection on each residential building. Leak detection will be incorporated into residential structures to detect water leaks typical of residential uses such as irrigation and plumbing. • Capture and reuse heating, ventilation, and air conditioning condensation: The Project applicant or designee shall direct condensation from air conditioning units to water plants or for other non-potable uses.

SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-4
Table 1. Project Design Features
• Implement good housekeeping and regular maintenance: The Project applicant or designee shall regularly (daily, weekly, monthly, etc. as applicable) check and maintain plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems, and appliances to ensure they are functioning efficiently and not wasting water.

Outdoor Conservation Features and Operations:
• Install only “Smart Irrigation Systems” for community landscaping: The Project applicant or designee shall utilize smart sprinkler systems that adjust watering schedules based on weather conditions, soil moisture, and plant needs to avoid overwatering or wasteful watering. The Project applicant or designee shall also incorporate seasonal specific controls to ensure watering occurs during the most efficient times of day. • Install adjustable water pressure regulator: The Project applicant or designee shall install pressure regulators to maintain optimal water pressure, preventing overuse and leaks. • Incorporate leak detection into each master landscape meter complex. Leak detection will be incorporated into residential structures to detect water leaks from landscaping. • Include drought-tolerant landscaping: The Project applicant or designee shall include native and drought-tolerant vegetation that requires less water to thrive and is known to survive in the greater Moreno Valley area. The Project applicant or designee shall replace drought-tolerant landscaping if it dies through enforceable Project covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) for 30 years after initial planting. • Harvest and reuse rainwater and drainage water: The Project’s lake shall be part of a water retention and reuse program.
• Use permeable pavement surfaces: The Project applicant or designee shall use permeable materials in parking areas, internal walkways, and public areas. (These surfaces will allow water to infiltrate the ground rather than running off, reducing runoff and promoting groundwater recharge.)
• Include community education and outreach: The Project applicant or designee shall educate employers, employees, and residents about water conservation practices and encourage them to implement mindful water usage habits through enforceable Project CC&Rs.
• Place educational signage: The Project applicant or designee shall place informational signs and notices at appropriate locations on the Project site to encourage water-saving behaviors among residents and guests.

PDF-AQ/GHG-13: Use Recycled Water for Irrigation. The Project applicant or designee shall use recycled water for irrigation areas including the school irrigated areas, Town Center irrigation, parks, parkways, and urban landscape.

PDF-AQ/GHG-14: Use of Local Well Water for Lake. The Project applicant or designee shall use local well water as the primary source to meet the lake initial fill and refilling needs. A minimum of 200-acre feet per year of local water will be used for the lake at Project buildout.

PDF-AQ/GHG-15: Integrated Stormwater System. The Project applicant or designee shall include an integrated stormwater, flood control and erosion control lake system with bio basins and native plant restoration areas that will increase groundwater percolation and downstream water quality.

Transportation
PDF-TRANS-1: Community-Based Travel Planning. The Project’s residential uses shall implement community-based travel planning (CBTP). CBTP is a residential-based approach to outreach that provides households with customized information, incentives, and support to encourage the use of transportation alternatives in place of single occupancy vehicles, thereby SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-5
Table 1. Project Design Features
reducing household vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of this feature in the Project shall consist of teams of trained travel advisors visiting all households within the Project upon move-in and having tailored conversations about residents’ travel needs and educating residents about the various transportation options available to them.

PDF-TRANS-2: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Costs. The Project applicant or designee shall unbundle, or separate, a resident’s parking costs from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost. On the assumption that parking costs are passed through to the vehicle owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces, this feature results in decreased vehicle ownership and, therefore, a reduction in vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Parking costs must be passed through to the vehicle owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces for this feature to result in decreased vehicle ownership. Implementation of this feature in the Project shall consist of parking spaces costing approximately $100–$150 as a separate monthly cost from the rental of a unit. (This required feature is consistent with Appendix D, Table 3, of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Update, which recommends that “multifamily residential development … [require] parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit.”)
PDF-TRANS-3: Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program Marketing. The Project applicant or designee shall implement a marketing strategy to promote the Project site employer’s CTR program. Information sharing and marketing shall promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.

Implementation of this measure will consist of:
• On-site or online commuter information services
• Employee transportation coordinators
• On-site or online transit pass sales
• Guaranteed ride home service
PDF-TRANS-4: Rideshare Program. The Project applicant or designee shall implement a ridesharing program and establish a permanent transportation management association with funding requirements for employers. Ridesharing encourages carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-occupied vehicle trips, thereby reducing the number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Implementation of this measure in the Project will consist of employers promoting the following:
• Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles • Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles • Providing an app or website for coordinating rides
PDF-TRANS-5: End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities. The Project applicant or designee shall install and maintain end-of-trip bicycle facilities. Per CAPCOA’s 2021 GHG Handbook, end-of-trip facilities include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers.

The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.

SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-6
Table 1. Project Design Features
Implementation of this required feature will be sized to encourage bicycling by providing facilities to accommodate 10%– 20% of the forecasted 804 employees staffed daily on the Project site. Implementation of this feature shall also be regularly maintained by the Project applicant or designee through the permanent transportation management association referenced in PDF-TRANS-4.

PDF-TRANS-6: Discounted Transit Program for Work Trips. The Project applicant or designee shall provide subsidized, discounted, or free transit passes for employees through the permanent transportation management association referenced in PDF-TRANS-4.

Per CAPCOA’s 2021 GHG Handbook, reducing the out-of-pocket cost for choosing transit improves the competitiveness of transit against driving, increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced vehicle miles traveled and thus a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The Project design shall ensure accessibility either within 1 mile of high-quality transit service (rail or bus with headways of less than 15 minutes),

0.5 miles of local or less frequent transit service, or along a designated shuttle route providing last-mile connections to rail service. With the availability of bikeshare service, the Project site may be located up to 2 miles from a high-quality transit service.

Implementation of this feature in the Project shall be provided by the Project applicant or designee through the permanent transportation management association referenced in PDF-TRANS-4. Transit service shall be expanded with implementation of the Project to the following:
• Bus Rapid Transit is proposed on Alessandro Boulevard that would provide high-quality transit service within 0.5 miles of the Project.
• Bus service will provide direct connections to the Moreno Valley/March Field Metrolink Train Station located approximately 5 miles west of the Project.
• Bikeshare will be available to support the discounted transit program, including a non-electric bike share program with a minimum of 150 bikes and an electric bike share program with a minimum of an additional 150 bikes..

PDF-TRANS-7: Non-Electric Bikeshare Program. The Project applicant or designee shall establish a non-electric bikeshare program within the Project area through the permanent transportation management association referenced in PDF-TRANS-4. The bikeshare program shall provide users with on-demand access to non-electric bikes for short-term rental purposes. Per CAPCOA’s 2021 GHG Handbook, this encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing vehicle miles traveled and thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This program shall provide 25 electric bikes at certificate of occupancy of each 2,500th unit, and a minimum of 150 such bikes located within 0.5 miles of the Project’s mobility hub to be maintained by the Project applicant or designee.

PDF-TRANS-8: Electric Scootershare Program. The Project applicant or designee shall establish the scootershare program within the Project area through the permanent transportation management association referenced in PDF-TRANS-4. Scootershare programs provide users with on-demand access to electric scooters for short-term rental purposes. Per CAPCOA’s 2021 GHG Handbook, this encourages a mode shift from vehicles to scooters, displacing vehicle miles traveled and thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

PDF-TRANS-9: Extend Transit Network Coverage. The Project applicant or designee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency to update bus service routes and service times to serve the new community through the permanent transportation management association referenced in PDF-TRANS-4. This would extend transit network coverage to existing and future employment centers, such as the World Logistics Center. Additionally, this would include extending transit hours for all SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-7
Table 1. Project Design Features
shift times, such as the midnight shift change at the World Logistics Center. Per CAPCOA’s 2021 GHG Handbook, this feature includes expansion of the local transit network by either adding or modifying existing transit service or extending the operation hours to enhance the service near the Project site. Starting services earlier in the morning and/or extending services to late-night hours can accommodate the commuting times of alternative-shift workers. This encourages the use of transit and therefore reduces vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

PDF-TRANS-10: Increase Transit Service Frequency. The Project applicant or designee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to update bus service routes and service times to serve the new community. This will include working with RTA to establish Bus Rapid Transit on Alessandro Boulevard and providing direct bus connections to the Moreno Valley/March Field Metrolink Train Station. Per CAPCOA’s 2021 GHG Handbook, increased transit frequency reduces waiting and overall travel times, which improves the user experience and increases the attractiveness of transit service. This results in a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, which reduces vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

PDF-TRANS-11: Implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The Project applicant or designee shall support the City of Moreno Valley and the Riverside Transit Agency plans for BRT along Alessandro Boulevard. Implementation of this feature would include improved travel times from transit signal prioritization, increased service frequency, and a full-featured BRT service operating on a fully segregated running way with a specialized vehicles, attractive stations, and efficient fare collection practices.

Per CAPCOA’s 2021 GHG Handbook, this feature will convert an existing bus route to a BRT system. BRT includes the following additional components, compared to traditional bus service: exclusive right-of-way (e.g., busways, queue jumping lanes) at congested intersections, increased limited-stop service (e.g., express service), intelligent transportation technology (e.g., transit signal priority, automatic vehicle location systems), advanced technology vehicles (e.g., articulated buses, low-floor buses), enhanced station design, efficient fare-payment smart cards or smartphone apps, branding of the system, and use of vehicle guidance systems. BRT can increase the transit mode share in a community due to improved travel times, service frequencies, and the unique components of the BRT system. This mode shift reduces vehicle miles traveled and the associated greenhouse gas emissions.

PDF-TRANS-12: Mobility Hub. The Project applicant or designee shall develop a state-of-the-art Mobility Hub at or near the Project site to bolster the effectiveness of active transportation options (mobility hubs are places of connectivity that bring together multiple modes of travel and strengthen first-mile/last-mile connections to transit). Mobility hubs provide a centralized location for non-automotive transportation modes to connect users to their destinations. There are limited benefits to implementing a stand-alone mobility hub, as the facility is meant to promote and support alternative transportation modes. Mobility hubs should be supplemented with additional strategies or programs that provide increased public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access and improvements. Implementation of the Mobility Hub shall require coordination with the Riverside Transit Agency, Metrolink, and the City of Moreno Valley. Though the proposed Mobility Hub is not included in CAPCOA’s 2021 GHG Handbook, many of the characteristics of the Mobility Hub (increased transit accessibility, increased bicycling accessibility) are part of other transportation demand management (TDM) strategies outlined in CAPCOA. The Mobility Hub is anticipated to strengthen the effectiveness of other proposed TDM strategies.

However, to provide a conservative approach to trip generation, additional reductions were not applied for the Mobility Hub in the vehicle miles traveled reduction calculated for the Project.

SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-8
Table 1. Project Design Features
PDF-TRANS-13: Electric Bikeshare Program. The Project applicant or designee shall establish an electric bikeshare program within the Project area through the permanent transportation management association referenced in PDF-TRANS-4. The bikeshare program shall provide users with on-demand access to bikes for short-term rental purposes. Per CAPCOA’s 2021 GHG Handbook, this encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing vehicle miles traveled and thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Like the non-electric bike program in PDF-TRANS-7, this program shall provide an additional 25 electric bikes at certificate of occupancy of each 2,500th unit, and a minimum of an additional 150 such bikes located within 0.5 miles of the Project’s mobility hub to be maintained by the Project applicant or designee.

PDF-TRANS-14: Provide Shuttle Service to Employment Centers. The Project applicant or designee shall provide shuttle service to existing and future employment centers, including the World Logistics Center. Such service shall be provided at the completion of the 2,500th unit, and be located within 0.5 miles of the Project’s mobility hub.

PDF-TRANS-15: Implement Market Price Public Parking. The Project applicant or designee shall install parking meters or implement a residential parking permit program that prices all on-street public parking in the Project’s Town Center at market rates.

Pricing on-street parking helps incentivize shifts to alternative transportation modes, decreasing total vehicle miles traveled to and from the priced areas.

Land Use
PDF-LU-1: Mixed-Use Project Design. The Project design shall integrate a mix of residential, commercial, retail, entertainment, employment, educational, and recreational uses that capture and reduce vehicular trips and associated environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emission reductions. The Project also shall include reduced parking requirements in its regulatory Specific Plan as a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction tool, consistent with Appendix D, Table 3, of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Update, which recommends reduced parking requirements to reduce VMT.

PDF-LU-2: Provision of Urban Core. The Project shall create an urban core that provides a wide array of residential units, including workforce housing, oriented toward the adjacent, existing regional medical centers, the community college, and other nearby job centers to further reduce vehicle trips and associated environmental impacts PDF-LU-3: Short Walkable Blocks. The Project design shall be composed of short, walkable blocks of up to 600 feet in length.

PDF-LU-4: Increased Residential Density. The Project shall increase residential density, leading to shorter vehicle trips and fewer single-occupancy vehicle trips than surrounding lower-density developments. The increase in residential density in this infill Project site surrounded by existing urban uses and served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, and sewer) reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The residential increase is also consistent with Appendix D, Table 3, of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Update, which recommends locating residential and mixed-use development projects on infill sites surrounded by urban uses, existing utilities, and essential public services as a means of reducing VMT. The increase in residential density is also consistent with Appendix D, Table 3, of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Update, which recommends transit-supportive densities at a minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre to reduce VMT. The Project site is in proximity to existing transit options, which is also consistent with Appendix D, Table 3, of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Update.

PDF-LU-5: Walkable/Bikeable Community. The Project site is located in an area with average vehicle miles traveled below that of the City of Moreno Valley and the region. The Project design shall, and does, provide a walkable and bikeable community proximate to major area job centers, including World Logistics Center, Riverside University Health System Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Moreno Valley campus, University of California Riverside, Moreno Valley College, and regional and local shopping and commercial centers, which would allow residents to live and work locally, cutting commute times, SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-9
Table 1. Project Design Features
reducing vehicle trips, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving air quality. An efficient transportation network is a central tenet of the Project, which will provide a tram connection to job centers, enhanced transit, pedestrian and bicycle routes, ridesharing, non-electric bikes, electric bikes, electric scooters, a mobility hub, transportation network companies (Uber and Lyft), intelligent transportation systems, and transportation demand management measures.

PDF-LU-6: Transit Benefits. The Project site is located along major transit routes, and the Project applicant or designee shall support frequent and reliable transit service and other multi-modal transportation measures, including walking and biking. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides existing bus routes proximate to the site. Route 31 runs along Nason Street to the Riverside University Medical Center. Route 20 also serves the site along Alessandro, Nason, and Moreno Beach Dr. to the Riverside University Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Hospital, and Moreno Valley College, as well as along Nason and Lasselle Street. Route 41 serves the site from the Medical Center to Moreno Valley College and areas to the south. Route 20 bus service also connect passengers to the Moreno Valley/March Field Metrolink Station across Interstate 215. The Project applicant or designee shall coordinate with the RTA with respect to transit service and other multi-modal transportation options related to the Project to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

PDF-LU-7: Integrated Design. The Project plans shall include an integrated, connected town center neighborhood intended to maximize walkability, bike-ability, and transit use as part of an efficient transportation network in the City of Moreno Valley. The Project incorporates transit, pedestrian, and bicycle routes and other multi-modal transportation programs and technologies to move residents efficiently to and from major job centers and reduce the need for on-site parking.

Extensive parks, trails, the lake promenade and open space features, sidewalks, internal walkways, and roadways on site shall be required to encourage biking and walking. Trees and landscaping shall be used throughout the Project site, along streets, and along multi-use trails and sidewalks to improve the pedestrian experience and have a cooling effect to further promote walking and biking. Such required design ensures reductions in vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.

PDF-LU-8: Other Integrated Project Features. The lake promenade and integrated trail system shall be required to connect the residential, retail, restaurant, recreational, hotel, and other uses, providing a route that users can walk and bike along.

Sidewalk improvements shall be provided throughout the community to promote walking. Bike lanes and shared-use streets shall be incorporated through the Specific Plan area to complement the new and existing development in a way that promotes the human scale. These bike lanes shall connect to existing Class II bike lanes on Cactus Ave., Nason Street, Iris Ave, Lasselle Street, and John F. Kennedy Dr.

PDF-LU-9: Complete Streets. Complete streets, which are local roads and streets that adequately accommodate the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders, as well as motorists, shall be provided to promote pedestrian and bicycle use through the incorporation of design features such as multi-use trails and sidewalks, crosswalks, shared roads, landscaping, and pedestrian bridges across arterials and the on-site drainage.

PDF-LU-10: Traffic Calming. Traffic calming design of neighborhoods streets shall include street chokers (curb extensions that narrow a street by widening the sidewalks or planting strips, effectively creating a pinch point along the street), crosswalks, roundabouts landscaped medians, and shared street design to promote safer streets.

PDF-LU-11: Roundabouts. The Project shall include roundabouts as a means of traffic calming and GHG reduction.

SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-10
Table 1. Project Design Features
Wildfire
PDF-WF-1:  All developments within the Project site must include a proactive wildfire education program utilizing a multi-pronged approach to fire safety following the “Ready, Set, Go!” approach to wildfire evacuation, to include, but not limited to:
a. Annual wildfire and evacuation safety awareness meeting in coordination with local fire agencies. b. Annual reminder notices will be provided to each employee encouraging them to review this wildfire education program and be familiar with evacuation protocols
c. The development’s website will host a webpage dedicated to wildfire and evacuation education and awareness, which should include a copy of this wildfire education program and the resources provided herein.  All homeowners associations and property managers for developments within the Project site must designate Fire Safety Coordinators to oversee implementation of the wildfire education program. The Fire Safety Coordinators shall:
a. Prepare and distribute the annual reminder notice that shall be provided to each occupant encouraging them to review this wildfire education program and be familiar with community evacuation protocols. b. Coordinate with local fire agencies to hold an annual fire safety and evacuation preparedness informational meeting for occupants. The meeting should be attended by representatives of appropriate fire agencies and important fire and evacuation information should be reviewed. c. Maintain fire safety information on the development’s website, including the wildfire education program and materials from the “Ready, Set, Go!” Program.

3. For non-residential uses, Fire Safety Coordinators shall also:
a. Coordinate an annual fire evacuation drill/fire exercise to ensure proper safety measures have been implemented, facility awareness and preparation of a facility-wide “Ready, Set, Go!” plan. The Fire Safety Coordinator will also organize employee training and awareness through various practices:
i. New hire fire awareness and evacuation training
ii. Ongoing staff training
iii. Facility sweeps by trained staff
b. Strategically place fire safety and evacuation/sheltering protocol information.

SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-11
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
Air Quality
MM-AQ-1: Update the Regional Growth Forecast. The
applicant has informed the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) of the Project so
that SCAG’s next Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy can
appropriately reflect residential housing, population,
and employment locations and forecasts in Moreno
Valley. The updated information provided to SCAG is
anticipated to be used by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) to update the Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The applicant shall
prepare and submit a letter notifying SCAQMD of this
revised forecast for use in the future updates to the
plan as required.

Upon Project
approval
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
Community
Development
Services
MM-AQ-2: Construction Equipment Exhaust
Minimization. Prior to the commencement of any
construction activities, the Applicant or its designee
shall provide evidence to the City of Moreno Valley (City) that (1) for off-road equipment with engines rated at 25 horsepower or greater, no construction equipment shall
be used that is less than Tier 4 Final, and (2) for offroad equipment with engines rated less than 25 horsepower, all construction equipment used shall be
electrically powered.

In the event of changed circumstances related to the
availability of specific types of construction equipment, the applicant may submit a request to the City of
Moreno Valley’s Community Development Department
to apply an equivalent method of achieving Projectgenerated construction emissions that fall below the criteria pollutant mass daily thresholds for construction, the applicable localized significance thresholds (LSTs), Prior to
commencement
of any
construction
activities
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-12
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
and the numeric cancer risk standards established by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). Before an exemption may be granted, the
Applicant’s construction contractor shall: (1)
demonstrate that at least 3 construction fleet
owners/operators in Riverside County were contacted
and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Final
equipment could not be located within Riverside County
during the desired construction schedule; and (2) the
proposed replacement equipment has been evaluated
using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
or other industry standard emission estimation method
and documentation provided to the City to confirm that
Project-generated construction emissions would remain
below the applicable criteria pollutant mass daily
thresholds for construction, the LSTs, and the cancer
risk threshold established by SCAQMD.

MM-AQ-3: Additional Construction Equipment
Reductions. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
the Project applicant or its designee shall provide
evidence to the City that the following strategies shall be implemented during the Project’s construction
phase:
a. Use electric or hybrid powered equipment for
generators and other small pieces of equipment
over 25 horsepower (e.g., forklifts), as commercially
available.
b. Use cleaner-fuel equipment such as replacing
diesel fuel with compressed natural gas (CNG) or
renewable diesel, as commercially available.

Commercially available equipment is herein defined as
equipment sourced within 50 vehicle miles of the
Project site and within 10 percent of the cost of the
diesel-fueled-equivalent equipment. The Project
Prior to issuance
of grading
permits
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-13
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
applicant must contact at least three (3) contractors or vendors within Riverside County and submit to the City
justification if the specified equipment is not
commercially available.

MM-AQ-4: Limit Truck and Equipment Idling During
Construction. The Project shall reduce idling time of
heavy-duty trucks either by shutting them off when not
in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than 3 minutes (thereby improving upon the 5-minute idling
limit required by the state airborne toxics control
measure 13 CCR 2485). The Project shall post clear
signage reminding construction workers to limit idling of construction equipment.

During
construction
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
MM-AQ-5: Construction Dust Control Plan. Prior to the
issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant or its designee shall develop and implement a Dust Control
Plan to reduce Project-generated dust during
construction and ensure compliance with the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule
403. The Dust Control Plan shall include at a minimum
the following control strategies:
a. Water or use another SCAQMD-approved dust
control non-toxic agent shall be used on the grading
areas at least three times daily.
b. A 15 mile per hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces
shall be enforced.
c. All main roadways shall be constructed and paved
as early as possible in the construction process.
d. Building pads shall be finalized as soon as possible following site preparation and grading activities.
e. Grading areas shall be stabilized as quickly as
possible.

Prior to issuance
of grading
permits
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-14
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
f. Chemical stabilizer shall be applied, a gravel pad
shall be installed, or the last 100 feet of internal
travel path within the construction site shall be
paved prior to public road entry, as well as and for
all haul roads.
g. Wheel washers shall be installed adjacent to the
apron for tire inspection and washing prior to
vehicle entry on public roads.
h. Visible track-out into traveled public streets shall be removed with the use of sweepers, water trucks, or
similar method within 30 minutes of occurrence.
i. Sufficient perimeter erosion control shall be
provided to prevent washout of silty material onto
public roads.
j. Unpaved construction site egress points shall be
graveled to prevent track-out.

K Construction access points shall be wet-washed at
the end of the workday if any vehicle travel on
unpaved surfaces has occurred.
l. Transported material in haul trucks shall be
watered or treated.
m. All soil disturbance and travel on unpaved
surfaces shall be suspended if winds
(instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
n. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be
covered.
o. Haul truck staging areas shall be provided for loading and unloading of soil and materials and shall be
located away from sensitive receptors at the farthest
feasible distance.
p. Construction traffic control plans shall route delivery and haul trucks required during construction away
from sensitive receptor locations and congested
intersections to the extent feasible. Construction
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-15
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
Traffic Control plans shall be finalized and approved
prior to issuance of grading permits.

MM-AQ-6: Notification of Construction Activities. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities, the
applicant or its designee shall provide evidence to the City of Moreno Valley that the applicant has employed a construction relations officer who will address
community concerns regarding on-site construction
activity. The applicant shall provide public notification in the form of a visible sign containing the contact
information of the construction relations officer, who
shall document complaints and concerns regarding onsite construction activity. The sign shall be placed in easily accessible locations along Cactus Avenue, Iris
Avenue, Laselle Street, and Oliver Street and noted on
grading and improvement plans.

Prior to
commencement
of any
construction
activities
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
MM-AQ-7: Use of Super-Compliant Low-VOC Paint
During Construction. During construction, the Project
shall use super-compliant low volatile organic
compounds (VOC) paint (less than 10 grams per liter
VOC) for all interior and exterior paint applications for residential and non-residential land uses.

During
construction
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
MM-AQ-8: Low-VOC Cleaning Supplies and Paint
Educational Program. Prior to the occupancy of any onsite development, the applicant or its designee shall provide evidence to the City of Moreno Valley that the
applicant/phase developer has developed a Green
Cleaning Product and Paint education program to be
made available at rental and purchasing offices and/or
on websites. The educational program shall include a
flyer (hardcopy and/or digital) that includes, at a
minimum, an explanation of what volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) are, how VOCs affect us, where to
Prior to
occupancy of any
on-site
development
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-16
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
find low-VOC alternatives for cleaning supplies and
paint, and additional resources for learning more.

MM-AQ-9: Use Low-VOC Cleaning Supplies and Paint for
Applicant and Homeowners Association Operated
Spaces. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant or its designee shall provide evidence to the City of Moreno Valley that for applicant (or its designee) and homeowners association operated spaces that
provisions are in place to ensure only zero- or lowvolatile organic compound (VOC) cleaning supplies and super compliant-VOC paints (less than 10 grams per
liter VOC) are used during Project operation.

Prior to the
issuance of
building permits
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
MM-AQ-10: Use of Zero-Emission Landscape Equipment
for Applicant-Operated and Homeowners Association
Land. Only zero-emission landscaping equipment will be
used during project operation on land controlled by the applicant (or its designee) or a homeowners
association. Gasoline-fueled landscaping equipment
will be prohibited.

During operation The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
MM-AQ-11: Landscape Maintenance Equipment
Emission Reduction. The Project Applicant shall
implement the following landscape maintenance
equipment reduction measures:
a) Outdoor Electrical Outlets. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or its
designee shall provide evidence to the City of
Moreno Valley that the design plans include
electrical outlets on the exterior of the structure to
facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden
equipment.

During operation The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-17
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
Encourage Utilization of Existing Yard Equipment
Exchange and Rebate Programs. The applicant (of its
designee) or Project’s future homeowners association
shall educate future residents about the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Electric
Lawn Mower Rebate Program and the Commercial
Electric Lawn and Garden Equipment Exchange
Program. When conventional gasoline-powered yard
equipment (e.g., lawn mowers, leaf blowers and
vacuums, shredders, trimmers, and chain saw) are
exchanged for electric and rechargeable batterypowered yard equipment, direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil-fuel combustion are displaced by
indirect GHG emissions associated with the generation
of electricity used to power the equipment.

Biological Resources
MM-BIO-1: Burrowing Owl.
• Within 30 days of any Project-related construction
or ground-disturbance activities within suitable
burrowing owl habitat on the site, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to search for burrows or suitable
artificial openings that may support roosting or
nesting burrowing owls. The surveys shall follow the
protocols outlined in the Riverside Conservation
Authority’s 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions
for the MSHCP Area. If no active burrows/burrow
surrogates are located, no further mitigation is
required.
• If burrows/surrogate burrows are determined to be
active during the survey, as evidenced by detection
of burrowing owl individuals or sign (e.g., owl
pellets, molted feathers, abundant insect remains,
Within 30 days of
any Projectrelated
construction or
grounddisturbance
activities within
suitable
burrowing owl
habitat on the
site
a qualified
biologist
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-18
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
whitewash) at the burrow entrance, the burrow
shall be demarcated on an appropriate map and
highly visible fencing immediately erected around
the burrow to protect it from inadvertent grounddisturbing activities. If the active burrows are located during the nesting season, the qualified
biologist shall take the appropriate actions (e.g.,
burrow monitoring, use of motion-detection
cameras) to determine if the burrow is being used
as a nest burrow. If the burrow is determined to be
an active nest burrow, a minimum 500-foot no
disturbance buffer shall be established around the
burrow. The buffer shall be demarcated on
appropriate construction maps and in the field by
highly visible fencing. Signage indicating that the
area within the fencing is not to be entered shall be
attached at appropriate distances along the fence.
• A qualified biologist shall be on site at any time
construction or ground disturbance activities will
occur within 600 feet of the nest burrow to ensure
no encroachment occurs within the buffer area, to
check on buffer fencing stability and effectiveness,
and to monitor the behavior of adult burrowing owls
to ensure that noise and activity associated with
the construction activities is not causing excessive
agitation or other abnormal behavior in observed
adult burrowing owls. If, in the professional opinion
of the biologist, observed continued agitation could
result in adult burrowing owls being away from an
active nest burrow for extensive periods of time
that would be considered harmful to eggs or young
or that could result in nest abandonment, the
biologist shall have the authority to stop
construction or ground disturbance activities within
the 600 feet of the nest burrow until it is
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-19
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
determined by the biologist that the agitated or
other abnormal behavior has ceased long enough
such that no harm to an active nest burrow is
expected to occur.
• The no-disturbance buffer and associated fencing
shall be in place, and the restriction on construction
activities within the fenced area enforced, until it is determined by the qualified biologist that all young
have fledged from the nest burrow and are no
longer dependent upon the use of the burrow for
survival. Following the fledging of young from any
active burrows, burrowing owls can be excluded
from future use of the burrow following California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) protocols.
• If active burrows are detected outside of the
nesting season, or during the nesting season but it
has been determined that the burrow is not being
used as a nest burrow, burrowing owls can be
excluded from use of the burrow following CDFW
protocols.
• All pipes of at least 4 inches or more in diameter
that are being temporarily stored or that are
otherwise located on the Project site awaiting
installation during construction or ground
disturbance activities shall be inspected at the
beginning of each day to ensure that no burrowing
owls are temporarily utilizing the pipes for shelter.

Alternatively, the pipes can be capped at the end of
each day (after first inspecting each pipe for
burrowing owls or other animal species) and
uncapped the following day prior to use. If owls or
other animal species are observed within a pipe
during the inspections, a qualified biologist, or other personnel trained by the biologist, shall use
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-20
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
appropriate means to safely encourage the
owl/animal to exit the pipe.

MM-BIO-2: Least Bell’s Vireo.
• A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction
surveys within the riparian habitat mitigation area
where least Bell’s vireos were previously observed
in 2023 to determine if least Bell’s vireos are
continuing to nest within this area. The extent and
timing of the surveys shall depend on when
construction or ground disturbance activities will
occur within 700 feet of the riparian area during the
vireo nesting season. The focus shall be to conduct
as many surveys as possible (up to two surveys per
week and a maximum of eight total surveys).

Alternatively, if ground disturbance/construction
activities will occur during future vireo nesting
seasons, the assumption shall be made that least
Bell’s vireo continue to nest in the same areas as
were observed in 2023, thus negating the need to
conduct additional presence/absence surveys.
• If surveys are conducted and no least Bell’s vireos
are observed, then no additional mitigation
measures need to be implemented. If surveys are
conducted and least Bell’s vireos are observed, and
it is determined, through additional surveys and
behavioral observations, that a nesting territory has
been established within the area being surveyed,
then a no-disturbance buffer of at least 500 feet
from the edge of the riparian habitat area where
the nesting territory occurs shall be established.

The buffer shall be demarcated on all appropriate
construction maps and in the field by highly visible
fencing. Signage indicating that the area within the
Prior to
construction
activities within
the riparian
habitat mitigation
area where least
Bell’s vireos were
previously
observed in 2023
a qualified
biologist
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-21
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
fencing is not to be entered shall be attached at
appropriate distances along the fencing.
• If active nest territories are determined to be
present, a qualified biologist shall be on site any
time construction or ground disturbance activities
will occur within 700 feet of the Line F mitigation
channel riparian area and/or the riparian area to
the east of the Riverside County flood control
channel to ensure that no encroachment occurs
within the buffer area, to check on buffer fencing
stability and effectiveness, and to monitor the
behavior of adult vireos to watch for any evidence
of alarm vocalizations or other abnormal behavior
from that might indicate some level of agitation
associated with ground disturbance/ constructionrelated noise or visual activity. If, in the professional opinion of the biologist, continued agitated
behavior of adult birds could result in the birds
being away from an active nest for extensive
periods of time that would be considered harmful to
eggs or young or that could result in nest
abandonment, the biologist shall have the authority
to stop construction/ ground disturbance activities
until it is determined by the biologist that the
agitated or other abnormal behavior has ceased
long enough such that no harm to an active nest is
expected to occur.
• The no-disturbance buffer and associated fencing
shall be in place, and the restriction on construction
activities within the fenced area enforced, until it is determined by the qualified biologist that all young
and adult vireos have left the riparian habitat area
and/or the breeding season is over (generally by
July 30).

SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-22
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments

MM-BIO-3: Other Avian Species.
• A pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be
completed by a qualified biologist if construction,
ground disturbance, and/or vegetation
trimming/removal activities are scheduled to occur
during the avian nesting season to determine if any
native birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game
Code are nesting within proposed grounddisturbance areas or within 200 feet of these disturbance areas.
• If any active nests are observed during surveys, a
suitable avoidance buffer from the nests shall be
determined by the qualified biologist. The
avoidance buffer distance shall consider such
factors as the species of bird, topographic features,
intensity and extent of the disturbance, timing
relative to the nesting cycle, and anticipated ground
disturbance schedule.

Limits of construction to avoid active nests shall be
established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate materials and shall be maintained until any young of an active nest have fledged and are no longer
dependent upon the nest for survival as determined by
the qualified biologist.

Prior to
construction
activities if
construction,
ground
disturbance,
and/or vegetation
trimming/removal
activities are
scheduled to
occur during the
avian nesting
season
a qualified
biologist
City of Moreno Valley
MM-BIO-4: City Regulated Trees. Prior to any removal of trees potential regulated by the City of Moreno Valley
Municipal Code, a qualified arborist shall conduct a tree survey in the area on the Project site in which regulated trees are proposed to be removed. Date to be collected
on appropriate data forms include the exact location of the tree, species, diameter at breast height, and
Prior to removal
of trees
A qualified
arborist
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-23
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
information on the general character and health of the
tree. All regulated trees to be removed shall be flagged in the field and entered into a GIS database.

Pursuant to Section 9.17.03 of the City of Moreno
Valley Municipal Code the removal of existing trees with four-inch or greater trunk diameters at breast heigh
(dbh) shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, with a minimum
24-inch box size trees of the same species, or a
minimum 36-inch box for a 1:1 replacement, in
locations approved by the City. Pursuant to the
Municipal Code, removal of trees that would be
classified as heritage trees (trees with 15-inch dbh or more) is generally prohibited unless certain conditions are met (i.e., the tree(s) poses a dangerous or
hazardous condition to people, structures and property, or if the tree is diseased, dying, or dead, and if a
reasonable undertaking to preserve the tree had
occurred).

Cultural Resources
MM-CUL-1: Archaeologist Retained. Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall retain a professional archaeologist to conduct monitoring of
all mass grading and trenching 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 archeologist
and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pregrading meeting with the City, the construction manager, and any contractors and will conduct a
mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity
Training for those in attendance. The Training will
include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit
A professional
archaeologist
retained by the
Applicant
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-24
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
Project and the surrounding area; what resources could
potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the
protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to
contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the
find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other
appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel
that will conduct earthwork or grading activities that
begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to
beginning work and the Project archaeologist and
Consulting Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to
provide the training on an as-needed basis.

MM-CUL-2: Native American Monitoring. Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall
secure agreements with the Consulting Tribes for tribal monitoring. The City is also required to provide a
minimum of 30 days advance notice to the tribes of all
mass grading and trenching activities. The Native
American Tribal Representatives shall have the
authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth-moving activities in the affected area in the event that
suspected archaeological resources are unearthed.

Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit
The Applicant
in agreement
with Consulting
Tribes
City of Moreno Valley
MM-CUL-3: Cultural Resource Monitoring Plan (CRMP).

Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, a Cultural Resource Monitoring Plan (CRMP) is to be developed
and approved. 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 Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit
A professional
archaeologist
in consultation
with the
Consulting
Tribes
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-25
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
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 schedule;
c. Roles and responsibilities of individuals on the
Project;
d. The pre-grading meeting and Cultural Resources
Worker Sensitivity Training details;
e. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor,
City, Consulting Tribe (s) and Project archaeologist
will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural
resource discoveries, including any newly
discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be
subject to a cultural resource’s evaluation.
f. The type of recordation needed for inadvertent
finds and the stipulations of recordation of sacred
items.
g. Contact information of relevant individuals for the
Project.

MM-CUL-4: Grading Note. The City shall verify that the
following note is included in the Grading Plan: “If any suspected archaeological resources are discovered
during ground–disturbing activities and the Project
Archaeologist or Native American Tribal
Representatives are not present, the construction
supervisor is obligated to halt work in a 100-foot radius around the find and call the Project Archaeologist and
the Tribal Representatives to the site to assess the
significance of the find."
Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-26
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
MM-CUL-5: Inadvertent Finds. If during ground
disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are
discovered that were not assessed by the
archaeological report(s) and/or environmental
assessment conducted prior to Project approval, the
following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or
cultural importance as determined in consultation with
the Native American Tribe(s). Tribal cultural resources are excluded from the definition of unique cultural
resources as those resources are defined by the tribal
values ascribed to them by their affiliated communities.

Treatment of tribal cultural resources inadvertently
discovered during the project’s ground-disturbing
activities shall be subject to the consultation process required by state law and AB 52.
i. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted
until a meeting is convened between the Project
Applicant, the Project Archaeologist, the Tribal
Representative(s), and the City to discuss the
significance of the find.
ii. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the
Tribal Representative(s) and the Project
Archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the
concurrence of the City, as to the appropriate
mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance,
etc.) for the cultural resources.
iii. Further ground disturbance, including but not
limited to grading, trenching, etc., shall not resume
within the area of the discovery until an agreement
During ground
disturbance
activities
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-27
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
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 Tribal Monitors if needed.
iv. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered
resources shall be consistent with the Cultural
Resources Management Plan and Monitoring
Agreements entered into with the appropriate
tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural
resources through project design, in-place
preservation of cultural resources located in native
soils, and/or re-burial on the Project property so
they are not subject to further disturbance in
perpetuity as identified in Non-Disclosure of
Reburial Condition/Mitigation Measures.
v. 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.

Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b)
avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for
archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the
significance or the mitigation of the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City for decision. The City shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources,
and recommendations of the project archeologist and
shall consider the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City shall be SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-28
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City
Council. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation
measure, if a significant archaeological resource is
found, shall be provided to the City of Moreno Valley
upon the completion of a treatment plan and final
report detailing the significance and treatment finding MM-CUL-6: Final Disposition. In the event that Native
American cultural resources are discovered during the
course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the
following procedures shall be carried out for the 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:
i. Preservation-in-place of the cultural resources, if
feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the
resources, leaving them in the place where they
were found with no development affecting the
integrity of the resources.
ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property.

The measures for reburial shall include, at least,
the following: 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, with the exception that sacred
items, burial goods, and Native American human
remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be
culturally appropriate. The listing of contents and
location of the reburial shall be included in the
confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report
shall be filed with the City under a confidential
cover and not subject to Public Records Requests.

During grading
activities
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-29
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
iii. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally
appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation
facility that meets State Resources Department
Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the
Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring
access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The
collection and associated records shall be
transferred, including title, and are to be
accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for
permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the
form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been
received and that all fees have been paid shall be
provided by the landowner to the City. There shall
be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred
items, burial goods, and Native American human
remains. Results concerning findings of any
inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the
Phase IV monitoring report. Evidence of compliance
with this mitigation measure, if a significant
archaeological resource is found, shall be provided
to the City of Moreno Valley upon the completion of
a treatment plan and final report detailing the
significance and treatment finding.

MM-CUL-7: Human Remains. If human remains are
discovered, no further disturbance shall occur in the
affected area until the County Coroner has made
necessary findings as to the 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
During grading
activities
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-30
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
recommendations, and engage in consultations
concerning the treatment of the remains (California
Public Resources Code 5097.98). (GP Objective 23.3,
CEQA).

MM-CUL-8: Non-Disclosure. 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 7927.000, parties, and
Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public
disclosure information related to such reburial,
pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in
California Government Code 7927.000.

During grading
activities
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
MM-CUL-9: Phase IV Report. Prior to the final
inspection, the Project Archeologist is to submit two (2) copies of the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring
Report that complies with the Planning 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 City shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided
the reports are adequate, the City 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 Pechanga Cultural Resources
Department, and Consulting Tribe(s), if requested.

Prior to the final
inspection
A professional
archaeologist
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-31
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
Geology and Soils
MM-GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Impact
Mitigation Program and Paleontological Monitoring.

Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site,
the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) 2010
guidelines. The SVP 2010 guidelines define a qualified
paleontologist as having the following:

1. A graduate degree in paleontology or geology,
and/or a publication record in peer reviewed
journals; and demonstrated competence in field
techniques, preparation, identification, curation,
and reporting in the state or geologic province in
which the project occurs. An advanced degree is
less important than demonstrated competence and
regional experience.

2. At least two full years professional experience as
assistant to a Project Paleontologist with
administration and project management
experience; supported by a list of projects and
referral contacts.

3. Proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field and
determining significance.

4. Expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and
biostratigraphy.

5. Experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field.” The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a
Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP) for the Project with the performance criteria set forth herein. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the
SVP 2010 guidelines and outline requirements for
preconstruction meeting attendance, worker
environmental awareness training, and where
Prior to
commencement
of any grading
activity on site
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-32
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
paleontological monitoring is required within the Project site based on construction plans and/or geotechnical
reports. The PRIMP shall also include the procedures
for adequate paleontological monitoring and
discoveries treatment, paleontological methods
(including sediment sampling for microinvertebrate and
microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections
management. The PRIMP shall also include a statement
that any fossil lab or curation costs (if necessary due to fossil recovery) are the responsibility of the Project
proponent/applicant. A qualified paleontological
monitor shall be on site during initial rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities (including drilling greater than 2 feet in diameter) in areas
underlain by early Pleistocene very old alluvial fan
deposits and below a depth of 5 feet beneath the
ground surface in areas underlain by Holocene sand
and gravel deposits to determine if they are old enough to preserve scientifically significant paleontological
resources. The SVP 2010 guidelines define a qualified
paleontological monitor as having the following:

1. BS or BA degree in geology or paleontology and one
year experience monitoring in the state or geologic
province of the specific project. An associate
degree and/or demonstrated experience showing
ability to recognize fossils in a biostratigraphic
context and recover vertebrate fossils in the field
may be substituted for a degree. An undergraduate
degree in geology or paleontology is preferable, but
is less important than documented experience
performing paleontological monitoring, or

2. AS or AA in geology, paleontology, or biology and
demonstrated two years experience collecting and
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-33
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
salvaging fossil materials in the state or geologic
province of the specific project, or

3. Enrollment in upper division classes pursuing a
degree in the fields of geology or paleontology and
two years of monitoring experience in the state or
geologic province of the specific project.

4. Monitors must demonstrate proficiency in
recognizing various types of fossils, in collection
methods, and in other paleontological field
techniques.”
In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological
monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading
activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources.

The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-footradius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will allow grading to
recommence in the area of the find.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM-GHG-1: Installation of Additional Electric Vehicle
Chargers Beyond Project Design Feature. The Project
shall install an additional 180 Level 2 240v electric
vehicle supply equipment (or stations) in Project
parking lots or remaining garages beyond the
commitment in PDF-AQ/GHG-1. As PDF-AQ/GHG-1
requires 3,566 (or 15%) Level 2 240v electric vehicle
supply equipment (or stations) at Project buildout,
implementation of MM-GHG-1 would require installation
of a total of 3,746 charging stations at Project buildout.

To ensure contemporaneous GHG emissions reductions
when natural-gas related GHG emissions are emitted by
the Project’s restaurant land uses, at least 90 EV
chargers above CALGreen Tier 2 standards shall be
installed and operational at 50% occupancy of the
Prior to Project
occupation
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-34
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
restaurant land uses and at least 180 EV chargers
above CALGreen Tier 2 standards shall be installed and
operational at 100% occupancy of the restaurant land
uses.

Hazardous Materials
MM-HAZ-1: Site Characterization and Remediation.

Following Project design finalization, but prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project
applicant/developer or their designated contractor shall retain a qualified environmental consultant to conduct
subsurface investigations to fully characterize the
nature and extent of contamination at the Project site.

The investigation will include preparation of a soil
sampling and analysis plan (SAP), which will be
reviewed and signed by a registered engineer or
geologist with experience in site characterization. The SAP will take into account final design and proposed
development of each area, including grading and
excavation depths, building use and occupancy
(commercial vs residential), and other features which
could indicate applicable screening levels and
screening requirements. The SAP shall include methods
and procedures to evaluate areas of the Project site
where there are known soil impacts, including the
former tank storage areas, vehicle maintenance areas,
areas with elevated metals and pesticides, and sludge
application areas. Soil sampling shall include at least two depths at each sample location to properly
characterize potential subsurface impacts, and will
include analysis for petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs,
SVOCs, and metals. Samples from at least two different
depths will be collected from more than two locations in each area of concern to properly characterize each
area, including, at a minimum, each former UST
Following Project
design
finalization, but
prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-35
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
location, each sludge application area, the vehicle
maintenance and storage area, the wash down area,
and areas with elevated metals and pesticides in
surface soil samples (identified in the 1993 Phase II
ESA) (shown in red and yellow on Figure 4.11-1). Soil
vapor samples will be collected in the UST,
maintenance, washdown, and sludge application areas,
at dual depths, to properly characterize potential soil and soil vapor contamination due to historical site uses.

The SAP will include applicable regulatory screening
levels for both soil and soil vapor based on proposed
site development. Site investigation will be conducted
as outlined in the SAP.

For soils, based on the results of the sampling and
analysis and comparison to applicable regulatory
screening levels, a soil management plan (SMP) shall
be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant.

The SMP will outline the proper screening, handling,
characterization, transportation, and disposal
procedures for contaminated soils on the Project site.

The SMP will outline criteria for reuse on site, based on the final development plan and land use in each area,
including comparison to regulatory screening levels.

The SMP will include procedures for removal and
disposal of soils that do not meet reuse criteria,
including transportation, documentation, and landfilling requirements. The SMP shall include health and safety
and training procedures for workers who may come in
contact with contaminated soils, and will include health and safety and site control measures to prevent
contaminated material emissions from the site (such as
dust suppression and vehicle tracking). The SMP shall
be implemented by the Project applicant or their
designated contractor for all confirmed and suspected
contaminated soils which require excavation and off-
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-36
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
site disposal. The SMP shall also include procedures for the identification and proper abandonment of
underground storage tanks, should any be identified
during demolition and construction activities around the existing dairies and residences. The SMP shall include
all applicable federal, state, and local regulations
(including Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health) associated with handling,
excavating, and disposing of contaminated soils; the
proposed disposal facility that will accept the
contaminated soils; and appropriate procedures,
notifications, permitting requirements, handling, and
disposal requirements for decommissioning any
underground storage tanks.

For soil vapor, based on the results of the sampling and analysis and comparison to applicable regulatory
screening levels, a soil vapor mitigation plan (SVMP)
shall be prepared by a qualified environmental
consultant. The SVMP will outline appropriate vapor
mitigation methods for any proposed on-site buildings
in areas where elevated soil vapor concentrations are
identified above the applicable screening levels for the proposed land use (open space, residences, schools,
etc.). The SVMP will be prepared with consideration of
the SMP, as excavation of impacted soils may reduce
soil vapor impacts. Vapor mitigation design features
shall be implemented in accordance with the DTSC
Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory for all future
residential buildings and enclosed structures in areas
where soil vapor is present above applicable regulatory screening levels for the proposed land use. The
construction contractor shall incorporate vapor
mitigation design features into building plans that
reduce potential vapor intrusion in buildings and
enclosed structures on the Project site to below
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-37
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
applicable screening levels. Vapor mitigation systems
may be passive or active in nature, so long as they are designed to prevent vapor contamination in accordance
with applicable DTSC regulations. Vapor mitigation
systems must be reviewed and approved by the
permitting agency(ies) prior to construction and prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Operation of
the Project shall maintain functionality of these
features as required to ensure protection from vapor
intrusion. Following completion of construction and
occupancy of the buildings, indoor air monitoring will
occur semiannually for one year to verify implemented
measures are functioning properly and adequately
mitigating vapor intrusion to below residential screening levels. If indoor air samples indicate vapor intrusion
occurring at levels above applicable regulatory
screening levels, modifications shall be made, as
necessary, to the designed system to improve the
efficacy in reducing vapor intrusion to below applicable screening levels. The SAP, SMP, and SVMP shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to
issuance of a grading permit. Should the City require a qualified consultant to review and make
recommendations prior to City approval of such plans,
the Project applicant or designee shall pay for such
consultant services.

MM-HAZ-2: Characterization and Closure of Dump Sites.

Following Project design finalization, but prior to the issuance of a grading permit, buried and open dump
site areas identified on site will be characterized to
define nature and extent of waste and potential
contamination in surrounding soils and soil vapor. Soil will be sampled and analyzed for VOCs, metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and SVOCs, while soil vapor
Following Project
design
finalization, but
prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-38
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
will be analyzed for VOCs and methane. The full lateral and vertical extent of the waste will be characterized
and limits of both waste fill and contamination, if any, will be determined based on this sampling and analysis.

The results, along with a proposed closure plan, will be submitted to Riverside County DEH Environmental
Cleanup Program for review and approval. Closure
requirements will depend on the nature and extent of
contamination and will ultimately be approved by
Riverside County DEH in accordance with their rules
and regulations. Excavation of the dump site area, if
any, including exploration test pits, will be conducted following SCAQMD Rule 1150. Final closure
requirements will be included in grading and
development plans. If excavation is required, excavated wastes will be appropriately characterized and
landfilled at a permitted off-site landfill in accordance with federal, state, and local rules and regulations. The excavation will be backfilled with either on-site soils or clean fill. Should imported fill be required, it will meet clean fill requirements established by DTSC in their
2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material
Fact Sheet.

MM-HAZ-3: Water Quality Evaluation and Treatment.

Prior to any groundwater extraction or use for filling and maintenance of the proposed lakes, groundwater
quality shall be evaluated by collecting and analyzing
water samples and comparing the analysis results to
applicable water quality standards under the oversight
of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SARWQCB). Water quality standards shall be
determined based on the proposed beneficial use of
the lake, and include Environmental Screening Levels
(ESLs) for freshwater ecotoxicity, as published by the
Prior to any
groundwater
extraction or use
for filling and
maintenance
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-39
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2019, and
Water Quality Objectives (WQO) for inland surface
waters, as described in the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board’s 2019 Santa Ana River Basin
Plan. In the event groundwater quality does not satisfy applicable standards, water treatment systems shall be
employed to ensure that groundwater discharged into
the on-site lake meets all applicable water quality
standards to the satisfaction of the SARWQCB. The
treatment system shall be implemented and
maintained as required by SARWQCB to ensure water
quality standards continue to be met for the application of groundwater to the lakes for the duration of the
proposed Project, or until groundwater is no longer
used to fill the lakes. Sampling shall occur on a regular basis (at least annually) and results maintained for
review by the SARWQCB and/or permitting agencies
(EMWD, City of Moreno Valley) upon request. In the
event groundwater treatment is insufficient to achieve
water quality standards or is infeasible, groundwater
shall not be discharged to the lakes.

MM-HAZ-4: Groundwater Well Decommissioning. Wells
formerly used for irrigation on the site (Filaree, Scott, and Coray) that will not be used for Project operation
shall be destroyed in accordance with applicable
regulations subject to the following limitations. The
Scott well (UCR Scott) has been identified as a
“Representative Monitoring Point” for the Moreno Valley Production Area in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) for the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. As such,
the Scott well must be protected as part of the Project, or a replacement well shall be installed. The Project
applicant will coordinate with Eastern Municipal Water
District (EMWD), which acts as the Groundwater
Following Project
design
finalization, but
prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
The Applicant
or its designee
City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-40
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
Sustainability Agency for the San Jacinto Basin, to
either protect the Scott well or install an alternate well.

A well management plan shall be prepared for the
former agricultural wells, Filaree, Scott, and Coray. The management plan will be written in accordance with
applicable state and local laws, including those of
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
(DEH) and submitted to Riverside County DEH for
review and approval. A copy of the approved
management plan will be provided to EMWD within 10
business days of receiving the approval from Riverside
County DEH. The plan will include proposed protection
measures for wells necessary for Project site operation and/or monitoring related to the GSP and will include
proposed destruction procedures for wells to be
destroyed. The plan will also outline necessary permits, notifications, and reports required per rule and
regulation, such as submittal of an abandonment report
to Riverside County DEH. The approved management
plan shall be followed, and on-site wells destroyed or
protection measures put in place prior to construction
in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Hydrology and Water Quality
MM-HYD-1: Lake Improvement Plans Review and
Approval. Prior to grading, the developer shall submit
improvement plans for the lakes and any related flood
control improvements to the City of Moreno Valley,
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District, and the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife for review and approval.

Prior to grading The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
MM-HYD-2: EMWD Review and Approval. Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall submit proposed groundwater extraction plans
Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-41
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
including wells to be used, pumping rates and duration, and total proposed pumping volumes for both initial
filling of the lake and any subsequent annual
maintenance pumping, to Eastern Municipal Water
District (EMWD) for review and approval prior to
commencement of any groundwater extraction
activities. Any groundwater extraction from any of the
existing on-site wells shall be metered and reported to EMWD in accordance with the direction given by EMWD.

No pumping shall be permitted without prior approval
by EMWD in accordance with the sustainability goals of
the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the West San
Jacinto Groundwater Basin.

Noise
MM-NOI-1: Construction Noise Barrier. For construction
activities in Phase 4 and Phase 5 that would occur
closer than 120 feet from an off-site adjacent
residence, a 10-foot-high temporary noise barrier shall be installed and maintained between the construction
zone and neighboring residences. The barrier shall have an STC rating of not less than 25.

Prior to
commencement
of construction
activities in
Phase 4 and 5
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
MM-NOI-2: Construction Noise Equipment Controls
• The use of noise-producing signals, including horns,
whistles, alarms, and bells, will be for safety
warning purposes only.
• Construction equipment will be muffled per
manufacturer’s specifications. Electrically powered
equipment will be used instead of pneumatic or
internal combustion powered equipment, where
feasible.

During
construction
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project 15010.20 October 2024 3-42
Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Timing
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Implementation Initial Date Comments
• All stationary construction equipment will be placed
in a manner so that emitted noise is directed away
or blocked from sensitive receptors nearest the
Project site where possible.

MM-NOI-3: Traffic Calming Measures. Prior to issuance
of the first certificate of occupancy, average speeds on the impacted segments of John F Kennedy Drive,
Kitching and Mason Streets shall be reduced by 5 miles
per hour or more through the implementation of one or
more of the following measures: posting lower speed
limits, installing speed humps, or narrowing the overall lane widths with planters or dedicated bike lanes. The
impacted segments of these roadways include:
• John F. Kennedy Drive from Kitching Street to
Lasselle Street, Intersection 12 to PA 2, and Oliver
Street to Moreno Beach Drive.
• Kitching Street from Brodiaea to Moreno Beach
Drive.

Mason Street from E. Hospital to Iris Avenue.

Prior to issuance
of the first
certificate of
occupancy
The Applicant City of Moreno Valley
SEIR for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project
15010.20
October 20243-43
Exhibit C
Statement of Overriding Considerations

EXHIBIT C

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023100145)
Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the decision-making agency must balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. (See Pub.

Resources Code § 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines § 15043 and 15093.) Additionally, the CEQA Guidelines provides that, when the lead agency approves a project that will result in significant environmental impacts that are identified in a final EIR, but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR or other information in the record. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15093(b).) If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.” (Id., § 15093(a).) In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that, based on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) and the record, the Aquabella Project consists of the following discretionary actions: (1) Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment (PEN 23-0109); (2) General Planning Amendment (PEN 23-0127); (3) Change in Zone (PEN 24-0041); (4) Tentative Tract Map 38850 (PEN 23-0118); and Development Agreement (PEN 23- 0119) (Project)1 and that the Project has avoided or reduced significant impacts on the physical environment for all environmental impact categories analyzed in the Final SEIR through findings of no impact, no significant impact, or no significant impact through the imposition of mitigation measures, incorporated as conditions of approval of the Project, except for two significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. The two significant and unavoidable air quality impacts result from:
(1) the Project’s potential to conflict with implementation of the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) 2022 Air Quality Management Plan; and (2) the Project’s potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in non-attainment criteria air pollutant operational thresholds established by SCAQMD.2
A. FINDINGS:

The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR will be implemented with the Project approval and that the remaining significant unavoidable air quality impacts are outweighed and are found to be acceptable due to the following specific 1 The Development Agreement application was withdrawn and subsequently reinstated in October 2024 prior to completion of the Final SEIR because the parties (City and Aquabella Project applicant) had not reached a tentative agreement as to the terms of the Development Agreement until late September/October 2024.
2 The Final SEIR found that the Project’s construction-related impacts arising from potential cumulatively considerable net increases in non-attainment criteria pollutants would be less than significant with mitigation (MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7).
overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, based on the facts set forth in the Final SEIR and the Project’s record of proceedings.

The Planning Commission finds that the following Project benefits, each of which is determined to be, by itself and independent of the other Project benefits, is a basis for overriding, outweighing, and accepting the Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts identified in the Final SEIR. Moreover, substantial evidence supports each of the Project benefits, which evidence is found in the Final SEIR, documents used or referred to in both the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR, documents incorporated by reference, and documents comprising the Project’s record of proceedings.

A. OVERRIDING BENEFITS RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT:

1. Maximizes Infill Development of Unused Vacant Land. The Project site has never been developed, notwithstanding that it has been planned for various levels of development since 1999 and is located in an infill area. Approximately 70 percent of the site has been disturbed or graded, and the site is served by utilities, backbone infrastructure, roads, recycled water, and transit.

The Project would maximize the development potential on this urban infill site by providing 15,000 housing units, a range of housing options, various commercial/retail uses, open space, schools, a lake, and recreational uses. By densifying this urban area, the Project maximizes use of an infill site and discourages sprawl into undeveloped areas.

2. Benefits from Development of the Geographic “Center” of the City of Moreno Valley. The Project site has been reimagined to bring significant public benefits, housing, and economic growth to the City center where planned expansions are anticipated for the Riverside University Health System Medical Center, the Kaiser Permanente Hospital and medical complex, Moreno Valley College, and the World Logistics Center including:
(a) taking advantage of Aquabella’s unique infill location in the geographic “center” of the City and hub for the region;
(b) creating a visible, social gathering place for residents, families, seniors, friends, and visitors;
(c) providing a community with a broad mix of family and workforce housing options and a vibrant retail/commercial town center and hotel — all linked to the lakes, the lake promenade, parks, schools, trails, open space, and adjacent and proximate major job centers;
(d) creating new housing opportunities for families, professionals, seniors, veterans, and students and faculty and implementing memorable experiences that cannot be found anywhere else in the City, Riverside County, or the Inland Empire region.

3. Develops Proximate to Transit and Encourages Multimodal Transportation. The Project site’s surrounding area is urbanized with a variety of residential densities, education, medical, and other land uses, including residential and other housing options, all of which is currently served by three existing nearby Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) bus routes (Routes 20, 31, and 41). Commuter train service in the City is provided by Metrolink, and the Moreno Valley/March Field Metrolink Station is approximately five miles west of the Project site. As such, bus stops are located within a half-mile of the site, and transit service is within five miles of the site. The Project establishes multi-modal trails for pedestrian and bicycle use, incorporates pedestrian bridges, provides sidewalks and a lake promenade, provides bike lanes, incorporates traffic calming features, will be developed with walkable blocks, and incorporates bikeshare, electric bikeshare, and Scootershare programs. It also incorporates a mobility hub, shuttle service to employment centers, and would support improved access to transit to and through the Project site for residents, employees, visitors, and the surrounding neighborhoods. Greater density also allows for more efficient, frequent, and reliable transit service. Project development near transit, with a focus on improving multimodal options such as walking, cycling, scootering, and transit, will provide a more diverse and sustainable transportation network.

4. Provides a Vibrant Gathering Place for the City. The Aquabella Project, located within the City’s Downtown Center, encompasses 15,000 family and workforce housing options for all ages and income levels; a 25-acre mixed-use commercial and retail town center and a 300-room hotel; 80 acres of parks, comprised of the previously approved 40-acres of lakes, a 15-acre lake promenade, and an additional 25 acres of parkland; 40 acres of schools with up to three elementary school sites and one middle school site; open space, public services and facilities; infrastructure improvements; the addition of a 10-acre area situated along the eastern site boundary; and other amenities. Further, access to the Project site will be facilitated by the provision of public transit by the RTA.

5. Satisfies City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled Standard and Promotes Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) The Project satisfies the City’s vehicle miles travelled (VMT) standards, which demonstrates consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS strategies. The Project’s effect on VMT was determined to be less than significant under all build-out year settings in the Final SEIR.

Also notable, the Project would improve adjacent streets and install sidewalks along with an extensive walkable internal Project site. While the bike network along City circulation element roadways in the study area already exists, the Project would construct a Class III bike route along Brodiaea Avenue, and internal streets with the Project would facilitate bike routes and connectivity to the City’s existing bike network. The Project would also improve and enhance active transportation and transit access and facilities while diversifying housing in the area, consistent with General Plan Circulation Element policies and “Connect SoCal” goals.

6. Implements Important Sustainability Goals of the City. The Project’s development of increased residential uses within a mixed-use context and nearby jobs help to increase the supply of homes in the City and promote affordability. The mixed-use development proximate to existing job centers also helps the City balance its jobs-to-housing mix, reduce commutes, lower greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and reduce VMT. The Project incorporates energy efficient appliances, water conservation features, use of recycled water for irrigation, waste reduction features, building electrification, and installation of solar PV that would generate approximately 48 million kWh of renewable energy per year. The Project would provide a total 15,632 EV opportunities, including installing 3,746 Level 2 EV charging stations, installing 2,377 Level 1 EV charging outlets, and prewiring of 9,509 parking spaces, which would promote EV usage in the City, in alignment with City and state sustainability goals.

7. Provides Substantial One-Time Economic Benefits to the City. The economic and fiscal studies performed by DTA3(formerly, David Taussig and Associates) show that Project construction will generate about $6.9 billion in construction activities in the City.

8. Creates Significant Construction Jobs. The Project would create approximately 55,700 construction jobs through its construction period, with payrolls of approximately $3.6 billion.

9. Provides Substantial Recurring Economic Benefits to the City The economic impact analysis performed by DTA forecasts that the Project’s onsite business operations will generate approximately $528.61 million (more than one-half a billion) annually in recurring economic benefits related to employment, economic output, and other earnings.

10. Creates Permanent Jobs Proximate to Housing. The economic and fiscal studies performed by DTA estimate the Project will create 1,443 permanent jobs with payrolls of $59.5 million annually. These jobs proximate to housing would also reduce commute times, improve social and cultural involvement for these residents, and provide them with an attractive work/life balance.

11. Significant Fiscal and Infrastructure Benefits to the City. The economic and fiscal studies performed by DTA estimate that the Project will pay substantial amounts of Development Impact Fees to the City exceeding $150.4 million. This payment of DIFs will result in the construction of up to 54 off-site roadway improvements with a fair share value of about $20 million; public art improvements, and workforce development, and improving vital services such as police and fire protection, parks, roads and other infrastructure in the City.

12. Recurring Fiscal Benefits to the City. Considering only recurring revenues and costs – including property taxes, utility users taxes, licenses, and fees – the fiscal study performed by DTA shows that the Project will generate a significant fiscal surplus to the City. Based on projected General Fund revenues of $32.6 million annually and expenditures of approximately $29 million, the recurring fiscal surplus is estimated at $3.5 million annually. Money added to the general fund will positively impact the City as a whole.

13. Housing For the City’s Expanding Workforce. The Project would provide needed workforce housing adjacent and proximate major job centers (e.g., Riverside University Health System Medical Center, the Kaiser Permanente Hospital and medical complex, Moreno Valley College, and the World Logistics Center) and educational facilities (University of California, Riverside and Moreno Valley College). This housing proximate to jobs would reduce commute times, improve social and cultural involvement for these residents, provide attractive work/life balance, promote use of multimodal transportation options, and reduce GHG emissions associated with driving. As explained by DTA, the shorter commutes could also generate savings for the City in terms of the need 3 DTA is a California-based public finance consulting firm with a national practice focusing on the establishment and implementation of infrastructure and public services financing programs. The firm provides public finance consulting services to public and private sector clients, including completion of fiscal and economic studies.
to construct and maintain new road improvements and other facilities. For example, any decrease in transportation facility costs experienced by the City will enable it to invest its tax proceeds in libraries, recreational projects, and other community amenities that can improve quality of life for City residents.

14. Urban Forestry. The Project would plant and maintain 30,000 trees for 30 years to reduce urban heat island effect and aid in carbon capture.

15. Senior Center. The Project will construct and dedicate a 24,000 square foot Senior Center to the City, providing a valuable recreational resource and gathering place for the City's senior community.

16. Public Park Land. The Project will provide extensive public park land and fees as set forth in the Aquabella Development Agreement.

Exhibit D
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report with Errata and Response to Comments
FINAL
Responses to Comments and Errata
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
Aquabella Specific Plan
Amendment Project
OCTOBER 2024
Lead Agency:

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
14177 Frederick St.

Moreno Valley, California 92552
Prepared for:

T/CAL REALTY II LLC
29000 Eucalyptus Avenue
Moreno Valley, California 92555
Contact: Andrew Daymude
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Carey Fernandes
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010.20 OCTOBER 2024 TOC-1
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Responses to Comment Letters Received on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report......... 2-1

2.1 Topical Responses ............................................................................................................................. 2-2 Topical Response 1: SB 330 and General Plan Consistency Analysis............................................ 2-2 Topical Response 2: Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 2-6 Topical Response 3: Project Design Features ................................................................................2-13 Topical Response 4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..........................................................................2-15 Topical Response 5: Growth Inducement.......................................................................................2-21 Topical Response 6: Affordable Housing ........................................................................................2-24

2.2 Individual Comment Letters.............................................................................................................2-25 Response to Comment Letter A1 ....................................................................................................2-29 Response to Comment Letter A2 ....................................................................................................2-33 Response to Comment Letter A3 ....................................................................................................2-37 Response to Comment Letter A4 ....................................................................................................2-47 Response to Comment Letter A5 ....................................................................................................2-67 Response to Comment Letter A6 ....................................................................................................2-75 Response to Comment Letter O1....................................................................................................2-79 Response to Comment Letter O2....................................................................................................2-97 Response to Comment Letter O3..................................................................................................2-243 Response to Comment Letter O4..................................................................................................2-283 Response to Comment Letter O5..................................................................................................2-293 Response to Comment Letter O6..................................................................................................2-303 Response to Comment Letter O7..................................................................................................2-597 Response to Comment Letter I1 ...................................................................................................2-607

2.3 References......................................................................................................................................2-627 3 Errata ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Edits made to Chapter 1, Introduction.............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Edits made to Chapter 1A, Executive Summary ............................................................................... 3-2 1A.6 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 3-5

3.3 Edits made to Chapter 3, Project Description ................................................................................3-13

3.4 Edits made to Section 4.3, Air Quality.............................................................................................3-14

3.5 Edits made to Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................3-15

3.6 Edits made to Section 4.9, Hazards................................................................................................3-20

3.7 Edits made to Section 4.10, Hydrology...........................................................................................3-22

3.8 Edits made to Section 4.11, Land Use ...........................................................................................3-22

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010.20 OCTOBER 2024 TOC-2

3.9 Edits made to Section 4.13, Noise..................................................................................................3-23

3.10 Edits made to Section 4.19, Utilities...............................................................................................3-27

3.11 Edits made to Chapter 8, References.............................................................................................3-28 TABLES
1 Comment letters and Commenters...............................................................................................................2-25 1A-27-1Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ........................................................................... 3-4 1A-32 Project Design Features .................................................................................................................................. 3-5 1A-43 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation, and Level of Significance............................................................. 3-6 1A-3 Summary of Project Impacts, Mitigation, and Level of Significance............................................................. 3-8

4.11-1 2040 General Plan Land Use Consistency...................................................................................................3-22

4.13-6 Phase 3 Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Noise-Sensitive Receiver...................................................3-24

4.13-7 Phase 4 Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Noise-Sensitive Receiver...................................................3-24

4.13-8 Phase 5 Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Noise-Sensitive Receiver...................................................3-25

4.13-9 Phase 6 Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Noise-Sensitive Receiver...................................................3-25

4.13-15 Project Operational Noise Levels Compared to Municipal Code Limits ....................................................3-26

4.19-8 Project Water Demand Compared to 1999 EIR and 2005 Addendum Water Demand............................3-27 SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010.20 OCTOBER 2024 1-1
1 Introduction
This Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared for the City of Moreno Valley (City) for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132. The Final SEIR includes the following items as required in Section 15132, Contents of Final Environmental Impact Report:
▪ A list of individuals, organizations, and public agencies that commented on the Draft SEIR ▪ Comments and recommendations received on the Draft SEIR ▪ Responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review ▪ Revisions and clarifications to the Draft SEIR (provided as an errata chapter) ▪ Any other information added by the lead agency
Organization of the Final SEIR
The Final SEIR is organized into three chapters, followed by the revised SEIR and technical appendices.

Chapter 1, Introduction, explains the contents of the Final SEIR.

Chapter 2, Response to Comments, of the Final SEIR provides a list of commenters on the Draft SEIR, comments, and a response to each comment. The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from May 31, 2024, through July 15, 2024, in accordance with Section 15105(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. A total of 14 written comment letters were received on the Draft SEIR from agencies, organizations, and individuals.

Chapter 3, Errata, of the Final SEIR summarizes revisions or clarifications to the Draft SEIR. In response to comments receive during the Draft SEIR public review, minor revisions and clarifications have been made to the document.

The revised SEIR and technical appendices follow these chapters.

Minor Clarification Concerning Development Agreement
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the Project Description of the Draft SEIR prepared by the City describes the discretionary approvals being sought and being processed for the Project. Among these approvals is an application for a Development Agreement (PEN 23-0119), which “would be a written agreement between the Project applicant and the City in order to specify the respective obligations of the parties.” The Development Agreement application was temporarily withdrawn because the parties had not reached any tentative agreement until late September/October 2024. However, it was reinstated in October 2024. Therefore, the SEIR remains accurate.

To clarify, although the Project applicant had previously withdrawn the application for a Development Agreement, it thereafter requested that the application be reinstated to accommodate the City and the applicant’s Development Agreement whereby the Aquabella Project applicant (applicant) has agreed to construct a turn-key 24,000 square foot Senior Center (i.e., a designed, constructed, and delivered building) and to dedicate the subject land and 1 – INTRODUCTION
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010.20 OCTOBER 2024 1-2
improvements to the City. Construction of the Senior Center and the conveyance of the land and improvements to the City must occur no later than 36 months after the occupancy permit (final inspection) is issued for the 8,000th residential unit within the Project. In addition, the Aquabella Development Agreement shall (as agreed to by the City and the applicant) require the applicant to develop 80 acres of land for public park purposes, and to dedicate said parkland and improvements to the City, subject to the City providing the applicant with the appropriate Development Impact Fee credits. Also, the applicant acknowledges that a total of 129 acres of parkland is required as a condition of approval of the Project; as such, the applicant acknowledges that it shall be obligated to pay the Quimby Fees and associated Development Impact Fees (for parks) for the remaining 49 acres that are not dedicated by or developed by the applicant.

SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-1
2 Responses to Comment Letters
Received on the Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report
The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) was circulated for public review from May 31, 2024, through July 15, 2024, in accordance with Section 15105(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A total of 14 written comment letters were received on the Draft SEIR from agencies, organizations, and individuals as shown in Table 1. Each of the written comment letters has been assigned an alphanumeric label, and the individual comments within each written comment letter are bracketed and numbered. For example, Comment Letter A1 contains four comments that are numbered A1-1 through A1-4.

The responses to each comment on the Draft SEIR represent a good-faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Moreno Valley (City), as lead agency, is not required to respond to all comments on the Draft SEIR, only those comments that raise significant environmental issues. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204, the City has independently evaluated the comments and prepared, or caused to be prepared, the attached written responses to any significant environmental issues raised.

Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) provides as follows (emphasis added):

The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 states the following (emphasis added):

In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-2
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) is also important in explaining the parameters of comments in a final EIR or SEIR (emphasis added):

Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

2.1 Topical Responses
In response to various comments received on the Draft SEIR, the following topical responses were prepared to address commonly raised issues. These topical responses are referenced below in individual letter responses where applicable.

Topical Response 1: SB 330 and General Plan Consistency Analysis This topical response addresses comments on the Draft SEIR that the City cannot rely on the City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2040 (2040 General Plan), nor consider the Project until the City corrects the deficiencies found in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the MoVal 2040: Moreno Valley Comprehensive Plan Update, Housing Element Update, and Climate Action Plan (2040 General Plan EIR) (baseline/greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and energy) and re-adopts the 2040 General Plan and associated revised 2040 General Plan EIR.

State housing laws and local implementing regulations require and permit timely processing and consideration of this mixed-use/residential housing development project for several reasons. New housing production laws have declared a statewide and housing supply and affordability crisis and such laws have created a preliminary application and fee payment process for housing development projects (Senate Bill [SB] 330). SB 330 allows a project applicant to have a housing development project be “subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application and fee were submitted. (See Government Code Sections 65589.5[o][1] and 65589.5[o][2][E]][4], defining “ordinances, policies, and standards” to include “general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning,…and other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of the local agency.”)
The Project, a housing development project as defined by applicable law, is an SB 330 project. The Project submitted an SB 330 preliminary application to the City and paid the requisite fee to the City on September 6, 2023. By submitting the SB 330 application and paying the fee, the Project applicant locked in place for the Project the City’s ordinances, policies, and standards then in effect, which included the 2040 General Plan, 2040 General Plan EIR, and associated zoning.

In May 2024, the Riverside Superior Court ruled the 2040 General Plan, its EIR, and associated zoning were to be set aside (excepting the 2021–2029 Housing Element); however, the court did not prohibit the City from acting with respect to land use issues. (See judgment filed May 6, 2024, in Sierra Club v. City of Moreno Valley, Case No.

CVR12103300.) The documents being set aside is an interim measure while the City takes prompt action to correct specified deficiencies in the 2040 General Plan EIR pursuant to court direction, after which it will reconsider the revised 2040 General Plan EIR. (The 2040 General Plan update litigation also did not challenge or otherwise invalidate the “content” of the 2040 General Plan or associated zoning amendments.) 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-3
Statewide Housing Crisis
The state legislature, governor, and courts have recognized that decades of stagnant housing production have resulted in an unprecedented and deepening statewide housing crisis, perpetuating the state’s nearly last place ranking across the United States for homeowner rates and housing supply (Government Code Section 65589.5[a][1][B], [a][2][E], [F]). As found by the legislature (Government Code Section 65589.5[a][2][A]):

California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state's environmental and climate objectives.

Government Code Section 65589.5(a)(2)(B) states:

While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor.

Government Code Section 65589.5(a)(2)(J) states:

California's housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section.

Government Code Section 65589.5(a)(2)(K) states:

The Legislature's intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. (See also Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley [2021] 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 296, rehearing denied [May 19, 2021], review denied [July 28, 2021].)
The housing crisis is severely impacting California families, resulting in increased overcrowding, homelessness, and excessive commutes, particularly for low- and middle-income working families (Government Code Section 65589.5[a][1][C]). Among the consequences are a “lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration” (Government Code, Section 65589.5[a][1][C]). “An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California's cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences” (Government Code, Section 65589.5[a][2][I]).
“The lack of housing … is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California” (SB 330, Section 3, Government Code, Section 65589.5[a][1][A]). The housing crisis “harms families 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-4
across California” (SB 330, Sections 2[a][6][A]–[E]), “severely impact[s] the state’s economy” (SB 330, Sections 2[a][11][A]–[C]), and “harms the environment” (SB 330, Sections 2[a][12][A]–[B]).

By contrast, when “Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees” (Government Code, Section 65589.5[a][2][H]).

Limiting the supply of housing in the face of stable or growing demand pushes rents and home sale prices up.

Facing a more than 40 year backlog of millions of units and growing need, the legislature has adopted a suite of legislation in an effort to expand the supply of housing to meet state and local needs (Government Code Section 65589.5[a][1][C]; Newsom 2017).

The legislature also expressed the state policy that its housing law be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight” to the approval and provision of housing (Government Code, Section 65589.5[a][1][L]).

Preliminary Application Process
The legislature passed SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and it became effective January 1, 2020. The state housing law declares a statewide housing emergency and adopts a suite of laws to hasten housing production. SB 330 added Section 65941.1 to the Government Code along with revisions to Section 65589.5 (the Housing Accountability Act) to create a “preliminary application process” for a “housing development project.”1 Aquabella Project SB 330 Preliminary Application
On September 6, 2023, the Project applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application to the City and paid the requisite permit processing fee. Thereafter, the Project applicant punctually submitted the remaining documents needed to process the SB 330 application for the Project, as required by Government Code, Section 65941.1(d)(1), in October 2023. By September 2023, the 2040 General Plan and related zoning changes were already in effect.2 The City’s Housing Element, as modified in October 2022 and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, was also in effect (Resolution 2022-67). Thus, these ordinances, policies, and standards were vested or “frozen” in place for the Project, and the Project is appropriately evaluated for consistency with the 2040 General Plan.

Thereafter, in May 2024, the Riverside County Superior Court issued a judgment and writ directing that the City set aside certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR due to inadequacies identified in the Final Program EIR regarding baseline greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and energy use and set aside approval of the 2040 General Plan and related zoning amendments until those errors are corrected. Other than the Climate Action Plan, the 2040 1 A "housing development project” is defined to include, “Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use” (Government Code, Section 65589.5[h][2][B]).

The Project, which is a mixed-use, residential (15,000 units) and non-residential project, satisfies SB 330’s definition of a “housing development project” because it is a mixed-use development with residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the total square footage designated for residential use. 2 The City’s 2040 General Plan was adopted by Resolution No. 2021-47 in June 2021; the related zoning changes were adopted by Ordinance No. 981 in June and August 2021.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-5
General Plan itself was not found defective. Further, the court did not prohibit the City from acting with respect to land use issues (Sierra Club v. City of Moreno Valley, CVRI2103300, April 12, 2024, Minute Order).

Accordingly, state housing law—including SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act—requires the City to process and consider approval of this housing development project based on the 2040 General Plan, zoning amendments, and related approvals.

Aquabella Project General Plan Amendment and Rezone
The Project entitlements propose amendments to both the 2040 General Plan and the Aquabella Specific Plan, as well as a Change of Zone (Rezone) to allow for the development of the Project’s 15,000 residences and related mixed-uses and non-residential uses. As a result, the Draft SEIR describes the discretionary approvals sought if either the 2040 General Plan or the 2006 General Plan (and their related zoning) is in effect when the City Council considers Project approval (refer to Draft SEIR Section 1.2, pp. 1-3 through 1-4). Project consistency with the 2006 General Plan is also evaluated in Draft SEIR Appendix A, Specific Plan Amendment. This consistency analysis was performed as a backup consistency analysis. Also, the Draft SEIR is a stand-alone project environmental analysis; it does not tier from the City’s 2040 General Plan EIR.

In sum, the Draft SEIR appropriately considers the Project and its consistency with the City’s 2040 General Plan and zoning in alignment with state housing law and the urgent need to address the housing crisis.

Resources
The following resources support the information presented in this topical response; these resources are available for public review and inspection upon request to the City, and they are incorporated by this reference and included in this record:

Aquabella Project SB 330 Preliminary Application, payment receipt, and related e-mails City Council Resolution No. 2021-46 (June 15, 2021) (certifying the 2040 General Plan EIR and adopting findings, overriding considerations, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program under CEQA) City Council Resolution No. 2021-47 (June 2021) (approving the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Climate Action Plan appendices, which had the effect of superseding the 2006 General Plan) City Council Ordinance No. 981 (June 15, 2021, introduction/first reading and August 3, 2021, adoption/second reading)
City’s Housing Element (as modified in October 2022 and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development)
City Council Resolution 2022-67 (October 2022)
California Department of Housing and Community Development Letter to City dated October 11, 2022 Adopted Land Use Map (Updated April 2024)
Adopted Circulation Map (Updated October 2021)
Permitted Uses Table 9.02-020-1
Permitted Uses Table 9.02-020-2
Revised Zoning Atlas Map Pages
Revised Mixed-Use Overlay Map
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-6
Zoning Map (Updated April 2024)
Statement of Decision (March 5, 2024)
Joint Response to City’s Objections filed by the Sierra Club and the Attorney General (March 29, 2024) Minute Order (April 12, 2024) (Sierra Club v. City of Moreno Valley, Case No. CVR12103300) Judgment (May 6, 2024)
Peremptory Writ of Mandate (May 6, 2024)
June 18, 2024, Report to City Council (setting aside Resolutions 2021-46 and 2021-47 and ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 981)
Resolution No. 2024-37 (June 25, 2024) (setting aside Resolution Nos. 2021-46 and 2021-47 regarding certification of 2040 General Plan EIR and approval of 2040 General Plan) Ordinance No. 1014 (August 8, 2024) (repealing Ordinance No. 981 regarding the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for the 2040 General Plan
Topical Response 2: Air Quality
This response addresses comments on the Draft SEIR, which state that the Project gives rise to air quality impacts, significant unavoidable air quality impacts, and health concerns. The City responds to such comments below.

Background
As required by CEQA, the Draft SEIR analyzed and identified the Project’s air quality impacts and made a good-faith effort to eliminate and/or minimize all potentially significant air quality impacts resulting from the Project through compliance with applicable laws and regulations, adoption of the required project design features (PDFs), and identification of all feasible mitigation measures (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-1 through 4.3-69). The SEIR’s analyses are supported by the May 2024 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Technical Report (Draft SEIR Appendix D) prepared by subject matter specialists at Dudek (an environmental consulting firm).

In accordance with City practice, the Draft SEIR utilized the air quality significance criteria in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the emissions-based significance thresholds recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (Draft SEIR Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-21 through 4.3-24). Additionally, the Project’s air quality analysis required implementation of PDFs intended to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions and other potential environmental impacts, such as those related to vehicle miles traveled, in order to achieve direct or indirect air quality co-benefits (Draft SEIR Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-24 through 4.3-26).

The Draft SEIR disclosed the Project’s air quality impacts and mitigation as compared to the prior Aquabella project CEQA analyses and approvals (the original Specific Plan 218 and 2005 Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment). As discussed in the SEIR, the Project site has long been planned for residential, mixed-use development, with at least three environmental reviews and project updates over the years (see Draft SEIR Section 1.1, pp. 1-1 through 1-3).

The original 1999 EIR for the prior Aquabella project (2,922 single-family residential units and other uses) found that significant air quality impacts would result from the prior project’s inconsistency with SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and operation-related criteria air pollutant emissions. The 1999 EIR proposed mitigation adopted by the City that reduced all air quality impacts to less-than-significant levels except for the prior project’s inconsistency with the then-applicable AQMP. The plan inconsistency remained a significant and unavoidable impact.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-7
As required by CEQA, Draft SEIR Chapter 7, Alternatives, analyzed and compared the environmental consequences of the Project to seven alternatives to the Project. Except for Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative (zero residential units and no development), all the “build” alternatives resulted in similar, slightly reduced, or greater air quality impacts when compared to the Project (see Draft SEIR Table 7-1, Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of Alternatives, p. 7-26). Further, no Project alternative eliminated the Project’s identified significant and unavoidable air quality impacts (see Alternatives 3 through 7 in Draft SEIR Chapter 7, pp. 7-12 through 7-25).

Below is a detailed summary of the key significance findings in the Project’s air quality assessment. This summary is based primarily on the analysis in Draft SEIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, and the supporting Dudek technical report (Draft SEIR Appendix D).

Air Quality – Summary of Impact Findings
As background, the Draft SEIR’s air quality assessment considered both criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs) associated with the Project. Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the regulatory agencies have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. Criteria air pollutants include ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead. Pollutants considered in this component of the analysis also include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are important because they are precursors to the formation of ozone (see Draft SEIR Appendix D, p. xxiii). TACs are substances released into the air that are identified as toxic—due to their potential to cause adverse health effects in humans— by federal and state agencies following the review of available scientific evidence.

Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction of the Project would result in the temporary addition of criteria air pollutant emissions to the local air basin caused by on-site sources (e.g., off-road construction and grading equipment, soil disturbance/grading, and VOC off-gassing) and off-site sources (e.g., on-road all trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips) (see Draft SEIR Appendix D, p. xxiv). Most of the short-term construction mitigation strategies set forth in the Draft SEIR focus on minimizing construction equipment exhaust (including the use of Tier 4 Final equipment) (EPA 2024), restricting truck and equipment idling times, controlling construction dust, and using super-compliant low-VOC paints during construction to protect public health (see Draft SEIR, Appendix D, pp. xxxi–xxxiv [Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7]).

As shown in Draft SEIR Section 4.3, after implementation of MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7, regional construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds for any criteria air pollutant. Therefore, construction-related impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment would be less than significant with mitigation (see Draft SEIR Appendix D, p. xxiv).

Operation-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Operation of the Project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from mobile sources (vehicles), area sources (consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment), and energy sources (natural gas consumption from restaurant land uses only) on an ongoing basis (see Draft SEIR Appendix D, p. xxv). During operation, the Project would exceed the numerical significance thresholds established by SCAQMD for VOC, NOx, 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-8
CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. As a result, Project operations would result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment criteria pollutants and the impact would be significant and unavoidable, even after the implementation of the PDFs and all feasible mitigation (see MM-AQ-8 through MM-AQ-11).

Additionally, concurrent Project construction and operational activities would exceed the numerical significance thresholds recommended by SCAQMD for operational emission of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 with PDFs and the identified mitigation measures (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3.7, pp. 4.3-68 through 4.3-69).

Air Quality Plan Consistency
In its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD set forth two criteria for determining a project’s consistency with its AQMPs (Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3, in SCAQMD 1993).

SCAQMD Consistency Criterion No. 1 asks whether the project “will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards of the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP” (SCAQMD 1993). This significance criterion is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Threshold 1 (Draft SEIR Section 4.3.3, pp. 4.3-21 through 4.3-34).

As shown in the Draft SEIR and associated technical report, the Project’s construction emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds after implementation of MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7. However, the Project’s operational emissions would result in exceedances of applicable thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions, even after implementation of PDFs and mitigation. As such, the Project’s operational criteria air pollutant emissions would have the potential to increase the frequency or severity of a violation of the federal or state ambient air quality standards; therefore, the Project would conflict with this criterion.

SCAQMD Consistency Criterion No. 2 asks whether the project “will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase” (SCAQMD 1993). This criterion is also consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Threshold 1.

The 2022 AQMP accommodates planned growth in the South Coast Air Basin. Projects are considered consistent with the 2022 AQMP and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP if the growth in socioeconomic factors (e.g., population, employment) is consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop the AQMP.

Based on the Draft SEIR, the Project would result in the construction of an additional 12,298 multifamily and workforce housing dwelling units for all ages and income levels when compared to the existing approved plan of 2,922 dwelling units, for a total 15,000 units. The proposed 12,298 additional units would have the potential to house approximately 35,295 more people compared to the prior approvals, based on an average household size of 2.87 persons per dwelling unit, and a total of approximately 43,050 people would be housed at the Project site after full build-out. The Project’s 43,050 population estimate would fall within the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) forecast of an additional 61,100 new residents by 2045 in the City of Moreno Valley (SCAG 2020a); thus, the Project would accommodate population growth anticipated to occur in the City through 2045.

Permanent jobs would mostly be associated with the Project’s town center and proposed schools. The Project is not anticipated to cause significant numbers of people to relocate for employment purposes. Therefore, Project construction and operation is not anticipated to induce substantial unplanned population growth related to employment, which would be within the SCAG forecast of 29,400 new jobs within the City by 2045 (SCAG 2020a). 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-9
While the preceding considerations and numerical assessment support a determination that the Project’s residential and employment growth are within the SCAG 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy growth projections for Moreno Valley, because the Project includes a General Plan Amendment to increase the residential land use density (allowing for up to 50 dwelling units per acre) beyond that allowed for under current General Plan land use and zoning designations, the Project’s increase in residential population may conflict with the regional growth projections assumed in the 2022 AQMP. The Project’s employment is less likely to conflict with regional growth projections because the site was previously approved for 25 acres of commercial use (300,000 square feet of commercial/retail), and the Project provides less commercial use; however, the Project also includes four schools, which were previously not assumed, so overall employment growth could conflict with the 2022 AQMP growth assumptions.

As such, the Project would result in increased population and employment growth that may not be within SCAG’s projections incorporated in the 2022 AQMP. Thus, the Project would potentially conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

In summary, the Project would potentially conflict with Consistency Criteria Nos. 1 and 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and the Project’s impacts relative to AQMP consistency would be potentially significant (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3.3, pp. 4.3-21 through 4.3-34). As to Consistency Criterion No. 1, the Draft SEIR states that implementation of MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7 would not reduce the Project’s operational VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions below the SCAQMD mass daily significance thresholds. As to Consistency Criterion No. 2, the Draft SEIR states that MM-AQ-1 would be implemented to ensure that the appropriate residential and employment growth projections at the Project site are incorporated into the next SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and thereby be incorporated into the following SCAQMD AQMP. However, the Project would still result in a temporary conflict with SCAQMD Consistency Criterion No. 2, even with implementation of MM-AQ1. As such, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding the potential to conflict with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP.

Potential to Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Nonattainment Criteria Pollutant
Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
As stated above, the Draft SEIR has determined that, after implementation of MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7, the Project’s regional construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, construction-related impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment would be less than significant with mitigation.

Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
As stated above, the Draft SEIR has determined that, even with implementation of PDFs and mitigation measures (MM-AQ-8 through MM-AQ-11), the Project would exceed the SCAQMD operational thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. The South Coast Air Basin has been designated as a national nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and a California nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Concurrent construction and operational activities would also exceed the numerical thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD for operational emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, even with PDFs and mitigation. Because the Projectgenerated operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, the Draft SEIR found that the Project would 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-10
result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Exposure of Sensitive Receptors
Localized Significance Thresholds
The Draft SEIR conducted a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis consistent with the SCAQMD guidance to determine potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during construction of the Project. Construction of the Project would result in emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 that would exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs without mitigation (see Threshold 3 discussion in Draft SEIR Section 4.3.4.2, pp. 4.3-50 through 4.3-57). As such, the Project would result in a potentially significant impact related to construction LSTs prior to mitigation.

Implementation of MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7, however, would reduce the Project’s construction emissions below the applicable SCAQMD LSTs, and associated impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (see Threshold 3 discussion in Draft SEIR Section 4.3.4.2, pp. 4.3-50 through 4.3-57).

According to Draft SEIR Appendix D, no operational LST analysis was determined to be necessary per the SCAQMD LST guidance as the Project would not result in substantial on-site sources of criteria air pollutant emissions (e.g., stationary sources), especially since the Project eliminates most of the anticipated natural gas use (with implementation of PDF-AQ/GHG-2) (see Draft SEIR Appendix D, p. xxv). Therefore, operational LST impacts would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Based on Draft SEIR Appendix D, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to localized high concentrations of CO or contribute to traffic volumes at intersections that would cause a CO hotspot during construction or operation (see Draft SEIR Appendix D, p. xxv). As such, potential construction or operational CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant without the need for mitigation.

Health Risk Assessment
Construction
As explained in the Draft SEIR (Section 4.3.3, pp. 4.3-21 through 4.3-34, and Appendix D), a construction health risk assessment was performed to estimate the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and the Chronic Hazard Index for nearby residential receptors due to Project-generated TACs during construction.

Without mitigation, Project construction activities would result in a Residential Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of

63.2 in 1 million for off-site receptors and 33.2 in 1 million for on-site receptors, which exceeds the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in 1 million. The Project would also exceed the cancer risk thresholds for the nearest nonresidential sensitive receptor (Vista del Lago High School) at 20.8 in 1 million (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3, Table

4.3-15, p. 4.3-54). Thus, Project construction TAC health risk impacts would be potentially significant prior to mitigation (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-54 through 4.3-55). However, after incorporation of MM-AQ-2 (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3, Table 4.3-16, p. 4.3-55), the health risk assessment results show that the Residential Maximum Individual Cancer Risk for off-site receptors, on-site receptors, and nonresidential receptors would be avoided as the cancer risk would be reduced below the threshold of 10 in 1 million. Thus, as to exposure of sensitive 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-11
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, Project-specific TAC impacts associated with cancer risk during construction would be less than significant with mitigation (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3, p. 4.3-55).

As to the non-cancer health risk metric, Project construction would result in a Residential Chronic Hazard Index of

0.04 for off-site receptors and 0.02 for on-site receptors, which is below the 1.0 significance threshold set by SCAQMD; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Operation
As with the LST analysis summarized above, no operational health risk assessment was determined to be required because no long-term, operational sources of TACs are anticipated. As such, the Project’s potential operational health risk impact would be less than significant (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-55 through 4.3-56).

Cumulative Health Risk
As explained in the Draft SEIR (Section 4.3, p. 4.3-56), SCAQMD does not have an established approach to assessing cumulative health risk impacts. However, SCAQMD has initiated a public process (including five Working Group meetings as of June 2024) for the development of additional guidance for public agencies when they evaluate cumulative air quality impacts from increased concentrations of TACs for projects subject to the requirements of CEQA. As part of this public process, SCAQMD has not included construction health risk in the cumulative health risk analysis recommendations since construction is typically short-term. However, the draft applicability framework of the SCAQMD cumulative health risk concept includes long-term construction with the examples of transportation projects such as high-speed rail. Because construction of the Project is assumed to have a duration of 12 years, it may not qualify as a short-term project and the final guidance—once issued—may be applicable (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3, p. 4.3-56). Nonetheless, as described in the Draft SEIR, the Project itself would result in less-than-significant construction-related health risk impacts with implementation of MM-AQ-2.

Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable health risk impact from construction.

In addition, SCAQMD has indicated that projects that consist of primarily residential development, such as the Project, would screen out of a cumulative health risk analysis for operations since they tend to have low potential cancer risk (SCAQMD 2023).

Overall, based on the preceding considerations, potential cumulative health risk associated with Project development would be potentially significant prior to mitigation and less than significant after mitigation.

Valley Fever
As explained in the Draft SEIR (Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-56 through 4.3-57), valley fever is not highly endemic to Riverside County. Nonetheless, to reduce fugitive dust from the Project and minimize adverse air quality impacts, the Project would employ dust control measures in accordance with SCAQMD Rules 401 and 403. The Project would not result in a significant impact attributable to valley fever exposure based on its geographic location and compliance with applicable regulatory standards and dust control measures, which would serve to minimize the release of and exposure to fungal spores. Therefore, the Draft SEIR found that Project impacts associated with valley fever exposure for sensitive receptors would be less than significant. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-12
Other Emissions (Odors)
As explained in the Draft SEIR (Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-57 through 4.3-58), the analysis of other emissions is focused on the potential for an odor impact to occur. Potential odors produced during Project construction would be attributable to architectural coatings, asphalt pavement application, and concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, all of which would disperse rapidly from the Project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. The Draft SEIR found that impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than significant. The Draft SEIR also found that the Project operation would not include land uses with sources that have the potential to generate substantial odors, and impacts associated with odors during operation would be less than significant.

Attachments
Draft SEIR Chapter 1A, Executive Summary, Section 1A.6, includes Table 1A-2, Project Design Features (pp. 1A-12 through 1A-21), which provides the list of all PDFs incorporated into the Aquabella Specific Plan Amendment and Project Design in order to minimize potential environmental effects of the Project. To ensure enforcement, the Draft SEIR states that the PDFs will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, which is required by CEQA, California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 (see Draft SEIR Section 1A.6, p.1A-12). These CEQA provisions require a lead agency that approves or carries out a project, where a CEQA document has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of a project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” The intent of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures (and PDFs) identified in the SEIR for the Project.

Table 1A-2, Project Design Features – Air Quality/Transportation/Land Use, included as Attachment A to this document, sets forth the specific PDFs related to air quality, transportation, and land use. When combined, these PDFs directly or indirectly result in reductions in criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. Refer also to Draft SEIR Table 4.3-6 (pp. 4.3-25 through 4.3-26), which explains whether these PDFs are incorporated into the air quality emissions estimates as a quantitative feature or a qualitative supporting feature (i.e., emissions reductions not quantitatively estimated).

Table 1A-3A, Summary of Project Air Quality Impacts, Mitigation, and Level of Significance, included as Attachment B to this document, contains a focused summary of the air quality significance criteria, the air quality impact determination before mitigation, the air quality mitigation measures, and the level of significance after the mitigation measures are applied to the Project.

The purpose of both Attachments A and B is to bring together all the Project’s air quality PDFs and mitigation measures so that the reader is apprised of all such tools used to avoid or significantly lessen the Project’s air quality impacts.

Significant and Unavoidable Air Quality Impacts
The Draft SEIR finds that the Project will result in the significant unavoidable air quality impacts described above (i.e., the Project’s potential conflict with the 2022 AQMP and exceedance of SCAQMD’s mass emissions thresholds for operational criteria air pollutants) and that such impacts cannot be avoided or reduced further despite compliance with all applicable federal, state, regional and local air quality laws and regulations; adherence to the 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-13
required PDFs; and incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures (see Attachments A and B). After considering the Project and the administrative record and weighing the Project’s economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other benefits against the Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, the City will be asked to find that each of the significant public benefits associated with the Project constitutes an overriding consideration that outweighs the Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. As such, the City will be asked to consider adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

Topical Response 3: Project Design Features
This response addresses comments stating that the Draft SEIR’s treatment of project design features (PDF), part of the Project, violates CEQA because the Draft SEIR has wrongfully considered the PDFs as mitigation measures, an analysis prohibited by the Court of Appeal’s opinion in Lotus v. Department of Transportation, (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645.

The Lotus decision involved the reconstruction of Highway 101 through an old growth stand of redwood trees north of San Francisco (Id. at p. 648). The work would encroach into the structural root zones of a number of the trees (Id. at p. 649). Recognizing that the work could endanger the trees, the EIR prepared by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) identified a number of “special construction techniques” designed to minimize the impacts to the trees (Id. at pp. 651–652). As a result, the EIR concluded that “no significant environmental effects are expected as a result of this project with the implementation of the stated special construction techniques” (Id. at p. 651).

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment, which had upheld the validity of Caltrans’s EIR, stating that, “In fact, the EIR fails to identify any standard of significance, much less to apply one to an analysis of predictable impacts from the project” (Id. at p. 655). The Court of Appeal added that (Id. at pp. 655–656; footnote omitted):

Caltrans compounds this omission by incorporating the proposed mitigation measures into its description of the project and then concluding that any potential impacts from the project will be less than significant. As the trial court held, the ‘avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures,’ as they are characterized in the EIR, are not ‘part of the project.’ They are mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate the damage to the redwoods anticipated from disturbing the structural root zone of the trees by excavation and placement of impermeable materials over the root zones. By compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, the EIR disregards the requirements of CEQA.

Two years later, the same three Court of Appeal Justices handed down their decision in Mission Bay Alliance v.

Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App.5th 160, which involved construction of the arena to house the Golden State Warriors as well as other events (Id. at p. 168). The project incorporated “the San Francisco Municipal Travel Agency’s (SFMTA or Muni) special service plan (Muni TSP), which provides for additional transit service during large events” (Id. at p. 180).

Opponents contended that the EIR “improperly includes the Muni TSP as a component of the project rather than as a mitigation measures, so that the FSEIR fails to consider alternate feasible mitigation measures” (Id. at p. 184; footnote omitted). The decision then went on to discuss Lotus, stating (Id. at p. 185.):

Arguably, some components of the TSP might be characterized as mitigation measures rather than as part of the project itself. Any mischaracterization is significant, however, only if it precludes or 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-14
obfuscates required disclosure of the project’s environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures.

Here, characterization of the Muni TSP as part of the project and not as a mitigation measure did not, as plaintiffs suggest, interfere with the identification of the transportation consequences of the project or the analysis of measures to mitigate those consequences. Unlike the situation in Lotus, the environmental impacts of the project on vehicle traffic and transit are fully disclosed in the FSEIR. The FSEIR includes analysis both with and without implementation of the Muni TSP and applies the same threshold standards to determine the significance of those impacts. By comparing the significance of the impact on local transit with and without the TSP, a reader learns that while implementation of the TSP will reduce impacts on Muni travel to a less than significant level, the impact without the TSP remains significant and unavoidable, even with alternative mitigation measures.

As in the Mission Alliance case, the Draft SEIR listed the appropriate PDFs and mitigation measures in Draft SEIR Table 1A-2, pages 1A-12 through 1A15, and then compared the resulting impacts in each case where both were present and where impacts were potentially significant — air quality and greenhouse gases — so that the reader can see how effective the PDFs are going to be.3 The following lists include the sections of the SEIR that provide analysis of the project with and without PDFs and mitigation measures:

Section 4.3, Air Quality
▪ Trip rates and VMT, Draft SEIR at pages 4.3-31 through 4.3-32 (without and with PDFs) ▪ Area Sources, Draft SEIR at pages 4.3-32 through 4.3-33 (without and with PDFs) ▪ Energy Sources, Draft SEIR at pages 4.3-33 through 4.3-34 (without and with PDFs) ▪ Table 4.3-11, Estimated Maximum Daily Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions, Interim Operation Years – Unmitigated, Draft SEIR at pages 4.3-43 through 4.3-44 (without and with PDFs) ▪ Table 4.3-12, Estimated Maximum Daily Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Full Buildout – 2037 – Unmitigated, Draft SEIR at pages 4.3-44 through 4.3-45 (without and with PDFs) Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gases
▪ Trip rates and VMT, Draft SEIR at page 4.8-35 (without and with PDFs) ▪ Area Sources, Draft SEIR at page 4.8-46 (without and with PDFs) ▪ Energy Sources, Draft SEIR at pages 4.8-46 through 4.8-48 (without and with PDFs) ▪ Water and Wastewater, Draft SEIR at pages 4.8-48 through 4.8-49 (without and with PDFs) ▪ Solid Waste, Draft EIR at page 4.8-49 (without and with PDFs) ▪ Refrigerants, Draft SEIR at page 4.8-50 (without and with PDFs) ▪ Table 4.8-7, Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Unmitigated, Draft SEIR at page

4.8-70
▪ Table 4.8-8, Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Mitigated, Draft SEIR at page

4.8-71
3 Where appropriate, the unmitigated impacts are also presented. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-15
▪ Table 4.8-9, Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse gas Emissions – Operational Interim Years, Draft SEIR at page 4.8-72 (without and with PDFs)
▪ Table 4.8-11, Estimated Annual Greenhouse gas Emissions – Full Buildout – 20237, Draft SEIR at page

4.8-73 (without and with PDFs)
Enforcement
The Draft SEIR provides that, “All PDFs would be required as City-imposed Conditions of Approval to ensure they are implemented during construction and operation of the project” (Draft SEIR Section 4.6, p. 4.6-13). Further, “To ensure enforcement, the PDFs will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP)” (Draft SEIR Section 1A.6, p. 1A-12).

Conclusion
By providing the reader with quantitative analyses of the impact reduction where both PDFs and mitigation measures are considered and by ensuring that the PDFs and mitigation measures will be included, monitored and enforced, the Draft SEIR more than satisfies the CEQA requirement of mitigation of potential significant environmental impacts.

Topical Response 4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This response addresses comments concerning the Project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The comments claim the Project must achieve net zero emissions or otherwise the Draft SEIR’s determination that impacts will be less than significant is unsupported. Additionally, comments inquire as to how the analysis was prepared and what it evaluated. Comments also raise specific issues concerning affordable housing, electrification and natural gas use, and electric vehicle charger incorporation into the Project. This response addresses each of these comments.

SEIR’s GHG Impact Analysis and Substantial Evidence Supports the Less-than-Significant Impact Determination
The Draft SEIR evaluated whether the Project would generate GHG emissions that significantly impact the environment or conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation aimed at reducing GHG emissions. The significance determination methodology used in the SEIR includes a three-pronged analysis comprised of the following:
▪ Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP): The SEIR evaluated the Project’s consistency with the City’s CAP.
▪ Consistency with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan: The SEIR evaluated the Project’s consistency with the Scoping Plan and specifically Appendix D therein, which identifies “key project attributes” for residential and mixed-use projects to demonstrate alignment with the state’s GHG reduction objectives.
▪ Consistency with the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): The SEIR assessed the Project’s alignment with the GHG-related goals of SCAG’s RTP/SCS.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-16
The Draft SEIR Appropriately Considers CAP Consistency without Tiering or Streamlining CEQA Review As relevant background, and as discussed under Topical Response 1, SB 330 and General Plan Consistency Analysis, the Senate Bill (SB) 330 preliminary application process for housing development projects provides certainty for housing developers by vesting or “freezing” applicable “ordinances, policies, and standards” at the time of preliminary application submittal (Government Code, Section 65589.5[o][1]). This includes general plan and zoning standards and criteria, as well as other objective development standards, rules, regulations, and fees (Government Code, Section 65589.5[o][4]).

On September 6, 2023, the Project submitted an SB 330 preliminary application and paid the processing fee. At that time, the City’s 2040 General Plan and CAP were in effect (adopted by Resolution No. 2021-47 in June 2021).

Thus, the Project was evaluated for CAP consistency.

Therefore, as noted above, the Draft SEIR considers the Project’s consistency with the City’s adopted CAP, but it does not rely on the CAP for CEQA streamlining purposes. As detailed in Section 4.8.4.2 (pp. 4.8-52 through 4.8- 74) and Appendix D of the Draft SEIR, the CAP consistency analysis shows that the Project proposes a General Plan Amendment to increase the number of dwelling units and land use density on an infill site in the City’s Downtown Center, leading to higher GHG emissions at the site compared to 2040 General Plan projections. Consequently, the CAP Checklist requires a full GHG impact analysis as part of the CEQA process, including mitigation measures identified to reduce GHG impacts. The SEIR completes this analysis by evaluating consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan and SCAG’s RTP/SCS; it does not use the CAP to streamline the GHG impact analysis. Instead, as stated, the Draft SEIR’s GHG analysis completed a full GHG impact and mitigation assessment pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

In addition Draft SEIR Table 4.8-4, Project Consistency Evaluation with Moreno Valley Climate Action Plan Required Project-Level GHG Reduction Measures (pp. 4.8-54 through 4.8-56), demonstrates consistency with applicable CAP measures. Draft SEIR Table 4.8-5, Project Compliance with Moreno Valley Climate Action Plan Voluntary ProjectLevel GHG Reduction Measures (pp. 4.8-56 through 4.8-59), demonstrates adherence to the CAP’s applicable voluntary measures, further supporting CAP consistency. The CAP consistency analysis further shows the Project would result in approximately 2.34 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per capita, which is below the City’s CAP target of 4.0 MT CO2e per capita and its anticipated achieved per capita emissions of 3.62 MT CO2e.

In summary, the Draft SEIR appropriately evaluates the Project’s CAP consistency and finds that streamlining is not supported (because of the General Plan Amendment to increase density), and a full GHG impact analysis was completed as part of the CEQA process. Under this rubric, no significance conclusion regarding the Project’s CAP consistency is reached or required. The Project does not tier from the CAP as a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan for CEQA streamlining, but rather undertakes further, full GHG analysis per CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

The SEIR Appropriately Evaluates Consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan The Draft SEIR provides a thorough evaluation of the Project’s alignment with CARB’s Scoping Plan based upon its consideration of key attributes for residential and mixed-use projects listed in the Scoping Plan’s Appendix D, Table

3. As explained in Section 4.8.4.2 (pp. 4.8-52 through 4.8-74) and Appendix D of the Draft SEIR, the key attributes identified in Scoping Plan Appendix D, Table 3, serve as a guide for determining consistency with the state’s climate strategy under CEQA. Residential/mixed use projects that satisfy all key attributes are—in the words of the Scoping Plan—“clearly consistent” with the state’s climate strategy for CEQA purposes. For projects that incorporate some, 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-17
but not all, key project attributes, the Scoping Plan states that lead agencies can still demonstrate consistency with the state’s climate goals with “adequate additional supporting evidence” (CARB 2022a, pp. 23–24).

The SEIR has effectively demonstrated the Project’s consistency with the Scoping Plan’s Appendix D, Table 3, “key project attributes” (see Draft SEIR Section 4.8, pp. 4.8-60 through 4.8-67). More specifically, Draft SEIR Table 4.8- 6 (pp. 4.8-61 through 4.8-66) shows that the Project meets nearly all the CARB-recommended attributes for residential/mixed-use projects. The Project may not clearly satisfy the 20% affordable unit attribute and exempts restaurant uses from the all-electric appliance requirement. Each of these attributes is discussed further below.

CARB’s Affordability Attribute and Project Compliance
The CARB affordability attribute reads: “At least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income residents” (CARB 2022a). This aims to reduce GHG emissions by facilitating lower-income families’ access to housing near job centers, promoting a jobs/housing balance near transit, and reducing commutes. Providing housing units affordable to lower-income residents is intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through more compact living conditions in location-efficient areas.

This attribute does not mandate that 20% of the units be deed restricted low-income housing.

As explained in Draft SEIR Table 4.8-6 (pp. 4.8-61 through 4.8-66), while the Project does not include incomerestricted housing, it offers multifamily residential units intended as workforce housing, priced affordably for most people in the area. Market forces will make a substantial number of units affordable to lower-income residents.

Research shows VMT reductions from naturally-occurring affordable housing,4 increased density,5 reduced parking requirements,6 unbundled parking,7,8 improvements to bike and pedestrian facilities,9 and improved transit access — all elements of this Project. The Project’s mixed-use development near job centers also would help reduce VMT, balance the City’s jobs-to-housing ratio, reduce commutes, and lower GHG emissions.

According to CAPCOA Measure T-4 (CAPCOA 2021), affordable housing can achieve up to a 28.6% reduction in GHG emissions, based on trip generation differences between low-rise multifamily residential (6.74 daily trips generated) and affordable housing (4.81 daily trips generated). Mid-rise multifamily housing generates fewer daily trips (4.54) compared to affordable housing (4.81) (ITE 2021). Therefore, the Project’s design, featuring 50% mid-rise multifamily housing, is expected to achieve an equivalent, if not greater, VMT reduction compared to a 20% affordable housing requirement. Additionally, evidence shows similar commute distances for higher- and lowerincome earners in the Project region (26.1 miles and 24.6 miles) (Blumenberg and Wander 2023), showing that 4 Mokhtarian et al. 2017; lower-income households are more likely to own zero or fewer-than-expected vehicles and have lower VMT; residents of rental units and high-density neighborhoods are likely to own lower-than-expected or zero vehicles. 5 CAPCOA 2021; Measure T-1, Increase Residential Density. See also Ewing et al. 2007; Stevens 2016; Mokhtarian et al. 2017; Chapple 2015 (finding increased lower income residents and higher density development were consistently associated with fewer driving trips and lower VMT [and vice versa]).
6 CAPCOA 2021; Measure T-15, Limit Residential Parking Supply. See also Chatman 2013; ITE 2019. 7 CAPCOA 2021; Measure T-16, Unbundle Residential Parking Cost from Property Cost. See also Pinski 2018 (finding households with bundled parking drive approximately 3,800 miles more, use transit less, spend nearly $580 more on gasoline, and emit 14.47 more metric tons of carbon dioxide per year than households with unbundled parking); Gabbe and Pierce 2017 (unbundling parking improves housing affordability as cost of garage parking to renters is 17% of housing unit’s rent annually, resulting in deadweight loss for carless renter households or those with fewer vehicles than parking spaces); Manville 2013 (unbundled parking substantially improves housing affordability); Litman 2020 (unbundled parking can reduce housing costs by 10-20%).
8 Senate Rules Committee Analysis of AB 1317, (Carillo 2023). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1317#. 9 CAPCOA 2021; e.g., Measures T-10, T-18, T-19 A and B, T-20, T-22 A and B. See also Handy et al. 2014. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-18
the VMT reduction from mid-rise multifamily housing is at least comparable to that from 20% income-restricted affordable housing.

Additionally, requiring 20% deed-restricted affordable housing could suppress housing production and affordability, potentially increasing VMT in Moreno Valley (LAO 2016a). A recent University of California, Los Angeles, study found that higher inclusionary zoning requirements diminish returns on below-market-rate housing and accelerate overall housing production losses (Phillips 2024). For example, a 20% inclusionary requirement could halve market-rate housing production and nearly halve total housing production. This outcome would conflict with the City’s Housing Element, which states that housing in the City is generally affordable for low- and moderate-income households, but that there is a need for denser housing at all levels of affordability (City of Moreno Valley 2021, pp. 32-33).

In sum, the Project aligns with CARB’s key affordability attribute by providing housing affordable to lower-income residents. The Draft SEIR demonstrates that the Project is consistent with state climate goals, with its 50% mid-rise multifamily housing achieving equivalent or better VMT reductions compared to a 20% low-income housing requirement.

CARB’s Electrification Attribute and Project Compliance CARB’s electrification attribute specifies that a project should “use all electric appliances, without any natural gas connections, and would not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking” (CARB 2022a). PDF-AQ/GHG-2 requires only electric fireplaces in residential units and prohibits residential units from having wood-burning or natural gas fireplaces or stoves, which comports with CARB’s electrification attribute.

Table 4.8-6 of the Draft SEIR (pp. 4.8-61 through 4.8-66) further explains that the Project adheres to CARB’s electrification attribute by incorporating PDF-AQ/GHG-3, which mandates use of all-electric appliances and end uses (including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; water heating; and induction cooking) in all residential and non-residential development, with the limited and narrow exception of restaurant land uses within the retail space. Further, PDF-AQ/GHG-4 provides for the provision of rooftop solar on all residential and non-residential buildings in accordance with the California Building Code (24 CCR Part 6).

Thus, the Project’s 15,000 residential units and the majority of retail space would be all-electric, aligning with CARB’s electrification attribute. Only an estimated 14,970 square feet of restaurant uses would not be fully electric.

To address the limited consumption of natural gas by on-site restaurant space, the Draft SEIR quantified the GHG emissions reduction attributable to eliminating natural gas from restaurant uses, estimating a reduction of 75 MT CO2e per year at Project buildout in 2037. To achieve a corresponding emissions reduction, the Project will implement MM-GHG-1, which involves the installation of additional electric vehicle (EV) chargers beyond what is required by project design features:

MM-GHG-1 Installation of Additional Electric Vehicle Chargers Beyond Project Design Feature. The Project shall install an additional 180 Level 2 240v electric vehicle supply equipment (or stations) in Project parking lots or remaining garages beyond the commitment in PDF-AQ/GHG-1. As PDF-AQ/GHG-1 requires 3,566 (or 15%) Level 2 240v electric vehicle supply equipment (or stations) at Project buildout, implementation of MM-GHG-1 would require installation of a total of 3,746 charging stations at Project buildout. To ensure contemporaneous GHG emissions reductions when naturalgas related GHG emissions are emitted by the Project’s restaurant land uses, at least 90 EV chargers above CALGreen Tier 2 standards shall be installed and operational at 50% occupancy of 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-19
the restaurant land uses and at least 180 EV chargers above CALGreen Tier 2 standards shall be installed and operational at 100% occupancy of the restaurant land uses.

This measure is expected to achieve GHG emission reductions of 76 MT CO2e per year.

Thus, with implementation MM-GHG-1, the Project would achieve equivalent GHG reductions to a project that otherwise fully aligns with the Scoping Plan’s “key project attributes,” effectively closing the emissions gap attributable to natural gas consumption by on-site restaurant spaces and demonstrating consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan Appendix D and the state’s climate strategy.

Conclusion
Based on the detailed analysis provided, the Draft SEIR and substantial evidence support the City’s assessment of the Project’s consistency with the key attributes for residential and mixed-use projects set forth in CARB’s Scoping Plan, Appendix D, Table 3. The City has appropriately determined that the Project aligns with the Scoping Plan and the state’s climate strategy and that the Project would accordingly result in less-than-significant impacts to GHG emissions.

SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency
The Draft SEIR assessed Project consistency with the GHG-related goals of SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, which was “vested” when the preliminary application was filed in September 2023. Based on the analysis in Draft SEIR Section 4.18, it was determined that the Project would be consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

The Draft SEIR also noted that, at the time of its publication, SCAG had released its draft 2024–2050 RTP/SCS— known as “Connect SoCal 2024”—and identified that Project strategies would be supportive of the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2020). While the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS was “vested” as the regulatory document against which this Project is evaluated pursuant to SB 330, the Final SEIR also includes an evaluation of Project consistency with the recently adopted Connect SoCal 2024 plan. Refer to Chapter 2, Errata, of the Final EIR. As shown therein, the Project would be consistent with Connect SoCal 2024, affirming the SEIR’s less-than-significant impact determination.

B. “Net Zero” is Not Required and No Additional Mitigation is Required for the Project’s Less-than-Significant GHG Impact
In response to comments that the Project should be required to achieve net zero GHG emissions, eliminate gas appliances in restaurant uses, and incorporate additional EV charging infrastructure, CEQA does not mandate that projects achieve net zero emissions or that mitigation be adopted for impacts identified as less than significant (California Public Resources Code, Section 21100[b][3]; 14 CCR 15126.4[a][3] and [c]; North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. [2013] 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 649).

Further, CARB recognizes that a net zero approach “may not be feasible or appropriate for every project” and provides alternative methods for evaluating alignment with state climate goals (Draft SEIR Section 4.8, p. 4.8-13, citing CARB 2022b). The City has thoroughly evaluated the Project’s consistency with key attributes provided by CARB as an alternative approach for assessing residential and mixed-use development’s alignment with state climate objectives. Pursuant to this approach, the Project’s GHG impacts are demonstrated to be less than 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-20
significant with implementation of MM-GHG-1; thus, no additional mitigation is necessary or required (see discussion above).

The Draft SEIR also demonstrates that the Project aligns with the regional RTP/SCS with the implementation of MMGHG-1. Consequently, additional mitigation to reduce GHG impacts is neither required nor appropriate under CEQA.

The Project appropriately minimizes use of gas appliances, maximizes EV charging infrastructure, and requires rooftop solar on all residential and non-residential buildings, as discussed. Overall, the Project demonstrates a strong commitment to reducing GHG emissions and supporting sustainable development practices, consistent with CEQA requirements and state climate goals.

Gas Appliances in Restaurants
As discussed above, PDF-AQ/GHG-3 mandates use of all-electric appliances in all residential and non-residential developments, except for restaurant land uses within the retail space. Only an estimated 14,970 square feet of restaurant use would not be fully electric.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently struck down a ban on natural gas piping in newly constructed buildings in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley (9th Cir. 2024) 89 F.4th 1094 (amending and superseding California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley [9th Cir. 2023] 65 F.4th 1045). The court ruled that such regulation is preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 USC 6297[c]). In that case, the California Restaurant Association, whose members include restauranteurs and chefs, challenged Berkeley’s regulation, arguing it would render gas appliances in restaurants unusable. The court found the Energy Policy and Conservation Act expressly preempts state and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances, including those used in restaurant kitchens, thereby preempting Berkeley’s ban on natural gas piping in new buildings.

The applicant has proposed to eliminate natural gas within all the Project’s residential and commercial uses, except for the restaurant space. This approach aligns with state and local GHG and air quality objectives, while respecting the federal preemption determination in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley (9th Cir. 2024) 89 F.4th 1094 and addressing the needs of the restaurant industry/business sector.

EV Charging
In response to comments regarding the adequacy of EV charging infrastructure provided by the Project, the following details are provided to ensure clarity and demonstrate the Project’s commitment to supporting EV adoption and reducing GHG emissions.

The Project consists of 15,000 residential units, necessitating approximately 23,000 parking spaces, including garages and surface spots. Additionally, another 772 spaces are planned for the Town Center to support commercial uses, bringing the total number of parking spaces to 23,772 (Draft SEIR Section 3.3.5, PDF-AQ/GHG1, p. 3-15).

To support the growing need for EV charging infrastructure and align with GHG analysis and MM-GHG-1, approximately 56% of these parking spaces, amounting to 13,074 spaces, will either be pre-wired for EV charging or equipped with Level 1 or Level 2 chargers. Specifications are as follows:
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-21
▪ Pre-Wired Spaces: These spaces will be equipped with the necessary electrical infrastructure to facilitate easy installation of EV chargers in the future, thereby promoting flexibility and future-proofing the Project against increasing demand for EV charging. Pursuant to PDF-AQ/GHG-1, the Project shall equip 9,509 parking spaces (40% of the Project’s total number of parking spaces) in Project parking structures with Level 2, 240-volt EV receptacles (Draft SEIR Section 3.3.5, pp. 3-15 through 3-16; Section 4.8, pp. 4.8-28 through 4.8-29, 4.8-68).
▪ Level 1 Chargers: These chargers provide a basic charging option, suitable for overnight or long-duration parking situations, ensuring that residents and visitors with EVs can conveniently charge their vehicles. The Project shall install 2,377 Level 1 EV capable outlets to meet EV charging needs (Draft SEIR Section 4.8, p. 4.8-68).
▪ Level 2 Chargers: These chargers offer faster charging capabilities, catering to shorter parking durations and enhancing the convenience for EV users. Pursuant to PDF-AQ/GHG-1 and MM-GHG-1, a total of 3,746 fully equipped Level 2 charging stations would be provided at Project buildout (Draft SEIR Section 4.8, pp.

4.8-28 through 4.8-29, 4.8-68, 4.8-75).

It is recognized that the integration of EVs into the market will occur progressively over time rather than instantaneously. While Executive Order N-79-20 and CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations plan for 100% of new cars and light trucks sold in California to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035, this includes plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Gasoline-fueled vehicles also will still be in use on the roads beyond this time, and gasoline-fueled vehicles may continue to be purchased used in-state or new from out-of-state sources (Draft SEIR Section 4.6, pp. 4.6-8 through 4.6-9) (see also CARB 2024). The Project’s phased approach to EV infrastructure takes this market integration and gradual vehicle change-over into account, providing an adequate supply of charging facilities that can be scaled up as EV ownership increases. This ensures that the infrastructure will grow in tandem with demand, thereby optimizing resource allocation and minimizing potential underuse in the initial stages.

Further, public spaces and EV chargers in commercial areas will be designed for shared use, allowing multiple vehicles to access charging facilities throughout the day. This shared use model enhances the efficiency of the charging infrastructure, maximizing the utility of each charger and ensuring that more vehicles can benefit from the available resources.

The Project’s significant provision of EV charging infrastructure, representing over half of the total parking spaces, underscores the Project’s proactive approach to environmental sustainability and GHG reduction. It ensures that residents and visitors have ample access to EV charging facilities, thereby encouraging the purchase of use of EVs and contributing to cleaner air and a healthier environment.

In summary, the Project exceeds current requirements for EV infrastructure by pre-wiring or equipping 13,074 spaces with EV charging capabilities. This robust approach surpasses regulatory requirements and is anticipated to meet or exceed community needs.

Topical Response 5: Growth Inducement
This topical response addresses comments on the Draft SEIR that claim the Project wrongly concludes it is not growth-inducing, despite the size and scale of the Project. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-22
CEQA Requirements
CEQA requires that an EIR describe any growth-inducing impacts of a project, including the ways in which a project could directly or indirectly foster population growth or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment (14 CCR 15126.2[e]). This requirement includes identifying project features that remove obstacles to growth or encourage growth, such as expanding a waste treatment facility that would otherwise constrain growth.

An EIR’s discussion of growth-inducing effects should not assume growth is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment (14 CCR 15126.2[e]).

Distinction Between Induced and Planned or Accommodated Growth Induced growth differs from planned growth in employment, population, or housing (14 CCR 15126.2[e]). In San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, 619, 630, revisions to a general plan housing element were deemed growth accommodating rather than growth inducing. The plan accommodated the inevitable population increase projected in regional planning documents for the area based on “births, deaths, migration, household size, labor force participation rates, and job growth over the next 20 years” (Id. at p. 619). Further, the plan did not encourage urban sprawl or expansion into undeveloped areas through oversized or expanded services (Id.). The EIR also evaluated impacts from accommodating planned growth, including water supply and traffic impacts (Id. at p. 620; see also Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles [2000] 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1265 [project not growth inducing where within Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG] regional population and employment projections]; City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 412, [“if the [area plan] were not built as planned, residents would still come to live in the area”]).

The Project Would Accommodate Growth Projected in Regional And Local Plans Draft SEIR Section 4.14, Population and Housing, and Section 6.2, Growth Inducing Impacts, discuss growth and growth inducement. The Project aligns with local and regional land use plans, including the City’s 2040 General Plan and SCAG’s regional planning documents. The Project does not stimulate population growth beyond what is projected in these plans. Instead, it accommodates the anticipated population and housing needs in the City of Moreno Valley.

California is experiencing a long-standing shortage of housing supply (see Senate Bill 330; SCAG 2020b, 2023).

SCAG's 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (2021–2029) estimates a need for 1,341,827 housing units in the region, including 167,351 units in Riverside County and 13,627 units in the City during this 8-year period. If unmet, the housing deficit will increase future housing needs. Past housing undersupply is expected to drive similar needs through at least 2035. After that, a gradual “catch up” in housing supply may occur. This housing demand is expected regardless of the Project, and state housing law mandates that the City plan for housing.

Despite slowed regional growth, Riverside County and the City are projected to grow significantly. SCAG forecasts that, from 2019 to 2050, Riverside County’s population will increase by 606,000 residents (25.4% growth) and households will increase by 318,000 (42.7% growth) (SCAG 2023). The City is anticipated to grow by 21,900 households (40% growth) in the same time period (SCAG 2023). The City’s population is expected to grow by 64,900 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-23
new City residents (31% growth) by 2045 (SCAG 2020a).10 This population and household growth would occur regardless of the Project.

The Project proposes 15,000 multifamily residences, as well as 49,900 square feet of commercial and retail space, parks, schools, open space, and amenities on an infill site previously approved for housing. Development would be phased over 12–15 years, with an estimated 1,200 units built annually (Draft SEIR Chapter 3).

During the current 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the Project will add approximately 4,800 units, fitting within the City’s projected need of 13,627 units. Upon completion between 2037 and 2040, the Project’s 15,000 units would be within SCAG’s forecast of an additional 21,900 households by 2050 (SCAG 2023). The Project would house 43,050 people, accommodating some of the projected population increase of 64,900 in the City. Accordingly, the Project is anticipated to accommodate housing and population growth outlined in SCAG’s regional plans and the City’s adopted Housing Element.

The Project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan, which estimates the City will need 22,052 new dwelling units to house 47,162 new residents by 2040. The Project’s construction timeline anticipates that 15,000 units, housing 43,050 people, will be completed by 2040, helping to meet expected and planned growth needs on a site planned for housing development. However, as explained in the Draft SEIR, the Project will result in a denser urban pattern than considered in the 2040 General Plan by concentrating additional housing in the City’s Downtown Center on an infill site. This would help prevent urban sprawl by maximizing development on an infill site, rather than inducing growth or causing an expansion into undeveloped areas. Infrastructure and services would be developed as part of Project and “right sized” to the Project to minimize impacts. The Draft SEIR evaluates the Project impact related to this densification, including noise, transportation, and other effects.

Additionally, the Project is requesting a General Plan Amendment so as to better reflect that the Project’s urban pattern is denser than that considered in the 2040 General Plan. The General Plan Amendment would entail, among other things, a change/update in the 2040 General Plan Land Use & Community Character Element Table LCC-1 and related text, to update projected housing and job numbers with the Project in place, and a change in the 2040 General Plan Table LCC-3 to reflect the updated Downtown Center development program by including the Project.

These changes/updates would also help to ensure Project consistency with the 2040 General Plan. Appendix A, Specific Plan Amendment, to the Draft SEIR also includes an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the City’s 2006 General Plan.

The Project Would Not Induce Growth Indirectly
Indirect growth inducement can result from employment opportunities or occur when a project extends infrastructure, like water or sewer utilities, into undeveloped areas, encouraging further growth. Approximately 55,788 one-time construction jobs and 1,443 permanent jobs would be generated by the Project, which is not anticipated to induce substantial population growth given the size and scale of the existing labor pool in the City and nearby communities. Rather, the Project is anticipated to house and accommodate area workers and students.

As to infrastructure, the Project site, located in an infill area of urbanized Moreno Valley and is already served by existing public services and utilities from prior development. All proposed infrastructure improvements will be within 10 Connect SoCal 2024 does not provide projected population growth at the City level. Thus, SCAG’s prior 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy forecast is referenced. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-24
the Project site and appropriately sized, with no need for new off-site utility systems. Therefore, the Project will not induce indirect growth.

Accordingly, the Project is anticipated to accommodate planned housing growth in the City and is not considered growth inducing.

Topical Response 6: Affordable Housing
This response addresses comments stating that the City must require the Project to include affordable housing.

Other comments recommend that the Project include affordable housing or state that without requiring affordable housing, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

CEQA requires the evaluation of potential physical environmental impacts of a discretionary project on the environment. Issues that are economic, social, or political in nature, such as required inclusionary housing (or affordable housing), are not appropriately addressed within a CEQA document. The presence or absence of affordable housing is not an environmental impact under CEQA. Therefore, no further response is required.

Nonetheless, the Draft SEIR evaluates Project consistency with both the 2006 General Plan and 2040 General Plan, including their housing-related goals and policies (see Draft SEIR Table 4.11-1, pp. 4.11-12 through 4.11-68, and Appendix A, Specific Plan Amendment). The Project was not found inconsistent with such housing goals and policies.

Additionally, the Project would provide multifamily home types and sizes to provide workforce housing. According to the 2040 General Plan Housing Element, based on 2020 home prices, both low- and moderate-income households would generally be able to afford a home in the City “with a sufficient number of bedrooms to avoid overcrowding,” and very-low-income households “may be able to purchase a home, but it would most likely be a smaller, older unit or a condominium or mobile home” (City of Moreno Valley 2021). The Housing Element explains that, rather than a strong need for affordable housing, the City has “a need for denser housing at all levels of affordability. This demonstrated market support is mirrored in the ownership market, where a sharp increase in median sales prices for smaller homes and condominiums indicates strong demand for more compact and affordable housing types” (City of Moreno Valley 2021, Table 3-12; Draft SEIR Chapter 3). The City finds that the Project design addresses these City housing needs.

Further, the Project would increase residential uses within a mixed-use land use context and close to jobs, which would help increase the supply of homes and promote affordability. The Project’s residential uses and mixed-uses close to job centers would also help the City balance its jobs-to-housing mix, reduce commutes, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Moreover, while the City notes the recommendation to require affordable housing, the City has not adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance; therefore, it is not legally permissible to require affordable housing units or an inlieu fee without completing the studies necessary to document the basis for the ordinance or fee program. The City is also not willing to impose an ad hoc affordable housing requirement or in-lieu fee for just this Project. It is not City practice to require ad hoc affordable housing requirements, and the City has no reason to treat this Project differently than other projects by imposing such a requirement. Additionally, the City has not studied the link between general housing development and the need for affordable housing or in-lieu fees, nor has the City studied such a link for this particular Project. The City does not have data suggesting how much affordable housing should be required or whether in-lieu fees should be allowed.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-25
Requiring permanent income-restricted housing would likely discourage needed housing production and increase environmental impacts by preventing multifamily housing in this location-efficient area. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has previously found that a 20% affordable requirement “may be infeasible” for many home builders. In fact, when inclusionary housing requirements in San Francisco were increased to 15%, the requirements suppressed housing production except in the most expensive parts of town (LAO 2016b). In a 2016 report, the Legislative Analyst’s Office also offered additional evidence that facilitating more market-rate housing would help make housing more affordable for low-income Californians and that construction of market-rate housing reduces housing costs for low-income households and, consequently, helps to minimize the potential for displacement of low-income households (LAO 2016b).

Similar modeling of inclusionary zoning’s impact on housing production in Los Angeles showed that inclusionary housing requirements had diminishing returns to below-market rate housing production and accelerated losses to overall housing production (Phillips 2024). Thus, the housing shortage in the City and statewide may be exacerbated by such requirements. As an example, starting at 400,000 units, “Increasing the affordability requirement from 0 to 1 percent has a dramatic impact on market-rate housing production, which falls by approximately 71,400 units.” “Between 1 and 16 percent, each percentage point increase in requirements is associated with a reduction of between 4,600 and 11,900 market-rate units. By 17 percent, market-rate production is cut by nearly half (49 percent), and at 25 percent [inclusionary zoning] total production is lowered by half.” Further, lower-income housing tends to be subsidized (at least in part) by increased rents or housing prices for market-rate tenants. Thus, the wider housing market becomes less affordable because of both increased rents and reduced housing production (Phillips 2024).

Accordingly, because the City does not have an affordable housing requirement, or enforce an inclusionary housing ordinance or fee program, the City does not have a legally permissible mechanism to mandate that the Project include income-restricted housing. Further, the City does not desire to take such action at this time based on the results of the studies described above, which offer evidence to suggest inclusionary requirements do not result in benefits to the affordable housing market, but instead may discourage or suppress housing production (LAO 2016b; Phillips 2024). However, the Draft SEIR demonstrates that the mix of home types and sizes would provide workforce housing affordable to most people in the area and would support housing affordability in a manner consistent with both the City’s General Plans (2006 and 2040) and the City’s adopted Housing Element (City of Moreno Valley 2021).

2.2 Individual Comment Letters
Table 1 identifies each comment letter, as well as the name of the agency, organization, or individual commenting and the date the comment letter was received.

Table 1. Comment letters and Commenters
Comment Letter Commenter Date Received
Agency
A1 SCAQMD June 11, 2024
A2 Southern California Gas and Electric (SoCalGas) June 14, 2024 A3 Riverside Transit Agency June 27, 2024
A4 Southern California Gas and Electric (SoCalGas) July 5, 2024 A5 Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District July 10, 2024 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-26
Table 1. Comment letters and Commenters
Comment Letter Commenter Date Received
A6 Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) July 24, 2024 Organization
O1 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo – Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
June 21, 2024
O2 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo – Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
July 11, 2024
O3 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo – Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
July 15, 2024
O4 Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) July 15, 2024
O5 Riverside University Health System July 15, 2024
O6 Sierra Club – San Gorgonio Chapter, Moreno Valley Group July 15, 2024 O7 Mitchell M. Tsai – Western States Regional Council of Carpenters
July 15, 2024
Individual
I1 Oscar A. Alvarez July 15, 2024
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-27
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-28
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-29
Response to Comment Letter A1
Agency
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
June 11, 2024
A1-1 This comment is a follow-up email to the public comment made in comments A1-2 through A1-4. This comment extends the timeframe of the request made in comment A1-3; please refer to Response to Comment A1-3.

A1-2 The comment acknowledges receipt of the Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR for the Project. The comment also notes that SCAQMD staff is reviewing the Draft SEIR. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

A1-3 The comment includes a request for copies of modeling and emission calculation files for review by June 19, 2024. As noted in Response to Comment A1-1 above, the commenter followed up with a second comment to extend the timeframe for delivery of files to June 21, 2024, due to a holiday. These files were provided to SCAQMD on June 20, 2024, for review. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

A1-4 The comment includes a conclusion to the previous comments. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-30

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-31
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-32
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-33
Response to Comment Letter A2
Agency
Southern California Gas and Electric (SoCalGas)
June 14, 2024
A2-1 This comment includes an acknowledgement that SoCalGas has reviewed the Draft SEIR. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

A2-2 This comment states that there are SoCalGas transmission facilities within the area and that the developer should contact 811 prior to any excavation or demolition activities. The comment also includes general information on gas services for the Project. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary. However, the comment letter was provided to the Project applicant to ensure awareness of the transmission lines and gas service.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-34

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-35
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-36

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-37
Response to Comment Letter A3
Agency
Riverside Transit Authority
June 27, 2024
A3-1 This comment includes introductory language. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

A3-2 This comment includes a recommendation that the Project should incorporate sidewalks adjacent to the curb along Lasselle and Cactus Avenue to provide infrastructure for future bus stops. The Project would include a sidewalk in this location. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

A3-3 This comment includes a conclusion to the comment letter. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-38

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-39
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-40
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-41
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-42
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-43
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-44
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-45
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-46
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-47
Response to Comment Letter A4
Agency
Southern California Gas and Electric
July 5, 2024
A4-1 This comment includes an introduction to comments to follow. The comment references a map of the conflict area and general requirements for work near high pressure lines. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. No further response is required.

A4-2 The comment includes an introduction to the general requirements for performing work or planning projects near SoCalGas high pressure lines and recommends continued communication with SoCalGas.

The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. No further response is required.

A4-3 The comment includes general requirements for performing work or planning projects near SoCalGas high pressure lines. The Project will comply with these requirements. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. No further response is required.

A4-4 The comment includes Project-specific recommendations regarding potholes, setbacks from easement lines, and making buyers and tenants aware of pipelines and easements. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. No further response is required.

A4-5 The comment references a map of the conflict area and general requirements for work near high pressure lines and states that there may be other gas facilities within the Project area. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. No further response is required.

A4-6 This comment states that the letter does not constitute clearance for construction work near or around SoCalGas’s pipelines and that the SoCalGas should be notified as plans develop. The Project applicant will maintain communication with SoCalGas as the Project continues to develop. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. No further response is required.

A4-7 The comment includes a map of the Project site and gas assets. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. No further response is required. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-48

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-49
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-50
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-51
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-52
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-53
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-54
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-55
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-56
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-57
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-58
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-59
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-60
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-61
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-62
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-63
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-64
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-65
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-66
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-67
Response to Comment Letter A5
Agency
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District July 10, 2024
A5-1 This comment includes an introduction to comments to follow. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

A5-2 The comment includes an introduction to the general nature of the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District comments and recommendations and clarifies that the Project has not been reviewed in detail. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

A5-3 The comment identifies the Project as being within the Moreno Area Drainage Plan. The comment also states the Project would involve the proposed master drainage facilities, which the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District would accept ownership of on written request by the City.

If the Project proposes channels, storm drains larger than 36 inches in diameter, or other facilities, the District would consider accepting ownership on written request of the City. The comment further states that these facilities would be constructed to district standards; would be subject to plan check, inspection, and fees; and would require an encroachment permit.

The Project applicant will comply with district standards and requirements on all proposed facilities.

The applicant has conducted coordination since 2007 with the district regarding the Master Plan Line F Channel through the previous iterations of this Project. Further, the applicant has maintained the Conservation Easement south of the Line F Channel for a decade, and as of March 27, 2024, the applicant has transferred management responsibilities of the Conservation Easement to San Jacinto Basin Resource Conservation District. If minor improvements are required of Line F Channel in the future, the applicant will continue to coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District as needed. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

A5-4 The comment includes general information regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplains, CEQA, and permits. As described in Draft SEIR Section 3.4.2 (p. 3-28), the Project would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and a Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit. As described in Draft SEIR Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (specifically within Section 4.10.1, pp. 4.10-1 through 4.10-5), the southern portion of the Project site was previously located within Federal Emergency Management Agency Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, which is defined as having a 1% annual chance of flooding (also known as the 100-year flood zone) with no defined base flood elevation. However, as a result of prior flood control improvements, the southern portion of the site is no longer located within the 100-year flood zone, and Zone A is almost entirely contained within the Line F Channel. Regarding CEQA compliance, the Project applicant will comply with all mitigation measures in the Final SEIR. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-68
A5-5 The comment includes a previous comment made by the District Similar to Comment A5-2. Please refer to Response to Comment A5-2.

A5-6 The comment includes a previous comment made by the District similar to Comment A5-3. Please refer to Response to Comment A5-3.

A5-7 The comment includes a previous comment made by the District similar to Comment A5-4. Please refer to Response to Comment A5-4.

A5-8 The comment includes a copy of the Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR on the Project. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

A5-9 The comment includes a copy of the Notice of Preparation for the Project. The comment does not identify any specific issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-69
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-70
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-71
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-72
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-73
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-74
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-75
Response to Comment Letter A6
Agency
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD)
July 24, 2024
A6-1 This comment acknowledges EMWD’s receipt of the Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR for the Project and provides a summary of the Project. The comment restates information contained in the Draft SEIR and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

A6-2 The comment references Section I.3 and I.4 of the Water Supply Assessment Letter dated October 18, 2023, prepared by EMWD for the Project (included in the Draft SEIR as Appendix L). The referenced sections indicate that specific facilities needed to serve the Project’s water demand would be defined during the design condition phase of the EMWD’s New Development Process, and the applicant would meet with EMWD to establish development design conditions at this time.

This information has been addressed in Draft SEIR Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems. The comment does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA; therefore, no further response is required or necessary. The City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision.

A6-3 This comment states that to define the impact on existing EMWD facilities, the SEIR should analyze water and wastewater demands to determine if the remaining capacity of EMWD facilities can adequately serve the Project. The comment also states that EMWD can assist with developing Design Conditions pertinent to required facilities and identifying requirements pertaining to proposed abandonment of existing pipelines and sizing of proposed pipelines.

As part of the Water Supply Assessment prepared by EMWD for the Project, EMWD calculated demand projections for the Project and compared them to EMWD’s projected water supply and demand, as described in the Draft SEIR Section 4.19.4.2 (pp. 4.19-14 through 4.19-23) and Appendix L. As discussed in Draft SEIR Section 4.19.4.2 (pp. 4.19-14 through 4.19-23), the EMWD Water Supply Assessment also assessed wastewater demand of the Project and determined that no new facilities would be needed as a result of the Project. The results of the Water Supply Assessment show that EMWD would be able to meet the Project’s demand for water with existing water supplies and supply facilities in conjunction with other demands. During the design condition phase of the EMWD’s New Development Process, the applicant would coordinate with EMWD regarding specific water and sewer facilities. The comment does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA; therefore, no further response is required or necessary. The City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision.

A6-4 This comment provides contact information for the development services coordinator and the commenter. The comment does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA; therefore, no further response is required or necessary. The City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-76
A6-5 This comment includes a copy of the Notice of Availability and an email referencing the comments made by EMWD in response to the Notice of Preparation dated November 20, 2023. The comments in response to the Notice of Preparation were received by the City on November 20, 2023, and have been considered as part of the SEIR. No further response is required. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-77
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-78
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-79
Response to Comment Letter O1
Organization
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo – Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy June 21, 2024
O1-1 The comment requests access to all documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in the Draft SEIR, excluding the Draft SEIR, appendices, and other Project documents available on the City’s website.

The comment is a request for documents, which does not address the adequacy of any section of the Draft SEIR. All documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon are listed in Chapter 8, SEIR References, Consultation, and Preparation, of the Draft SEIR, with links to respective documents, where available. The commentor can view most references in the Draft SEIR by using the website links provided. In addition, the City responded to the commentor’s request on June 27, July 1, and July 16, 2024, providing the documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in the Draft SEIR.

As set forth in Section 15148 of the CEQA Guidelines, documents referenced in the EIR should not be included in the EIR: “Preparation of EIRs is dependent upon information from many sources, including engineering project reports and many scientific documents relating to environmental features. These documents should be cited but not included in the EIR.” (See also Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma [2022] 86 Cal.App.5th 207, 225-226.) The City appropriately referenced documents in the manner intended by CEQA; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Project.

O1-2 The comment provides a summary of Project description and location. The comment restates information contained in the Draft SEIR and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA; therefore, no further response is required or necessary. The City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Project.

O1-3 The comment states the request for documents is made pursuant to CEQA. The comment asserts CEQA requires referenced documents be made available to the public for the entire comment period. The letter cites CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and some CEQA case law in footnote 2. None of the legal citations state that referenced documents must be made publicly available “for the entire comment period,” as stated in the comment. In any event, the City has responded to the commenter’s request for referenced documents. Refer to Response to Comment O1-1, above.

O1-4 The comment provides contact information for correspondence and concluding remarks. The commentor’s contact information is appreciated. The comment includes a conclusion to the previous comments and does not identify specific issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-80

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-81
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-82
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-83
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-84
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-85
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-86
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-87
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-88
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-89
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-90
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-91
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-92
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-93
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-94
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-95
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-96
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-97
Response to Comment Letter O2
Organization
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo – Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy July 11, 2024
O2-1 The comment introduces the commenter, the Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo law firm, writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA). CARE CA requests a 30-day extension of the Draft SEIR public comment period “due to the City’s failure to provide timely access to documents referenced and relied upon in the DSEIR and public records in the City’s possession related to the Project.” The balance of the comment consists of an introduction to comments that follow. The commenter will be referred to as the “commenter” or CARE CA, below.

After careful consideration, the City did not extend the Draft SEIR public comment period for several reasons. First, pursuant to CEQA, a draft EIR must be released for public comment for at least 30 days— 45 days if circulated to the State Clearinghouse—but not more than 60 days, except in unusual circumstances (14 CCR 15105[a]). The Aquabella Draft SEIR was circulated for a 45-day public comment period, from May 31, 2024, through July 15, 2024, in compliance with CEQA; no other agency, organization, individual, or interested person requested additional time based on the need to review documents used or referenced in the Draft SEIR.

Second, citation to reference materials in the Aquabella Draft SEIR is not an “unusual circumstance” that supports extending the Draft SEIR public comment period. To the contrary, as set forth in Section 15148 of the CEQA Guidelines, source documents referenced in the EIR should generally not be included in the EIR. “Preparation of EIRs is dependent upon information from many sources, including engineering project reports and many scientific documents relating to environmental features. These documents should be cited but not included in the EIR.” (See also Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma [2022] 86 Cal.App.5th 207, 225-226; Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection [2008] 43 Cal.4th 936, 958 [nothing in CEQA requires that source materials be physically incorporated into EIR].)
Third, the Draft SEIR and its supporting appendices were made available at https://www.morenovalley.ca.us/cdd/documents/about-projects.html and through the State Clearinghouse website at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023100145/5. All documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon are listed in Chapter 8, SEIR References, Consultation, and Preparation, of the Draft SEIR, with links to respective documents, where available. The commentor was able to view most references in the Draft SEIR by using the website links provided. This method of making documents available is specifically authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15201 as a means of assuring public participation. Further, a document on the Internet cited by a specific URL that allows an interested party to go directly to the document in question makes the document “available for review.” (Consolidated Irrigation District v. Superior Court [2012] 205 Cal.App.4th 697, 725 [a comment that provides the URL of a document in a comment on a draft EIR is “submitted” to the lead agency and must be included in the record]).

In addition, the City responded to the commenter’s requests for documents on June 27, July 1, and July 16, 2024, providing the remaining documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in the Draft SEIR. Thus, the City has complied with CEQA. The City also promptly responded to 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-98
CARE CA’s public records request. Accordingly, no “unusual circumstances” support extending the public comment period.

Fourth, Aquabella is a residential/mixed-use housing development project within an urban, infill area of the City; as such it is important not to delay processing in light of the statewide and local housing crisis (see the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 [Senate Bill 330], which is among the legislative enactments adopted to address the statewide housing shortage, and see legislative findings in the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5[a][1]).

Fifth, the close of the CEQA comment period does not foreclose an agency, organization, individual, or any other interested person from submitting additional comments raising significant environmental issues on a draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) states that the lead agency “shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR” and the lead agency “may respond to late comments.” Here, the City reserves the right under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) to respond to additional comments received from CARE CA based on its review of the documents used or referenced in the Draft SEIR.

Additionally, under CEQA, CARE CA may submit additional comments “before the close of the public hearing on the [Aquabella] project before issuance of the notice of determination” (California Public Resources Code, Section 21177[a]). While the City and case law encourage the timely submittal of comments to facilitate thorough evaluation and response, CEQA grants CARE CA ample additional time to review the documents used or referenced in the Draft SEIR, including those the City provided to CARE CA in late June and early July 2024. The Project will be subject to public hearings by decision-makers prior to a final decision.

The City will include all CARE CA comment letters in either the Final SEIR or record of proceedings, and such comments will be made available to decision-makers for consideration prior to taking any final action on the SEIR and Project. Therefore, the City’s decision not to extend the comment period for the Aquabella Draft SEIR does not prejudice CARE CA.

O2-2 The comment asks that the City comply with the commenter’s June 21, 2024, request for all documents referenced in the Draft SEIR. The comment states that seven documents referenced in the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) (Draft SEIR Appendix G) are “outstanding,” as is the draft Development Agreement. Draft SEIR reference documents that were not yet provided at the time of the commenter’s July 11, 2024, letter were sent.

Please refer to Response to Comment O2-1 above. Further, the June 21, 2024, letter requested “all documents referenced in the DSEIR.” The City responded to the commenter’s initial records requests by providing the documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in the Draft SEIR.

The commenter subsequently expanded its initial records request to seek the seven documents referenced in Appendix G, the Phase I and II ESAs, which consisted of dated maps, title reports, and test methodologies. Upon receiving this expanded request, on July 16, 2024, the City provided the commenter with the seven listed reference documents related to the Phase I and II ESAs. Please refer to the City’s record of proceedings.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-99
Additionally, the commenter’s June 21 letter request did not ask for the draft Development Agreement.

The City acknowledges that this comment expands upon the prior June 21 letter and requests a copy of the draft Development Agreement. However, the Development Agreement is a both a draft document and a Project approval/entitlement request and not a document used or referenced in the Draft SEIR (see Draft SEIR Section 1.2, pp. 1-3 through 1-4; see also Government Code, Section 65864 et seq.).

The draft Development Agreement is subject to both deliberation by the City and negotiation between the Project applicant and City, and the City generally asserts a strong interest in the confidentiality of preliminary stages of negotiating a draft Development Agreement (California Government Code, Sections 7922.000, 7927.500; Times Mirror Company v. Superior Court [1991] 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1338 [discussing deliberative process privilege]; Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court [2006] 38 Cal.4th 1065, 1076-1077 [privilege for contract negotiations]; California Public Resources Code, Section 21167.6[e][10] [CEQA record excludes information subject to an Evidence Code privilege or California Public Records Act exemption]).

While the draft Development Agreement is correctly covered in the Draft SEIR’s project description section as one of the Project applicant’s requested Project approvals, nothing in CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, or CEQA case law requires the draft Development Agreement to be analyzed further in the SEIR since “CEQA does not require that an analysis be made of each and every activity carried out in conjunction with a project” (Native Sun/Lyon Communities v. City of Escondido [1993] 15 Cal.App.4th 892, 909-910). Here, the “activity” is the draft Development Agreement listed as a discretionary Project approval in Section 1.2 (pp. 1-3 through 1-4).

The draft Development Agreement was accurately described as a Project approval/entitlement, and if approved, “would be a written agreement between the Project applicant and the City in order to specify the respective obligations of the parties.” The draft Development Agreement was also identified as part of the “other” discretionary actions requested for approval (see Draft SEIR Chapter 1A, Executive Summary, pp. 1A-1 and 1A-7). Further, the draft Development Agreement was identified as one “mechanism” to ensure that infrastructure and facility needs are tied to implementation of each phase of the Project, including “Project conditions” and “other mechanisms,” such as the Draft SEIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (see Draft SEIR Section 3.3.3, p. 3-14). As such, the draft Development Agreement was identified as a mechanism that is simply one tool for enforcement, with others in place (e.g., the SEIR itself, Project conditions of approval, Specific Plan conditions of approval, and the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan) (see Draft SEIR Chapter 3).

Accordingly, the draft Development Agreement was not used to prepare the Draft SEIR, nor was it used as a reference document to support the text of the Draft SEIR. Instead, it constitutes a proposed legislative approval or entitlement action of a public agency authorized by Article 2.5 of the Government Code, Sections 65864–65869.5. This law authorizes cities and counties to enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property (Government Code, Section 65865[a]).

The draft Development Agreement continues to be subject to internal negotiations between the Project applicant and the City. It will be provided for public review consistent with state public hearing notice requirements prior to City decisionmaker consideration of the Project.

The balance of the comments do not identify specific issues raising significant environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-100
O2-3 The comment states the request for documents on June 21, 2024, was made pursuant to CEQA. The comment asserts CEQA requires that referenced documents be made available to the public “during the entire comment period.” The letter cites CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and CEQA case law in footnote

5. Please refer to responses to comments O2-1 and O2-2, above. Contrary to the comment, none of the commenter’s referenced legal citations state that EIR referenced documents must be made publicly available “during the entire comment period.” Additionally, as stated above, the City provided the documents used or referenced in the Draft SEIR, and the City is willing to consider late comments from CARE CA with respect to any other issue raising significant environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR (14 CCR 15088[a]). Lastly, no further response is required because the balance of the comments do not raise an environmental issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR.

O2-4 The comment states that CARE CA submitted a separate Public Records Act request on the same day (June 21, 2024) seeking all public records referring to or related to the Project.

The City acknowledges the comment, which does not raise any environmental issue or concern the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. The City will include the comment as part of the Final EIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required because the comment does not raise an environmental issue.

O2-5 The comment states the City provided access to some documents referenced in the Draft SEIR on June 27 and July 1, 2024, but omitted key reference documents, including the draft Development Agreement and documents referenced in the ESAs. Please refer to Responses to Comments O2-1 and O2-2, above.

O2-6 The comment states the commenter emailed on July 10, 2024, requesting the draft Development Agreement and had not yet received a response when this letter was sent on July 11, 2024.

Please see Responses to Comments O2-1 and O2-2, above. The City acknowledges the comment and notes it does not raise any environmental issue or concern the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

O2-7 The comment states “failure to provide even a few pages of a CEQA document for a portion of the public review period invalidates the entire CEQA process.” The letter also asserts that the City is violating CEQA by failing to make publicly available all documents used or referenced in the Draft SEIR throughout the public comment period. The letter cites CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and CEQA case law in footnotes 8 through 10.

Please refer to Responses to Comments O2-1 through O2-3, above.

Additionally, none of the documents are “pages of” the Draft SEIR or documents used or referenced in Draft SEIR itself. The seven documents are references and sources of data in a technical appendix, Phase I and Phase II ESAs (Draft SEIR Appendix G), and a Project approval/entitlement, the draft Development Agreement.

Further, contrary to the comment, none of the legal citations provided state that referenced documents must be made publicly available “during the entire comment period.” Under CEQA, only documents “incorporated by reference” are to be made available in a public place in the county where the project 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-101
is located. Documents merely cited in an EIR or referenced in a technical report are not required to be made available for public inspection (14 CCR 15150[b], 15148). As set forth in Section 15148 of the CEQA Guidelines, documents referenced in the EIR should generally not be included in the EIR. “Preparation of EIRs is dependent upon information from many sources, including engineering project reports and many scientific documents relating to environmental features. These documents should be cited but not included in the EIR.” (See also Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma [2022] 86 Cal.App.5th 207, 225–226; Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection [2008] 43 Cal.4th 936, 958 [nothing in CEQA requires that source materials be physically incorporated into EIR].)
As CEQA directs, the City appended technical reports to the Draft SEIR and cited references and source information. To the extent the commenter has requested such references, the City has provided the commenter with all requested references from the ESAs within a reasonable time. The City has thus complied with CEQA by citing background information rather than including it in the Draft SEIR or an appendix (El Morro Community Assn. v. California Dept. of Parks & Recreation [2004] 122 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1351–1354 [DEIR was sufficient where technical information was generally cited in the EIR]; Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma [2022] 86 Cal.App.5th 207, 225–226).

Additionally, the commenter has not provided any explanation of why such background documents were requested (and provided) and how the commenter was/is prejudiced, particularly when, as here, the City promptly provided the commenter with all the documents used or referenced in the Draft SEIR.

Concerning the draft Development Agreement, please see Response to Comment O2-2.

The commenter asserts that members of the public have been deprived of the opportunity to meaningfully comment on the Project because this technical background data (old maps, title reports, methodologies, etc.) and draft Development Agreement were not included in the Draft SEIR. However, the commenter provides no specific explanation of how they were hindered or deprived from commenting; all relevant information is summarized in the Draft SEIR and Appendix G. See Response to Comment O2-2 concerning the draft Development Agreement.

The City has responded to the commenter’s request for the referenced documents. Please refer to Response to Comment O2-1, above.

O2-8 The comment provides concluding remarks that summarize the prior comments and requests that the Draft SEIR comment period be extended and the requested reference documents and draft Development Agreement be provided.

Please refer to Responses to Comments O2-1 through O2-7, above, for specific responses to those comments. The comment does not identify any additional issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary.

O2-9 The comment letter attaches the prior correspondence with the City referenced in this comment letter.

Please refer to Responses to Comments O1-1 through O1-4 and Responses to Comments O2-1 through O2-7 for specific responses. The comment does not identify any additional issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-102
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-103
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-104
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-105
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-106
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-107
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-108
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-109
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-110
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-111
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-112
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-113
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-114
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-115
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-116
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-117
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-118
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-119
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-120
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-121
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-122
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-123
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-124
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-125
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-126
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-127
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-128
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-129
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-130
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-131
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-132
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-133
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-134
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-135
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-136
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-137
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-138
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-139
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-140
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-141
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-142
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-143
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-144
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-145
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-146
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-147
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-148
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-149
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-150
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-151
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-152
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-153
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-154
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-155
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-156
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-157
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-158
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-159
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-160
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-161
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-162
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-163
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-164
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-165
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-166
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-167
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-168
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-169
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-170
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-171
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-172
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-173
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-174
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-175
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-176
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-177
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-178
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-179
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-180
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-181
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-182
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-183
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-184
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-185
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-186
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-187
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-188
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-189
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-190
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-191
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-192
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-193
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-194
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-195
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-196
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-197
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-198
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-199
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-200
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-201
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-202
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-203
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-204
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-205
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-206
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-207
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-208
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-209
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-210
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-211
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-212
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-213
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-214
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-215
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-216
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-217
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-218
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-219
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-220
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-221
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-222
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-223
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-224
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-225
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-226
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-227
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-228
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-229
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-230
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-231
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-232
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-233
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-234
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-235
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-236
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-237
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-238
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-239
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-240
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-241
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-242

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-243
Response to Comment Letter O3
Organization
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo – Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy July 15, 2024
O3-1 The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. The Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardoza law firm submits the letter on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA).

The comment does not address the adequacy of any section of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. 03-2 The comment states that the Aquabella Draft SEIR was reviewed with the assistance of two technical consultants: James J. Clark, PhD, on the subjects of air quality and hazardous resources, and Jack Meighan, MS, on the subject of acoustics. The comment also attaches the consultants’ comments and resumes as exhibits (A and B).

These responses address all comments in the letter and attachments consistent with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.

In reviewing the comments and attachments from Dr. Clark and Mr. Meighan, the City also conferred with the Dudek expert consultants in the areas of air quality, health risk, hazardous resources, and noise/acoustics. Attachment C to this document includes professional resumes of Dudek preparers, including Jonathan Leech, AICP, INCE, noise specialist; Eric Schniewind, senior geologist, hydrologist, and hazardous materials specialist; Audrey Herschberger, PE, environmental engineer; Jennifer Reed, air resources specialist, air quality services manager; Matthew Morales, air resources specialist; and Ames Noll, air resources specialist.

The comment summarizes CARE CA’s comments that follow, including comments claiming that the Draft SEIR “fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA”—specifically that the Draft SEIR’s project description section (Chapter 3, Project Description) does not provide an accurate project description, nor “disclose, analyze, or mitigate the Project’s potentially significant air quality, health risk, soil contamination, noise, transportation, energy, water supply, and land use impacts.” This summary does not explain the alleged failings of the project description, nor detail any specific “deficiency” with respect to the Draft SEIR’s air quality, health risk, soils/hazards, noise, transportation, energy, water supply, or land use impacts, except to conclude that the Draft SEIR “lacks” substantial evidence to support its findings.

The focus of the City’s responses to comments is the “disposition of significant environmental issues raised” in the comments (14 CCR 15088[c]). Detailed responses are not provided for comments that either do not relate to significant environmental issues or provide an unsupported opinion regarding the Draft SEIR or the Draft SEIR’s significance findings. The analysis in the Draft SEIR is based on scientific and factual data and has been reviewed by the City and reflects its independent judgement.

CEQA permits disagreements among experts with respect to environmental issues addressed in an EIR; such disagreement does not make an EIR inadequate (14 CCR 15151). Further, courts do not require 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-244
perfection, but instead look for adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full disclosure (14 CCR 15151).

The comments do not address any specific inadequacy in any section of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required or necessary. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision.

O3-3 The comment claims that the City cannot approve the Project until the “errors and omissions” in the Draft SEIR are “remedied, and a revised draft SEIR is recirculated.” The comment also contains a footnote that reserves the right to “supplement” the comments during later hearings and proceedings.

The City has considered the recirculation request, and finds that recirculation is not required by CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines for the reasons that follow.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 provides the legal criteria that a lead agency is to consider when deciding whether it is required to recirculate an EIR. Recirculation is required when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after public notice of the availability of the draft EIR is given, but before certification (14 CCR 15088.5[a]). “Significant new information,” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), means information added to an EIR that changes the EIR so as to deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a “substantial adverse environmental effect” or a “feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.”
An example of significant new information provided by the CEQA Guidelines is the disclosure showing that a “new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented” (14 CCR 15088.5[a][1]). Other examples involve situations where a “substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance” (14 CCR 15088.5[a][2]).

Further examples involve a setting where a “feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it” (14 CCR 15088.5[a][3]).

Recirculation is not required where “the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR” (14 CCR 15088.5[b]). Recirculation also is not required simply because new information is added to the EIR—indeed, new information is regularly added given CEQA’s public/agency comment and response process and CEQA’s requirement to circulate proposed responses to comments submitted by public agencies to those agencies before certifying the final EIR. In short, recirculation is “intended to be an exception rather than the general rule” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California [1993] 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1132, emphasis added).

Here, the comment does not identify any specific significant environmental issue or topic that would trigger SEIR recirculation, particularly when, as here, the Project site has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and analysis (see Draft SEIR Section 2.1, pp. 2-1 through 2-3, and Section

3.3.1, pp. 3-4 through 3-6).
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-245
O3-4 The comment provides general “project background” of the Project and its description, though the description is incomplete in some respects. For that reason, this response refers to Draft SEIR Section 1A.2, pp. 1A-1 through 1A-7, for a more complete description of the Project overview, objectives, location, and summary. Additionally, the comment incorrectly refers to the Project site as comprising 770.5 acres. The previously approved Specific Plan area encompassed 770.2 acres. Since that time, portions of the previously approved Specific Plan have been developed (e.g., Nason Street, Vista del Lago High School, apartment units). As such, this Project updates the vision for the development of the remaining 658.6-acre site, plus an additional 10-acre parcel that would be added to the Specific Plan, for a total Project area of approximately 668.6 acres (see Draft SEIR Section 1A.2, p. 1A-1). The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is necessary or required.

O3-5 The comment summarizes the Project’s prior history, approvals, and environmental review and analysis, which are covered in the Draft SEIR (see Draft SEIR Section 1A.2, pp. 1A-1 through 1A-7, for a more complete description of the Project overview, objectives, location, and history). Because the comment only generally summarizes the Project background and raises no significant environmental issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR, no further response is needed or required. However, the City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decisionmakers prior to a final decision.

O3-6 The comment introduces CARE CA. The comment and those that immediately follow under the heading “Statement of Interest” state that individual members of the labor union live, work, and recreate in the City and in Riverside County and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts. No facts or data are provided to support these comments. The City acknowledges the comment as a further introduction to comments that follow. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Project. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-7 The comment expands on CARE CA’s interests and suggests that its union members may work on the Project site and be exposed to health and safety hazards on site. No facts or data are provided to support the comments. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-8 The comment further expands on CARE CA’s interests. No facts or data are provided to support the comment, nor does it raise any significant environmental issue or topic with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Project. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-9 The comment cites CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and CEQA cases as background information to support the comments that follow. As stated, the focus of the City’s responses to comments is the “disposition of significant environmental issues raised” in the comments (14 CCR 15088[c]). Detailed responses are not provided for comments that do not relate either to significant environmental issues or provide an unsupported opinion regarding the Draft SEIR or the Draft SEIR’s significance findings. Contrary to the comment’s statements and as substantiated in responses below, the analysis in the Draft SEIR is based on scientific and factual data and has been reviewed by the City and reflects its independent judgement. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decisionmakers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-246
O3-10 Please refer to Response to Comment O3-9, above.

O3-11 Please refer to Response to Comment O3-9, above.

O3-12 The comment states that the “2040 General Plan Update was adopted June 2021 and is presently in effect.” The comment then refers to the City’s 2040 General Plan Update litigation and notes that prior to the litigation set-aside of the 2040 General Plan Update, the Project applicant submitted a Senate Bill (SB) 330 preliminary application and paid the requisite fee on September 6, 2023, which “effectively ‘locks’ in the development requirements and standards upon the date of submittal.” The comment represents background information and not any significant environmental issue concerning the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. Please also refer to Response to Comment O3-9, above.

This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-13 The comment generally refers to the Draft SEIR’s evaluation of the Project’s consistency with the 2040 General Plan. In response, the City notes that the Draft SEIR evaluated the Project’s consistency with both the 2040 General Plan (which was in litigation during the processing of the Draft SEIR) and the 2006 General Plan. For additional information, please refer to footnote 1 in Draft SEIR Section 3.2, Statement of Project Objectives, p. 3-2; Draft SEIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, pp. 4.11-1 and 4.11-11 through 4.11-12, including Table 4.11-1, 2040 General Plan Land Use Consistency; and Draft SEIR Appendix A, Specific Plan Amendment, Appendix 8.1, Aquabella Consistency with 2040 General Plan, and Appendix 8.2, Aquabella Consistency with 2006 General Plan.

The comment also acknowledges that the Draft SEIR is “a stand-alone Project analysis, which does not tier from the 2040 General Plan EIR or any other EIR document,” and that the Draft SEIR “contains its own separate analysis of the environmental implications of the Project and its alternatives.” The comment further acknowledges the Draft SEIR’s statement that, if the prior 2006 General Plan “is the effective General Plan when the Project goes before the City Council,” the “SEIR and Specific Plan Amendment (SEIR, Appendix A) also includes analysis of Project consistency with that prior Plan.” Again, the City concurs with these comments.

This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-14 This comment, and the comment that immediately follows, claim that the City was required to set aside its Climate Action Plan (CAP) following the trial court’s decision in the General Plan Update litigation (Sierra Club v. City, No. CVR 12103300). The comment states that the Project cannot base its consistency analysis on the “invalidated” CAP and 2040 General Plan. This response addresses both the CAP and the 2040 General Plan “consistency” comments.

Climate Action Plan
Draft SEIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, explicitly provides that the Aquabella Project “is not using the CAP’s streamlined environmental review process; instead, the Project has committed to the preparation of this SEIR. This SEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-247
effective CAP as it existed at the time the Project applicant filed a [SB 330] preliminary application with the City (in September 2023), while also undertaking a separate, stand-alone analyses of Projectgenerated construction and operational GHG emissions against other significance thresholds/criteria.

Note the Specific Plan Amendment (SEIR, Appendix A) also includes analysis of Project consistency with the 2006 General Plan, including policies related to GHG emissions” (see footnote 7 in Draft SEIR Section 4.8, p. 4.8-27).
2040 General Plan
Please refer to Topical Response 1, SB 330 and General Plan Consistency Analysis. This response explains why the Project can validly evaluate the Project’s consistency against the 2040 General Plan Update, though it was set-aside in the General Plan litigation (Sierra Club v. City, No. CVR 12103300) subject to corrective action and the City reconsideration and readoption of the 2040 General Plan. See Topical Response 1 for further explanation.

O3-15 Please refer to Response to Comment O3-14, above. As demonstrated therein, the Draft SEIR— consistent with CEQA’s informational disclosure objectives—appropriately considered the consistency of the Project with both the City’s CAP and 2040 General Plan, while planning ahead and accounting for potential contingencies that might flow from the General Plan Update litigation. The inclusion of such information and analysis does not violate the tenets of CEQA, but rather furthers CEQA’s purpose to provide disclosure of the planning process in place at the time of the Draft SEIR’s preparation.

O3-16 The comment and the comment immediately below provide citations to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and CEQA cases regarding the legal standards governing an “adequate” project description. The comments do not raise any specific issue regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. As previously stated, the focus of the City’s responses to comments is the “disposition of significant environmental issues raised” in the comments (14 CCR 15088[c]). Detailed responses are not provided for comments that do not relate either to significant environmental issues or provide an unsupported opinion regarding the Draft SEIR.

Further, Draft SEIR Chapter 3 contains a lengthy description of the Project, consisting of 38 pages, including tables and figures, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. The analysis in Draft SEIR Chapter 3 is based on facts and data that have been reviewed by the City and reflect its independent judgement. This comment and the one that follows do not question the adequacy of this analysis.

The Final SEIR includes the comments for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-17 Please refer to Response to Comment O3-16, above.

O3-18 The comment addresses the Project applicant’s application for a development agreement and related topics. Refer to Response to Comment O2-2.

O3-19 Please see Response to Comment O3-18, above.

O3-20 Please see Response to Comment O3-18, above.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-248
O3-21 The comment states that the Draft SEIR must be revised and recirculated because the Project’s Development Agreement was not made available for public review or expressly included in the Draft SEIR’s analysis. Refer to Response to Comment O2-2 concerning the Draft SEIR’s consideration of the Development Agreement.

For a response regarding CEQA’s recirculation standards, please see Response to Comment O3-3 above. No requirement exists in CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, or the CEQA case law for a public agency to attach a draft development agreement, still subject to negotiation, to an SEIR.

O3-22 The comment is a summary of prior comments related to the Project’s Development Agreement. Please refer to Responses to Comments O2-2, O3-18, and O3-21, above.

O3-23 The comment provides general background information regarding the requirements of CEQA, including with respect to the content of EIRs, the inclusion of all feasible mitigation where needed to address potentially significant impacts, and the necessity of substantial evidence to support CEQA determinations. The City notes the comment, which is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-24 The comment provides general background information regarding the judicial standard of review applicable in legal proceedings challenging a lead agency’s CEQA determination. The City notes the comment, which is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-25 The comment provides additional information regarding the judicial standard of review applicable in legal proceedings challenging a lead agency’s CEQA determination. The City notes the comment, which is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-26 The comment is a subheading that introduces the commenter’s specific concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR’s consideration of valley fever exposure. The comment states that the Draft SEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate Project-related impacts associated with valley fever exposure.

The Draft SEIR considered whether the Project would result in a significant impact attributable to valley fever (also known by the scientific name “coccidioidomycosis”). This topic is neither new to California nor new to CEQA, as valley fever is a recognized fungal infection that occurs via the inhalation of spores that reside in soil.11 The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has a surveillance system to track valley fever cases and has been collecting case data since 1995 (OEHHA 2022, p. VI-20). This topic is discussed in further detail in the responses to more specific comments that follow.

Valley fever is first introduced on page 4.3-8 of the Draft SEIR, in Section 4.3, Air Quality. The Draft SEIR discloses that valley fever is a fungal infection caused by the inhalation of Coccidioides immitis spores, which grow in the soils of the southwestern United States under certain climatic conditions (Draft SEIR Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-8, 4.3-57). The Draft SEIR reports that Riverside County—where the Project site is 11 For information on the symptoms of Valley Fever, as well as the rates of infection for individuals presenting with mild, moderate and severe symptoms, please see CDPH’s Preventing Work-Related Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever) (CDPH 2013, p. 3). 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-249
located—is not considered by the scientific and regulatory communities to be a highly endemic county for valley fever, based on the reporting data collected by the CDPH (Draft SEIR Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-8,

4.3-56 through 4.3-57). In concluding that the Project would not result in a significant human health impact attributable to valley fever exposure, the Draft SEIR underscored the relevance of the Project location being in a non-highly endemic county and the Project’s required compliance with applicable regulatory standards for dust control measures, which would minimize the potential release and inhalation of fungal spores (Draft SEIR Section 4.3, p. 4.3-57; see also Draft SEIR Appendix D, pp. xxvii, 38, 123).

The Draft SEIR’s primarily qualitative approach to assessing the Project’s valley fever impact is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15064.7 and 15142. It also was informed by the fact that neither the California Air Resources Board nor the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) provide qualitative or quantitative thresholds of significance for addressing valley fever in the CEQA context. As discussed in greater detail in the responses that follow, the less-than-significant impact conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the form of the most recently updated reporting data and recommended standards of practice from multiple public agencies with expertise.

For background information regarding the totality of the Draft SEIR’s air quality analysis, please refer to Topical Response 2, Air Quality. As illustrated therein, the Draft SEIR’s consideration of the Project’s valley fever impacts is just one component of a multifaceted assessment that surveys and evaluates Project impacts attributable to criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and other issues of concern in the air quality context. The technical analysis supporting the Draft SEIR’s assessment was prepared by three air resources specialists at Dudek: Jennifer Reed, Matthew Morales, and Ames Noll.

The qualifications for each air resources specialist are included as Attachment C to the Final SEIR.

O3-27 The comment states that the Project “may result in potentially significant impacts” from valley fever, questioning the Draft SEIR’s conclusion that construction activities would not necessarily increase the valley fever incidence rate. The comment relatedly states that the City “must identify” whether the fungal spores are present on the Project site. The comment opines that if the spores are present, then any soil disturbance “will necessarily increase the risk” of infection.

In response, based on information provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “testing soil for Coccidioides is currently done only for scientific research. It is not typically used to predict disease spread” (CDC 2024a). Similarly, CDPH, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment all have reported that there are no commercially available tests to detect fungal spores in dirt or dust (CDPH 2024a).

Further, assuming that some testing method was to become available in the future, conducting testing on this 668.6-acre Project site over the anticipated 12-year construction period would not be necessary.

This is because the Draft SEIR assumed the potential presence of the fungal spores in the soil located on the Project site. In order to ensure that the risk of exposure to the fungal spores—if released during the course of the construction period—would not be significant, the Draft SEIR cites the rigorous regulatory standards set forth in SCAQMD Rules 401 and 403 that are applicable to the Project, as well as the regulatory rubric applicable to employers under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (Draft SEIR Appendix D, p. 123). These are briefly summarized below:
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-250
▪ SCAQMD Rule 401, Visible Emissions: A rule designed to regulate visible emissions from dust and other particulate matter based on the relative opacity of airborne matter. The rule prohibits unacceptable opacity levels that occur for more than 3 minutes in any 1 hour. ▪ SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust: A rule designed to reduce the amount of fugitive dust emissions that become airborne. The rule sets forth specific best available control measures and standard procedures that must be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions, such as stabilizing soil via water or other chemical suppressants (see Rule 403, Table 1). Additionally, the rule includes elevated standards that apply to “large operations,” such as the construction activity that would be undertaken by the Project (see Rule 403, Table 2).12
▪ CCR, Title 8, Sections 342, 3203, 5141, 5144, and 14300: As recognized by the California Department of Industrial Relations (CDIR), employers have legal responsibilities to control their workers’ exposure to hazardous materials (CDIR 2024). These regulations require employers, among other responsibilities, to prepare and implement injury and illness prevention programs, provide respiratory protective equipment to prevent atmospheric contamination and control occupational diseases caused by breathing contaminated air, and undertake other actions for the protection of employees.

In sum, numerous worker safety protections already are required by law independent of this CEQA analysis.

The joint and complementary implementation of SCAQMD’s dust control regulatory rules and applicable labor standards support the Draft SEIR’s conclusion that that the potential health effects attributable to the Project’s disturbance of on-site soils that may contain valley fever fungal spores (depending on the climatic conditions that lead to their formation and dispersion)13 would not be significant.

This approach has been affirmed by CDPH and CDIR, which recommend that employers consult with the local air pollution control district regarding effective dust control measures for construction activities, specifically citing concepts like wetting soils, using soil binders/stabilizers, and suspending activity during heavy winds (CDPH 2013). Similar recommendations are offered by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which recognizes the importance of using controls that reduce exposure to airborne dust (OSHA n.d.).

Additionally, the Project’s dust generation (as represented by the quantified coarse [PM10] and fine [PM2.5] particulate matter estimates) would be well below the applicable SCAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-39 through 4.3-42). While these particular thresholds were developed to assess the significance of the Project’s PM2.5 and PM10 emissions, the thresholds represent the overall amount of dust generation attributable to the Project.

As any valley fever fungal spores would be a component of the overall dust profile, these thresholds and corresponding less-than-significant impact determinations are a relevant proxy for the magnitude of dust generation.
12 For additional background information regarding Rule 403, please see SCAQMD’s Dust Control in the South Coast AQMD (SCAQMD n.d.).
13 Research indicates that spore formation increases in years when heavy winter rains are coupled with hot, dry summers. More specifically, wet winters encourage fungal growth and dry, hot summers desiccate the soil, stimulating dispersion of the spores when disturbed (see e.g., CDPH 2024a).
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-251
Further, the comment introduces a letter authored by Dr. James J. J. Clark, PhD, of Clark & Associates included as Exhibit A of the letter. The comment describes Dr. Clark’s letter, which is frequently cited and relied upon in the comments that follow, as providing “substantial evidence” that the release of valley fever fungal spores is a “reasonably foreseeable outcome” of the Project’s construction activities.

In response, the pertinent question is not whether substantial evidence supports Dr. Clark’s position, but whether substantial evidence supports the analysis presented in the Draft SEIR. The CEQA Guidelines expressly recognize that “disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate” (14 CCR 15151). In this instance, Dudek (the environmental consulting firm with air quality analysts responsible for the Draft SEIR’s valley fever analysis) has developed a record of substantial evidence on the topic of valley fever that reaches a different conclusion than the one reached by Dr. Clark. This is not an indicator of inadequacy. The disagreement is acknowledged and addressed throughout these responses, consistent with CEQA’s informational disclosure objectives.

O3-28 The comment references a 2015 summary report regarding valley fever spread prepared by the Riverside University Health System (RUHS 2015 Report) (RUHS 2015). The comment states that the RUHS 2015 Report found that 52.3% of reported valley fever cases in Riverside County were from Western Riverside County residents, and that 3.7% of reported cases occurred in the City of Moreno Valley. The comment then opines that the incidence of valley fever “in the area is significant” and correspondingly expresses disagreement with the Draft SEIR’s conclusion that the Project would not result in a significant impact attributable to valley fever.

To begin, the RUHS 2015 Report referenced by the commenter contains the following pertinent background information on valley fever and calendar year–specific reporting data:
▪ Valley fever is not contagious
▪ The fungal spores are “predominantly found in the soil of the San Joaquin Valley” ▪ Most people who breath in the fungal spores do not become symptomatic and ill ▪ For those who do become symptomatic and ill, most will recover on their own ▪ In calendar year 2015, there were a total of 56 valley fever cases in Western Riverside County, 4 of which were located in the City of Moreno Valley
(The Riverside University Health System has not published any more recent summary reports on the topic of valley fever [RUHS 2024].)
The data presented in the RUHS 2015 Report do not support the comment’s proposition that the incidence rate for valley fever “in the area is significant.” To the contrary, the RUHS 2015 Report documents a very low number of cases in the City of Moreno Valley.

Relatedly, California Labor Code Section 6709 defines “highly endemic” areas for valley fever as those areas where the annual incidence rate is greater than 20 cases per 100,000 persons per year. Section 6709(c) requires employers located within highly endemic areas to provide specialized awareness training regarding valley fever on an annual basis to their employees. Section 6709(b) also identifies specific counties by name as highly endemic; this list does not include Riverside County. Section 6709 further provides that if additional counties are determined to be highly endemic (based on their annual incidence rate exceeding 20 cases per 100,000 persons per year), such counties will need to comply 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-252
with the awareness training requirements in the calendar year subsequent to the publication of the exceedance in CDPH’s annual report (California Labor Code Section 6709[e]).

The annual valley fever incidence rates for Riverside County identified by CDPH for the five most recent reporting years are as follows (CDPH 2023, 2024b):
▪ 2022: 14.3 cases per 100,000 persons
▪ 2021: 18.7 cases per 100,000 persons
▪ 2020: 12.9 cases per 100,000 persons
▪ 2019: 12.1 cases per 100,000 persons
▪ 2018: 6.0 cases per 100,000 persons
As shown, while the annual rate fluctuates, Riverside County has not exceeded the benchmark for identification of “highly endemic” valley fever areas. For context, Kern and Kings Counties (located in the Central Valley/San Joaquin Valley) reported 264.9 and 111 cases per 100,000 persons, respectively, in calendar year 2022 (CDPH 2023, 2024b).

O3-29 The comment provides background information regarding the physical location of valley fever fungal spores in soil, the types of activities that can cause soil disturbance that releases fungal spores, the infectious dose rate, and the most common types of employees at risk for infection. The City acknowledges the comment, which is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Project. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-30 The comment addresses fungal spore exposure concerns for both on-site construction workers and offsite non-construction workers. As discussed in Response to Comment O3-27 above, a comprehensive suite of regional air quality rules and state regulations serve to minimize dust generation impacting onand off-site receptors and provide for the protection of workers. The regional air quality rules align with many of the CDIR, CDPH, OSHA, and CDC recommendations for reducing exposure to valley fever fungal spores during construction, such as using water and other soil stabilizers to reduce airborne dust, stabilizing stock piles, and suspending work during heavy winds (CDIR 2024; CDPH 2013; OSHA n.d.; CDC 2024b).

The comment also refers to the “non-selective raising of dust during Project construction.” While the intended meaning of “non-selective” is somewhat unclear, it is noted that the Project applicant has no environmental or economic incentive to conduct its construction activities in an inefficient manner. As illustrated in Draft SEIR Table 3-2, Anticipated Construction Phasing and Activity (p. 3-15), the Project would be built in six phases (see also Draft SEIR Section 4.13, p. 4.13-27). The Project does not require any on-site soils blasting activities to facilitate its build out and also proposes to balance grading material on site as much as possible (Draft SEIR Section 3.3.3, p. 3-15; Draft SEIR Section 4.13, p.

4.13-27). These design attributes would reduce the extent of dust generation and dirt transport to offsite locations.

Also, Draft SEIR Figure 3-4, Previously Disturbed Land (p. 3-35), illustrates that 65% (437 acres) of the approximate 669-acre Project site was subject to previous mass grading, thereby reducing the overall amount of mass grading activity that will occur on site, if the Project is approved. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-253
O3-31 The comment—citing data collected by CDPH—reports an increase in the number of valley fever cases in Riverside County between calendar years 2015 and 2019, and for the available case data (first 8 months) of calendar year 2023. The comment states that, because the prevalence of valley fever is “directly related” to soil disturbance, the City must analyze and mitigate the impacts of valley fever.

In response, as discussed in Response to Comment O3-28, the Draft SEIR did analyze Project-related impacts attributable to valley fever and found them to be less than significant. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment published a report, Indicators of Climate Change in California, that speaks to the rising trendline for valley fever prevalence statewide (OSHA 2022). As described in the report (OSHA 2022):

The incidence of Valley fever has increased over the past 20 years in California. Valley fever is caused by inhaling spores of the Coccidioides fungus that is endemic in the soil in the Central Valley and Central Coast regions of the state. Although the reasons for increased cases are likely multifactorial, drought, dry soil conditions, and other climate-related changes play a major role in fungal proliferation and spore dissemination, and eventual human and animal infection with Valley fever [p. i-15].

Population influx into endemic areas, increased construction and other soil-disturbing activities, and climatic changes that induce fungal proliferation and dissemination through air could be factors working in unison to increase Valley fever incidence in California [pp.

VI-21 through VI-22].

While the prevalence of valley fever is increasing statewide, as well as in Riverside County, likely for the reasons identified in Indicators of Climate Change in California, that background increase alone does not demand a significant impact determination. Instead, under CEQA, the analysis must look at the significance of the Project’s potential contribution to valley fever incidence. As discussed in prior responses, the Project would be required—as a matter of law—to implement extensive best available control measures identified by SCAQMD for the minimization of dust generation. According to City expert consultants in this field, compliance with these standards, coupled with employee protections provided elsewhere in the regulatory rubric applicable to employers, would ensure that the Project would not result in a significant impact to valley fever.

Further, the incidence rate of valley fever is closely monitored by CDPH. When appropriate, CDPH issues health advisories to the medical community to alert them to rising case levels (see e.g., CDPH 2024c).

These alerts help educate the medical community and ensure that its members promptly and correctly make diagnoses.

O3-32 The comment states that windblown dust presents a particular concern with respect to the spread of valley fever fungal spores and refers to the “desert winds” as presenting the potential of raising “significant amounts of dust, even when conventional dust controls are used.” This concern is addressed via SCAQMD Rule 403, which explicitly contemplates enhanced dust controls for “high wind conditions,” defined as wind speeds that exceed 25 miles per hour. Rule 403 similarly requires disturbed surface areas and piles to be stabilized in a manner that “is resistant to wind-driven fugitive dust.” Additionally, Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-5 in the Draft SEIR, which requires the preparation of a Dust Control Plan in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403, requires all soil disturbance and travel on 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-254
unpaved surfaces to be suspended whenever wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (Draft SEIR Section 4.3, p. 4.3-66).

O3-33 The comment states that many Project components are in the vicinity of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools), observes that the winds can carry fungal spores into these immediately surrounding areas, and states that the “dust raised during construction could potentially expose a large number of people hundreds of miles away.” As underscored in prior responses, the Project would be required—as a matter of regulatory compliance—to adhere to a rigorous set of best available control measures developed by SCAQMD for dust minimization. These control measures would stabilize the soil, as recommended by multiple public agencies discussed above (e.g., CDPH, CDIR, OSHA, and CDC), and thereby minimize the release of fungal spores. The approximate 669-acre Project site has also been subject to considerable mass grading on approximately 65% of the site, which would serve to minimize the amount of soil disturbance needed on those portions of the Project site to prepare for horizontal and vertical infrastructure and development (see Response to Comment O3-30, above).

O3-34 The comment restates the commenter’s position that the Project would result in a significant valley fever impact requiring mitigation. However, based on the substantial evidence and analysis presented in the Draft SEIR and the prior responses to comments, the less-than-significant impact determination reached in the Draft SEIR is supported.

O3-35 The comment asserts that conventional dust control measures will not prevent the dissemination of valley fever fungal spores because such measures “largely focus on visible dust or larger dust particles – the PM10 fraction – not the very fine particles” where the fungal spores are found. As such, the comment is critical of the Draft SEIR’s reliance on SCAQMD Rule 403 compliance and asserts that “sampling for and removal of impacted soils is the best solution.” Published scientific literature disagrees with the representations made in the comment regarding the relevance of PM10. For example, one article available via the National Library of Medicine reports that (Kollath et al. 2022):

PM10 is a strong predictor of Valley fever cases because this particulate matter fraction contains fungal spores that cause infection. Particulate matter is an important gauge of air quality, and this metric quantifies the amount of pollutants and biological material such as allergens and potentially pathogenic fungi in the air [footnote omitted]. … Several studies have shown that PM10 is an effective predictor of certain infectious diseases that are environmentally acquired [footnotes omitted].

As discussed in Response to Comment O3-30 above, reliance on SCAQMD Rule 403 to control dust and correspondingly minimize exposure to fungal spores (should they be present in the soil) is consistent with the recommendations of CDPH, CDIR, OSHA, and CDC, among others. For example, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health also expressly recommends that employers adhere to SCAQMD Rule 403 as a valley fever preventative measure to be implemented during construction activities (LADPH 2019, 2022).
14 14 On the topic of prevention, the instruction is to emphasize dust control. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-255
Additionally, as discussed in Response O3-27 above, no commercially available testing options exist for purposes of sampling the Project site’s soils. Therefore, the “best solution” offered by the commenter is not a feasible, practicable, or achievable one.

O3-36 The comment recommends a number of feasible mitigation measures to suppress the spread of valley fever. As discussed above, however, the Project would not result in a significant valley fever impact; therefore, no mitigation is required under CEQA (14 CCR 15126.4[a][3]). Nonetheless, the following is offered in response to the list of recommendations.

First, as to the referenced Injury and Illness Prevention Program, employers are already required by law to address valley fever in such plans via the provisions of CCR, Title 8, Section 3203 (CDIR 2024). No CEQA mechanism is required or appropriate in this instance; rather, employers should abide by the existing requirements of California labor laws.

Second, as discussed throughout these responses, SCAQMD Rule 403 already requires the Project to control dust exposure—consistent with the comment’s recommendations—by applying water and/or chemical stabilizers to exposed soil/dirt and stockpiles, ceasing construction activities during high-wind events, cleaning construction equipment and vehicles to minimize track-out, preventing spillage of bulk materials during transport, and ensuring no less than 6 inches of freeboard.

Many of these pre-existing regulatory requirements also are highlighted in MM-AQ-5 of the Draft SEIR, which identifies minimum standards that would be included in the Project’s Dust Control Plan to facilitate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (see Draft SEIR Section 4.3, pp. 4.3-65 through 4.3-66).

To illustrate this point, certain recommendations in the comment are presented below; the corresponding requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403 and MM-AQ-5 are then shown in italicized text.15 Comment Recommendations SCAQMD Rule 403 and MM-AQ-5
“Apply chemical stabilizers at least 24-
hours prior to high wind event”
SCAQMD Rule 403
See, for example, Table 1, Control Measures 01-1, 01-2, 01-3, 02- 1, 02-2, 02-3, 05-1, 05-2, 07-1, and 07-2; Table 2, Control Actions 2c, 4c, and 5a
MM-AQ-5
a. Water or another SCAQMD-approved non-toxic dust control agent shall be used on the grading areas at least three times daily.
e. Grading areas shall be stabilized as quickly as possible. f. Chemical stabilizer shall be applied, a gravel pad shall be installed, or the last 100 feet of internal travel path within the construction site shall be paved prior to public road entry, as well as for all haul roads.
l. Transported material in haul trucks shall be watered or treated.
15 Please note that the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403 are not exhaustively captured in the italicized annotations; reference to Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 403, and the supporting training materials identified in footnote 12, should be made for further detail. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-256
Comment Recommendations SCAQMD Rule 403 and MM-AQ-5
“Avoid outdoor construction operations
during unusually windy conditions or in
dust storms”
SCAQMD Rule 403
In order to comply with Rule 403, the construction site must demonstrate a “stabilized surface,” which is defined in Rule 403(c)(31), as a surface that “is resistant to wind-driven fugitive dust.”
MM-AQ-5
m. All soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended if winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. “Thoroughly clean equipment, vehicles,
and other items before they are moved
off-site to other work locations”
SCAQMD Rule 403
See Rule 403(d)(5)
MM-AQ-5
g. Wheel washers shall be installed adjacent to the apron for tire inspection and washing prior to vehicle entry on public roads. h. Visible track-out into traveled public streets shall be removed with the use of sweepers, water trucks, or a similar method within 30 minutes of occurrence.
j. Unpaved construction site egress points shall be graveled to prevent track-out.
k. Construction access points shall be wet-washed at the end of the workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces
has occurred.
“Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material
from holes or other openings in the cargo
compartment’s floor, sides, and/or
tailgate” and “Load all haul trucks such
that the freeboard is not less than six
inches when material is transported on
any paved public access road and apply
water to the top of the load sufficient to
limit VDE to 20 percent opacity; or cover
haul trucks with a tarp or other
suitable cover”
SCAQMD Rule 403
See, for example, Table 1, Control Measures 09-2 and 17-2 MM-AQ-5
l. Transported material in haul trucks shall be watered or treated.
n. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered.

Third, while the Project’s valley fever impact would not be significant and no mitigation is required by CEQA, in response to this comment and the commenter’s overall concern with the subject of valley fever, the Project applicant has requested that the City adopt the following condition of approval in the Project’s record, should the Final SEIR be certified and the Project approved. This condition is intended to complement the Project’s required compliance with the existing regulatory rubric for control measures and engineering standards that address dust.

Condition of Approval
Valley Fever Exposure Minimization. The following strategies, while not required by CEQA, shall be administered in consideration of the potential release of valley fever fungal spores during the Project’s construction period.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-257
First, the applicant or its designee shall monitor the California Department of Public Health’s valley fever data dashboard and report Riverside County’s annual incidence rate to the City on a yearly basis during the Project’s construction period. In the event that Riverside County’s annual incidence rate becomes “highly endemic,” as that rate is defined in California Labor Code Section 6709(b), the City shall require the applicant or its designee to notify and remind all construction employers of their statutory compliance obligations under California Labor Code Section 6709 and regulatory compliance obligations in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. In doing so, the Project applicant or its designee also shall refer the referenced employers to the California Department of Industrial Relations’ webpage for valley fever, particularly the information for employers therein.

Second, in the event that Riverside County’s status changes to “highly endemic,” the City shall reach out to the Riverside University Health System and the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health to request that Riverside County undertake a public notification, awareness, and education campaign regarding valley fever.

Third, prior to any ground disturbance activity in each of the Project’s six phases of construction, and regardless of whether Riverside County has been found “highly endemic” or not, the Project applicant or its designee shall require the primary Project construction contractor to prepare and implement a worker training program that describes potential health hazards associated with valley fever, common symptoms, proper safety procedures required by California’s employee protection laws to minimize health hazards, and notification procedures if suspected work‐related symptoms are identified during construction. This worker training program is intended to align with the existing legal rubric applicable to employers, as identified by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

O3-37 The comment summarizes the findings of the Draft SEIR’s construction-related health risk assessment, prior to implementation of the recommended mitigation. The comment restates information contained in the Draft SEIR. The City acknowledges the comment, which is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-38 The comment summarizes the findings of the Draft SEIR’s construction-related health risk assessment, after implementation of the recommended mitigation. The comment then states that the Draft SEIR’s pertinent mitigation measure (MM-AQ-2) has improperly conflated the use of Tier 4 Final and Interim engines.

The comment has identified an inadvertent error that has been corrected in the Final SEIR, as shown below. (The measure should have referenced Tier 4 Final equipment/engines and not Interim equipment/engines.)
MM-AQ-2 Construction Equipment Exhaust Minimization. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities, the applicant or its designee shall provide evidence to the City of Moreno Valley (City) that (1) for off-road equipment with engines rated at 25 horsepower or greater, no construction equipment shall be used that is less than Tier 4 Final, and (2) all generators, welders, and air compressors used during building construction and architectural coating of structures during residential (including combined residential and parking structure), retail, education (school), and hotel phases shall be electrically powered. Notably, generators, welders, and air compressors for 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-258
parks/recreational and asphalt for circulation and parking phases are excluded from electrification requirements in (2) due to feasibility considerations, but still subject to Tier 4 Final requirements in (1).

In the event of changed circumstances related to the availability of specific types of construction equipment, the applicant may submit a request to the City of Moreno Valley’s Community Development Department to apply an equivalent method of achieving Project-generated construction emissions that fall below the criteria pollutant mass daily thresholds for construction, the applicable localized significance thresholds (LSTs), and the numeric cancer risk standards established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). An exemption from this requirement may be granted if (1) the applicant documents equipment with Tier 4 Interim engines are not reasonably available, and (2) the required corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions can be achieved for the project from other combinations of construction equipment. Before an exemption may be granted, the applicant’s construction contractor shall: (1) demonstrate that at least 3 construction fleet owners/operators in Riverside County were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Final equipment could not be located within Riverside County during the desired construction schedule; and (2) the proposed replacement equipment has been evaluated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) or other industry standard emission estimation method and documentation provided to the City to confirm that Project-generated construction emissions would remain below the applicable criteria pollutant mass daily thresholds for construction, the LSTs, and the cancer risk threshold established by SCAQMD. necessary project-generated emissions reductions are achieved.

O3-39 The comment continues to highlight the distinctions between Tier 4 Final and Interim engines, and the importance of modeling emission reductions that reflect the engine tier required. Please see Response O3-38, above. As discussed therein, the Draft SEIR contained an inadvertent error that has been corrected in the Final SEIR. The revised MM-AQ-2 requires Tier 4 Final engines and emission reductions equivalent to that engine classification. The reference to Tier 4 Interim engines has been removed.

O3-40 The comment summarizes CEQA’s requirements regarding the enforceability of mitigation measures, and states that the Draft SEIR fails as an information document due its “lack of clear mitigation methods” and “lack of sufficient data” to assess Project impacts. The comment states that the Draft SEIR must be revised and recirculated for additional public review.

In response, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, each mitigation measure contained in the Final SEIR would be part of a City-adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in the event that the City’s decision-making body certifies the adequacy of the environmental analysis and approves the Project (14 CCR 15097). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if adopted, would ensure enforcement of each measure listed in the plan.

Additionally, the City has considered the recirculation request, and finds that recirculation is not required by CEQA. For information regarding CEQA’s recirculation standards, please see Response to Comment O3-3 above. The revisions shown above to the mitigation necessitate recirculation of the Draft SEIR based on the legal standards summarized in Response to Comment O3-3 above. The additional clarifying mitigation information does not require the Draft SEIR to be recirculated, after having already been the subject of a 45-day public review/comment period. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-259
O3-41 The comment states that the Project site is in the 67th percentile for “pollution burden associated with pesticides” and provides a comparison to census tract data. The comment also refers to the Project’s Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) appended to the Draft SEIR as Appendix G; the comment states that, because it was published on April 29, 1992, the Phase I ESA “may therefore be a (sic) incomplete disclosure of existing site conditions.” In response, first, the 67th percentile reference is from Draft SEIR Appendix D (not Appendix A, as cited in the comment’s footnote). The reference is to the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) output that presents the CalEnviroScreen Scores. That default output is automatically generated in CalEEMod based on a project’s location.

The purpose of CalEEMod is to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to estimate ozone precursors, criteria pollutants, and greenhouse gases (collectively referred to as “emissions”) from land use development projects in California.

CalEEMod also integrates data from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s CalEnviroScreen 4.0 and other sources to identify potential environmental and health burdens within the vicinity of a project. The scores are defaults and not based on site-specific data (CAPCOA 2022, pp. 1–2).

Second, the Draft SEIR contains three hazards technical reports completed for the Project site over the years: (1) the Phase I Preliminary Site Assessment, prepared by GeoSoils Inc., April 29, 1992 (Phase I Report); (2) the Limited Phase II ESA, prepared by GeoSoils Inc., January 9, 1993 (Phase II ESA); and (3) Limited Phase 2 ESA Report, prepared by TRC consultants, June 4, 2001 (TRC Phase 2 ESA). These three reports continue to provide useful, relevant and reliable information on the Project’s environmental site conditions.

Third, the Project’s environmental consultant, Dudek, completed Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft SEIR in May 2024; this section analyzed the hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the Project. The Draft SEIR analysis is based on the three reports in Appendix G, as well as the regulatory records review of hazardous waste/substances (Cortese List and data); the current geotechnical report (Draft SEIR Appendix C); the City General Plan data; the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Land Use Compatibility Plan; the updated federal, state, and local regulatory framework; the applicable Moreno Valley Municipal Code requirements; and other public records and documents (see Draft SEIR Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-1 through 4.9-27). The Draft SEIR also evaluated the Project site conditions for hazards and hazardous materials against current CEQA significance criteria (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-28 through 4.9-37). The result of the SEIR analysis was the recommended adoption of four hazards mitigation measures (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-38 through 4.9-40).

Fourth, the Project site is vacant land; and it has been fenced continuously and monitored by the Project applicant. No land use activities (e.g., agricultural or other land uses) have occurred on site for decades except for partial site grading (approximately 65% of the site) in 2007, installation of riparian mitigation along the channel at the southern portion of the site, and grading and installation of street and other utility improvements. The Project applicant also reports no known illegal dumping or use of the site. As such, there has been no significant change to, nor any significant new information regarding, the Project site’s existing environmental site conditions.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-260
Accordingly, due to the updated SEIR analysis, the site fencing and monitoring, no notable changes in site conditions, and the absence of any illegal on-site activities, the City finds that the Phase I Report, Phase II ESA, and TRC Phase 2 ESA continue to provide relevant and reliable technical data for use in the SEIR under CEQA.

O3-42 The comment states that the Phase I Report “discloses significant contamination that requires additional characterization and cleanup prior to Project construction.” The comment refers to a buried dump site, an open pit dump site, use of the property as a ranch, and “experimental sewage sludge disposal areas.” The comment also refers to the Phase II ESA and TRC Phase 2 ESA and cites certain statements from those reports, including regarding soil contaminants, metals, groundwater, and methane. The comment questions the data as having been collected years ago. The comment concludes that the “state of the Project Site is not defined.” No further explanation is provided.

Draft SEIR Section 4.9 contains a figure depicting hazards found on site based on the Phase1 Report, Phase II ESA and TRC Phase 2 ESA (Draft SEIR Figure 4.9-1, p. 4.9-43). The Draft SEIR and the three technical reports also extensively cover the on-site conditions referenced in this comment, and no evidence exists of any significant change in the Project site or its circumstances, nor is there any new significant information that calls into question the data presented in the Draft SEIR or the technical reports.

In summary, the Draft SEIR provided an extensive analysis of the Project site’s existing conditions, including an assessment of groundwater depth and quality (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-1 through

4.9-3, including Table 4.9-1). The analysis was performed because the on-site water wells would be used to refill the recreational surface lake on site; if the Project is approved, Section 4.9 discloses that the Project applicant would be required to obtain an individual permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program before discharging groundwater to surface waters. The NPDES permit would be evaluated and issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The NPDES permit process requires a description of the discharge (here, from the groundwater to the surface lake) and the method of treatment, including potential imposition of Waste Discharge Requirements imposed as conditions to the NPDES permit. Draft SEIR Table 4.9-1 (p. 4.9-2) summarizes elevated concentrations observed in on-site wells compared to applicable screening levels.

Section 4.9 also conducted a regulatory records review for hazardous materials, finding that the “Project site is not located on a Cortese List site, nor are any Cortese List sites located within 1 mile of the Project site” (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, p. 4.9-3). This evaluation also included a review of other databases that provide environmental information on releases and clean-up cases in California that are not included on the state’s Cortese List (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-4 through 4.9-5). No notable issues were identified.

Section 4.9 further discloses the previous environmental assessments conducted on site, including the Phase I Report, Phase II ESA, and TRC Phase 2 ESA.

As to the areas of concern located on the Project site referenced in the comment, the relatively small, buried dump area was used from approximately 1986 to 1988, at which time it was cleaned out and backfilled (Draft SEIR Appendix G, p. 24). As part of the previous environmental assessments, the Draft SEIR reported that the dump area was sampled (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, p. 4.9-8). The materials 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-261
included mulch, rags, rubber, and mulch-wood clippings, and the soil samples showed that pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, semi-volatile organic compounds, and other constituents were below applicable hazardous waste levels, and other contaminants of concern were not detected (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, p. 4.9-8).

The open dump site was used during 1991 and cleaned out in 1992 (Draft SEIR Appendix G, p. 24). It was evaluated by hand auger borings. The Draft SEIR and Phase II ESA reported that the small area was once used for dumping household debris and had been cleaned of visible debris; the boring samples showed that the identified contaminants in the soil were below hazardous waste levels (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, p. 4.9-8). Thus, though the technical reports refer to the two dump sites as “landfills,” they were relatively minor dump areas, and not best referred to as “landfills.” Further, the Draft SEIR disclosed that numerous soil samples were collected and analyzed for pesticides, herbicides, metals, and other contaminants; the results showed that the detected concentrations were below hazardous waste levels (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, p. 4.9-8). Water samples were also collected from the Corey and Scott water supply wells on site and were determined to “generally meet Safe Drinking Water Standards” applicable at the time, citing the Phase II ESA (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-8 through 4.9-9).

The Phase II ESA also conducted an asbestos survey of the on-site building and irrigation lines, and found that the irrigation lines were made of “transite,” which contains asbestos. Those buildings and lines have since been removed from the site (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, p. 4.9-9). Electrical transformers were also on site; however, SoCalGas confirmed that there were no polychlorinated biphenyls in the old on-site transformers (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, p. 4.9-9).

The TRC Phase 2 ESA conducted additional soil and groundwater sampling (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, p.

4.9-9). Results were compared to regulatory screening levels applicable at the time (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Residential Preliminary Remediation Goals) and hazardous waste levels (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Total Threshold Limit Concentration). Results did not exceed applicable regulatory screening levels or hazardous waste levels in soils. The groundwater sampling exceeded applicable regulatory standards for drinking water; however, the Project does not propose to use groundwater for drinking water. Rather, the groundwater is proposed to be used to refill the surface lake feature (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, p. 4.9-9).

Both the Draft SEIR and Appendix G also disclosed methane concentrations detected in the small, buried dump site, with the methane attributed to decomposition of organic matter in the buried debris (Draft SEIR Section, p. 4.9-9; Appendix G, pp. 347–348, 350, 357, 364–367). The methane concentrations were “relatively minor” and Appendix G recommended that any proposed future development activities in the area overlying the former dump area should include a geotechnical evaluation as necessary (Draft SEIR Appendix G, p. 350), which was performed as part of the Draft SEIR (see Appendix C).

Sewage sludge was placed on site for experimental purposes in three specific locations (see Draft SEIR Appendix G, Figure 6, pp. 178, 180). Soil samples were taken within the areas. Based on the test results, the Phase II ESA reported that no remediation was required of the soils within these areas under current regulations (Draft SEIR, Appendix G, pp. 182–183). 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-262
Based on the Phase II ESA, the Project site was used for agricultural use under normal circumstances.

There was no indication that the site was contaminated by hazardous materials or waste. The site was, therefore, considered suitable for residential and commercial community development (Draft SEIR Appendix G, pp. 186). The report also found, consistent with customary practices, that if unexpected contamination were to be discovered or occur during site grading, it should then be reviewed and mitigated in accordance with applicable agency requirements (Draft SEIR Appendix G, pp. 186).

After summarizing the previous environmental site assessment data, the Draft SEIR then compared those findings to “present day applicable regulatory screening levels,” and that comparison is shown in Draft SEIR Table 4.9-3 (pp. 4.9-11 through 4.9-13). The Draft SEIR also evaluated Project impacts on surface soils, the two minor dump areas, the methane area, and other potential accidental releases of hazardous materials (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-31 through 4.9-34).

The Draft SEIR and the technical reports disclosed and evaluated the Project site’s existing environmental conditions based on reliable and relevant available data. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-43 The comment states that the presence of persistent organic pollutants in soils, volatile organic compounds in groundwater, and methane in the area of the “former landfill” represent “potentially significant risks to human health that must be fully evaluated” in a recirculated EIR. The comment also states that Dr. Clark found that, “absent an updated Phase II ESA,” the Draft SEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions that hazards impacts are less than significant, such that the contaminants are a foreseeable risk to Project residents and those near the site “when the soils are disturbed.”
In response, Draft SEIR Section 4.9—and the technical reports and other publicly available information used or referenced in completing Section 4.9—constitute substantial evidence to support the findings and conclusions that, with mitigation, the Project’s hazards impacts are less than significant under CEQA. The comments are not supported by facts that counter the findings in the Draft SEIR or its Appendix G technical reports. For further information, please refer to Response to Comment O3-42, above.

Relatedly, a new, “fourth” environmental assessment of the Project site is not needed. The Project site has not changed, nor has its circumstances or use. It is vacant land, fenced and monitored, and has not been used for any agricultural activities for several decades. The Project applicant also reports no illegal dumping or other illegal or unauthorized site activities. The Project site was previously approved for residential and non-residential uses, and approximately 65% of the site has been graded.

O3-44 The comment states that Draft SEIR MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 are “inadequate because they constitute deferred analysis.” As the comment is an introduction to comments that follow, please see further responses below.

O3-45 The comment expands on the claim that Draft SEIR MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 “result in improper deferral of required analysis until after project approval” and “may therefore not sufficiently mitigate impacts to construction workers exposed to soil contamination before the site is properly characterized and cleaned.”
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-263
In response, first, the comment only partially references the two mitigation measures at issue. The Draft SEIR includes both measures in full.

MM-HAZ-1 is nearly two pages in length and requires site characterization and remediation, but only after the Project design is finalized and before issuance of a grading permit. This timeline is provided to allow the Project design phase to be completed if the Project is approved and ensure there is no ground disturbance before the Project site is fully characterized and remediated as required by the detailed measure, which contains performance criteria.

The Project site was characterized by the previous environmental assessments and reports. MM-HAZ1 now requires retention of a qualified environmental consultant to “fully characterize” the nature and extent of any remaining contamination at the site, pursuant to an investigation that requires a detailed soil sampling and analysis plan (SAP) that must be reviewed and signed by a registered engineer or geologist with experience in site characterization. The SAP must adhere to numerous performance standards and criteria, including a detailed soil management plan (SMP) and comprehensive soil vapor mitigation plan (SVMP) with their own requirements, procedures, and criteria, along with monitoring and modification requirements.

MM-HAZ-1 in the Final SEIR includes a clarification, adding Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) review and approval of the referenced plans prior to issuance of a grading permit. As revised, MM-HAZ-1 provides in full as follows:

MM-HAZ-1 Site Characterization and Remediation. Following Project design finalization, but prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant/developer or their designated contractor shall retain a qualified environmental consultant to conduct subsurface investigations to fully characterize the nature and extent of contamination at the Project site. The investigation will include preparation of a soil sampling and analysis plan (SAP), which will be reviewed and signed by a registered engineer or geologist with experience in site characterization. The SAP shall take into account final design and proposed development of each area, including grading and excavation depths, building use and occupancy (commercial vs residential), and other features which could indicate applicable screening levels and screening requirements. The SAP shall include methods and procedures to evaluate areas of the Project site where there are known soil impacts, including the former tank storage areas, vehicle maintenance areas, areas with elevated metals and pesticides, and sludge application areas. Soil sampling shall include at least two depths at each sample location to properly characterize potential subsurface impacts, and shall include analysis for petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. Samples from at least two different depths shall be collected from more than two locations in each area of concern to properly characterize each area, including, at a minimum, each former UST location, each sludge application area, the vehicle maintenance and storage area, the wash down area, and areas with elevated metals and pesticides in surface soil samples (identified in the 1993 Phase II ESA) (shown in red and yellow on Figure 4.9-1). Soil vapor samples shall be collected in the UST, maintenance, washdown, and sludge application areas, at dual depths, to properly characterize potential soil and soil vapor contamination due to historical site uses. The SAP shall include applicable regulatory screening levels for both soil and soil vapor based on proposed site development. Site investigation will be conducted as outlined in the SAP.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-264
For soils, based on the results of the sampling and analysis and comparison to applicable regulatory screening levels, a soil management plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant. The SMP shall outline the proper screening, handling, characterization, transportation, and disposal procedures for contaminated soils on the Project site. The SMP shall outline criteria for reuse on site, based on the final development plan and land use in each area, including comparison to regulatory screening levels. The SMP shall include procedures for removal and disposal of soils that do not meet reuse criteria, including transportation, documentation, and landfilling requirements. The SMP shall include health and safety and training procedures for workers who may come in contact with contaminated soils, and will include health and safety and site control measures to prevent contaminated material emissions from the site (such as dust suppression and vehicle tracking). The SMP shall be implemented by the Project applicant or their designated contractor for all confirmed and suspected contaminated soils which require excavation and off-site disposal. The SMP shall also include procedures for the identification and proper abandonment of underground storage tanks, should any be identified during demolition and construction activities around the existing dairies and residences. The SMP shall include all applicable federal, state, and local regulations (including Riverside County Department of Environmental Health [DEH]) associated with handling, excavating, and disposing of contaminated soils; the proposed disposal facility that will accept the contaminated soils; and appropriate procedures, notifications, permitting requirements, handling, and disposal requirements for decommissioning any underground storage tanks.

Vapor mitigation design features shall be implemented in accordance with the DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory for all future residential buildings and enclosed structures in areas where soil vapor is present above applicable regulatory screening levels for the proposed land use. The construction contractor shall incorporate vapor mitigation design features into building plans that reduce potential vapor intrusion in buildings and enclosed structures on the Project site to below applicable screening levels. Vapor mitigation systems may be passive or active in nature, so long as they are designed to prevent vapor contamination in accordance with applicable DTSC regulations. Vapor mitigation systems shall be reviewed and approved by the permitting agency(ies) prior to construction and prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Operation of the Project shall maintain functionality of these features as required to ensure protection from vapor intrusion.

Following completion of construction and occupancy of the buildings, indoor air monitoring shall occur once every 6 months for 1 year to verify implemented measures are functioning properly and adequately mitigating vapor intrusion to below residential screening levels. If indoor air samples indicate vapor intrusion occurring at levels above applicable regulatory screening levels, modifications shall be made, as necessary, to the designed system to 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-265
improve the efficacy in reducing vapor intrusion to below applicable screening levels. The SAP, SMP, and SVMP shall be submitted to the Riverside County DEH for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Should the Riverside County DEH require a qualified consultant to review and make recommendations prior to Riverside County DEH approval of such plans, the Project applicant or designee shall pay for such consultant services.

MM-HAZ-2 is also a lengthy measure requiring full characterization and closure of both the buried and open dump site areas on site, which were previously characterized by the previous environmental assessments. The work requires further soil sampling and submittal of the results, along with a closure plan, to the Riverside County DEH for review and approval.

The “timing or trigger” for MM-HAZ-2 has been clarified in the Final SEIR. Like MM-HAZ-1, the requirements of MM-HAZ-2 will be triggered after final Project design and before issuance of a grading permit. As revised, MM-HAZ-2 provides in full as follows:

MM-HAZ-2 Characterization and Closure of Dump Sites. Following Project design finalization, but prior to the issuance of a grading permit, bBuried and open dump site areas identified on site shall be characterized to define nature and extent of waste and potential contamination in surrounding soils and soil vapor. Soil shall be sampled and analyzed for VOCs, metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and SVOCs, while soil vapor will be analyzed for VOCs and methane. The full lateral and vertical extent of the waste shall be characterized and limits of both waste fill and contamination, if any, shall be determined based on this sampling and analysis. The results, along with a proposed closure plan, shall be submitted to Riverside County DEH Environmental Cleanup Program for review and approval. Closure requirements will depend on the nature and extent of contamination and shall ultimately be approved by Riverside County DEH in accordance with their rules and regulations. Excavation of the dump site area, if any, including exploration test pits, shall be conducted following SCAQMD Rule 1150. Final closure requirements shall be included in grading and development plans. If excavation is required, excavated wastes shall be appropriately characterized and landfilled at a permitted off-site landfill in accordance with federal, state, and local rules and regulations. The excavation shall be backfilled with either on-site soils or clean fill. Should imported fill be required, it shall meet clean fill requirements established by DTSC in its 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet.

The two mitigation measures are also consistent with previous environmental assessments and CEQA.

The full characterization of the Project site should only occur if and when the Project is approved for development. Full characterization is costly and not necessary, reasonable, or cost-feasible unless and until the Project is approved. Until then, there is no need to fully characterize the vacant, fenced, and monitored site.

O3-46 The comment cites CEQA case law and concludes that the plans referenced in the Draft SEIR mitigation are “impermissibly deferred” under CEQA. Please refer to Responses to Comments O3-45, O3-47, and O3-49.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-266
O3-47 The comment refers to Dr. Clark’s comments regarding Draft SEIR MM-HAZ-1 and states that the City must characterize the extent of the site contamination before approving the Project. The comment also states that the measure must “include a site cleanup plan (not just a Soil Management Plan) that ensures the cleanup of the impacted areas is to below the applicable thresholds (e.g., residential environmental screening levels or ESLs), which complies with all regulatory standards, and which requires remediation to be complete before any ground-disturbing project activities take place.” An expert consultant, Dudek, has confirmed there is no such concurrence or consensus between Dudek and Dr. Clark.

While Dr. Clark opines that the City must characterize and clean up the Project site “before any grounddisturbing activities take place,” that opinion is not consistent with CEQA. (See City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. [2012] 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 412 [upholding a mitigation plan in which the school district committed itself to perform additional analysis of hazardous waste contamination and to remediate existing contamination pursuant to state and local statutory and regulatory requirements and under the supervision of a regulatory agency].) However, MM-HAZ-1 does require full characterization and remediation after project design and before issuance of a grading permit; therefore, the Project site will be fully characterized and remediated “before any ground-disturbing activities take place,” as desired by Dr. Clark.

Additionally, Dr. Clark mentions the possibility of improper characterization techniques, and handling, but the comments are considered speculative considering that MM-HAZ-1 already requires that the SMP outline “the proper screening, handling, characterization, transportation, and disposal procedures for contaminated soils on the Project site.” The SMP required by MM-HAZ-1 must also outline the “criteria for reuse [of soils] on site, based on the final development plan and land use in each area, including comparison to regulatory screening levels.” Additionally, the SAP must already take into account “final design and proposed development of each area, including grading and excavation depths, building use and occupancy (commercial vs residential), and other features which could indicate applicable screening levels and screening requirements.” This mitigation requirement ensures that the applicable regulatory screening levels will be imposed based on the appropriate criteria (e.g., grading/excavation depths, building use and occupancy [commercial vs. residential], and other features that are applied to determine the appropriate and applicable regulatory screening levels).

O3-48 The comment refers to Draft SEIR MM-HAZ-2 and claims it improperly defers analysis and mitigation.

In response, the previous environmental assessments characterized the Project site’s environmental conditions, as explained above in Response to Comment O3-42. Draft SEIR Section 4.9 also summarized the previous analysis for the reviewer (Draft SEIR Section 4.9, pp. 4.9-6 through 4.9-15).

MM-HAZ-2 is not improperly deferred mitigation for the reasons explained in Responses to Comments O3-45 and O3-49. MM-HAZ-2 requires full characterization and a detailed closure plan with criteria for the two relatively minor dump areas. There is no evidence to support the comment’s claim that remediation of these areas could “take years.”
O3-49 The comment cites the CEQA Guidelines and cases and states that the Draft SEIR “does not state why specifying these SAP performance standards was impractical or infeasible at the time the DSEIR was drafted.” The comment is also critical of the mitigation performance criteria that requires aspects of the mitigation to be approved by the Riverside County DEH. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-267
In response, the first part of the comment misstates CEQA requirements. CEQA does not require an SEIR to specify why performance standards in mitigation were “impractical or infeasible at the time” the document was drafted. The correct test under CEQA is whether the lead agency deferred fully formulating the mitigation without stating why specifying performance standards in the mitigation was impractical or infeasible at the time the EIR was certified. In Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) (210 Cal.App.4th 260, 280-281), the Court of Appeal made clear that “the agency can commit itself to eventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the time of project approval.” The Court also clarified that deferral of mitigation is only impermissible when “an EIR puts off analysis or orders a report without either setting standards or demonstrating how the impact can be mitigated in the manner described in the EIR.” For this Project, MM-HAZ-1 requires full characterization and remediation of the Project site by a qualified environmental consultant pursuant to soil and vapor sampling based on final Project design and development of each site area, building use and occupancy, and other features pursuant to applicable regulatory screening levels and requirements, along with detailed plans (the SAP, SMP, and SVMP), all with applicable regulatory screening levels and requirements. The mitigation contains extensive performance criteria and requirements and detailed plans.

The City has also explained why the full characterization and plan completion will not occur prior to the City considering Project approval. Specifically, (1) the previous environmental assessments performed characterizations of the Project site, and consistent with the prior reports, it is appropriate to require full characterization now that the Project is proposing residential and non-residential development on site; (2) the identification of each development area and the final Project design are important in fully characterizing a site for remediation because they affect the applicable regulatory screening levels that will be applied; and (3) the mitigation will be triggered after final Project design and before issuance of a grading permit to allow the Project design phase to be completed if the Project is approved and ensure there is no ground disturbance through grading before the Project site is fully characterized and remediated as required by the detailed measure, which contains performance criteria and plan requirements.

Additionally, as stated above, full characterization of the Project site should only occur if and when the Project is approved for development. Full characterization is costly and not necessary, reasonable, or cost-feasible unless and until the Project is approved. Until then, there is no need to fully characterize the vacant, fenced, and monitored site.

The second part of this comment is critical of the MM-HAZ-2 requirement that aspects of the mitigation be approved by the Riverside County DEH. This comment is also incorrect. The comment does not explain why SAP approval by the Riverside County DEH “does not cure the informational defects in this DSEIR.”
CEQA and the cases state that further studies, reports, or plans required by mitigation may validly be completed by a project applicant, subject to review/approval by a lead agency or other regulatory agency (e.g., Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco [2014] 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1059-1060; and City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. [2012] 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 412 [upholding a mitigation plan in which the school district committed itself to perform additional analysis of hazardous waste contamination and to remediate existing contamination 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-268
pursuant to state and local statutory and regulatory requirements and under the supervision of a regulatory agency]).

Because there is no other alleged inadequacy of the Draft SEIR, no further response is required or necessary.

O3-50 The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to noise impact comments that follow. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. Please refer to additional responses below; no further response to this comment is required or necessary.

O3-51 The comment refers to the lack of quantitative construction noise analysis at representative offsite receivers construction receptor (CR) 3 through CR6. The comment states that the noise analysis at receptors CR3 through CR6 is not provided.

Draft SEIR Section 4.13.4.2 Tables 4.13-4 through 4.13-9 (pp. 4.13-9 through 4.13-12) present the predicted construction noise exposure levels from both the closest phase construction boundary and the phase construction area geographic center (also known as acoustic center) to the nearest CR position shown in Draft SEIR Figure 4.13-2 (p. 4.13-27 ) for each of the six Project development phases.

Unfortunately, the subheadings in Tables 4.13-5 through 4.13-9 (pp. 4.13-9 through 4.13-12) have typographical errors, referring to either “CR1” or “CR2” when they should in fact refer to the closest CR position; hence, CR3 is closest to Phase 3, CR4 is closest to Phase 4, CR5 is closest to Phase 5, and CR6 is closest to Phase 6. These distances are reflected in the construction noise worksheets appearing in Appendix C of the Noise Technical Report (Appendix I of the Draft SEIR). Consequently, the construction noise assessment is complete and accurate as-is, and no changes to the impact conclusions or mitigation measures are required. The inadvertent typographical errors in the abovereferenced tables have been corrected in Final SEIR Section 4.13.

O3-52 The comment states that the Project’s anticipated heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) operational noise should be re-analyzed and suggests mitigation may be needed.

Since the exact equipment types and their positions on Project building rooftops were unspecified at the time the Draft SEIR was prepared, the current CadnaA based sound propagation model applies an area-type source on each of the 14 building masses appearing in Figure 4.13-4 of the Draft SEIR (p.

4.13-31). These area sources, spanning the roof areas of these building masses, were each assigned sound powers theoretically representing a combination of air handling unit fans and air-cooled condenser refrigeration system components in a quantity of “packaged units.” Unfortunately, this supporting CadnaA modeling input detail, intended to be Appendix E in the Noise Technical Report (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR) was inadvertently not included in the Draft SEIR. Final SEIR Appendix I includes the Appendix E material that supports the clarified aggregate operations noise prediction displayed in Figures 4.13-4 and 4.13-5. Results from the seven studied sample off-site receptor positions have been included in revised Draft SEIR Table 4.13-15 (p. 4.13-19).

As corrected and clarified in Final SEIR Section 4.13, Figures 4.13-4 and 4.13-5 illustrate each of the multifamily residential structures modeled as sound sources for operational noise levels. Buildings G1– G20 each represent a garden apartment building housing 40 dwelling units, with 40 two-ton (i.e., refrigeration capacity or cooling demand met) HVAC package units (or the functional equivalent with 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-269
respect to air-conditioning comfort delivered) mounted on each building roof. Buildings H1–H14 each represent a high-density apartment building housing 120 dwelling units, with 120 two-ton HVAC package units mounted on each building roof. In each case, one HVAC unit would be provided for each housing unit.

Final SEIR Table 4.13-15, as revised, presents the results of the operational noise modeling at the seven modeled receivers (refer to Figures 4.13-4 and 4.13-5) and compares these modeled operational noise levels to limits contained in the Moreno Valley Municipal Code. Detailed information for the operational noise modeling is provided in Final SEIR Appendix I (as revised).

As indicated in Final SEIR Table 4.13-15, even if all facility equipment operated simultaneously during the nighttime (10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.), the predicted operational sound level at each of the modeled residential receiver locations would fall well below the most restrictive nighttime limit of 55 A-weighted decibels sound equivalent level for residential uses (Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Section

11.80.030.B.1). In addition, the predicted operational noise would remain at least 10 A-weighted decibels below recorded ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity; therefore, the addition of Project operational noise would not increase ambient noise levels above existing conditions. Other sources of operational noise would primarily be associated with noise generated by residents and their guests, which is not an environmental impact under CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21085).

Consequently, operational noise impacts of the Project would be less than significant, which is the same significance finding reflected in the Draft SEIR noise analysis.

O3-53 The comment suggests that Section 9.10.170 of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code should have been used to assess groundborne vibration exposures attributed to Project construction activities. But this is incorrect, as Section 9.10.030.B of the City’s Municipal Code specifically exempts “temporary construction, maintenance, or demolition activities between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m.” from the Municipal Code Chapter 9.10, Performance Standards.

The comment then suggests that the 0.2 inches per second (ips) peak particle velocity (PPV) assessment criterion used in the Draft SEIR to evaluate vibration annoyance was inappropriate, and instead recommends a more stringent 0.04 ips PPV threshold that—if applied—would be less than predicted vibration from a vibratory roller at a distance of 60 feet. Per the 2020 California Department of Transportation’s Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, the 0.2 ips PPV threshold is consistent with the level of human annoyance and the level of building damage risk for Class III structures (wooden ceilings and walls in masonry, typical of residences) exposed to continuoustype vibration sources. The comment calculates the Project’s vibration impacts to be 0.056 ips PPV.

Per the 0.2 ips PPV threshold, such predicted worst-case vibration from the Project is expected to be a less-than-significant impact.

Based on the above, the City finds that the issue related to vibration noise presents differing expert data; the Draft SEIR appropriately relies on substantial evidence developed by the Dudek environmental consultants and their noise experts.

O3-54 The comment suggests that the traffic noise findings in the Draft SEIR are unsupportable due to the lack of discussion about traffic noise model validation. Section 2.2 of the Noise Technical Report (Appendix I of the Draft SEIR) discloses that “the short-term measurements were conducted to characterize typical daytime noise levels in the Project area as well as to gather data necessary to 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-270
calibrate the traffic noise model.” Additionally, Section 2.3 from the Noise Technical Report states “Table 7 provides a summary of the results for the analysis of roadway noise based on existing ADT [average daily traffic] volumes for each studied roadway segment. The traffic noise levels in Table 7 are based upon reported existing ADTs, and not on the manual traffic counts conducted during the shortterm ambient noise measurements (short term manual counts are used in calibrating the model to ensure accuracy for local conditions).” These counts are presented as part of the “Dudek FORMS Field Data Report” content appearing in Appendix B of the Noise Technical Report. These data and disclosures help demonstrate that reasonable considerations were applied to the Federal Highway Administration–based modeling of existing traffic noise levels and help substantiate the usage of this modeling technique to predict future traffic noise for the 2045 Horizon year scenarios.

Based on the above, the City finds that the traffic noise impact issue presents differing expert opinion; the Draft SEIR appropriately relies on substantial evidence developed by the Dudek environmental consultants and their noise experts.

O3-55 The comment refers to a modeling program used to evaluate traffic noise and reiterates a belief that validation is necessary. Please refer to Response to Comment O3-54, above.

O3-56 The comment states that, without validation of the traffic noise model, it cannot be known that MM-NOI-3 will be sufficient to address the Project’s noise impacts. Please refer to Response to Comment O3-54, above.

The comment also states that the Draft SEIR should be revised and recirculated. See Response to Comment O3-54. The City has considered the recirculation request and finds that recirculation is not required by CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Response to Comment O3-3 for information regarding CEQA’s recirculation standards. In addition to providing responses to comments, the City finds that this Final SEIR includes relatively minor updates, corrections, and clarifications—none of which necessitate recirculating the Draft SEIR, which has already been the subject of a 45-day public/agency review and comment process.

O3-57 The comment makes concluding remarks, expresses opinions, and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of the Draft SEIR. The City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-58 The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. The comment does not address the adequacy of any section of the Draft SEIR. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-59 The comment summarizes the description of the Project, including the completed and certified prior environmental documentation. The comment does not address the adequacy of any section of the Draft SEIR. However, at the end of the comment, it states that the Draft SEIR’s “conclusions” are unsupported. The City disagrees with this general conclusion. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-271
O3-60 The comment addresses the adequacy of the Draft SEIR’s consideration of the Project’s potential valley fever impacts. The comment expressly disagrees with the Draft SEIR’s analysis and characterizes Riverside County as a valley fever “hot-spot.” The comment then provides a variety of information that was also presented and discussed in the main body of the comment letter.

Please see Responses to Comments O3-26 through O3-36, above, for information and analysis responsive to this comment.

As discussed in Response to Comment O3-28, Riverside County is not considered to be highly endemic for valley fever; therefore, the comment’s characterization of the County as a “hot-spot” is misplaced.

Valley fever incidence rates are variable from year-to-year and most often appear to relate to annual climatic conditions (with years of heavy rainfall followed by hot, dry conditions associated with increased incidence rates).

O3-61 The comment questions whether standard fugitive dust measures are adequate to protect humans from exposure to valley fever fungal spores. The comment also opines that sampling for and removing impacted soils is the “best solution.” However, as discussed in Responses to Comments O3-26 through O3-36 above, multiple public agencies recommend compliance with air quality dust control rules to address the potential presence of valley fever fungal spores and there is no commercially available soil test. Response to Comment O3-36 above also addresses, in detail, the strategies recommended in the comment to address valley fever.

O3-62 The comment addresses the adequacy of the Draft SEIR’s consideration of the Project’s hazards analysis based on the age of technical materials discussed therein. Please refer to Responses to Comments O3-41 through O3-43, above.

O3-63 The comment challenges two of the Draft SEIR’s mitigation measures that are designed to address potentially hazardous conditions on the Project site. Please refer to Responses to Comments O3-44 through O3-49, above.

O3-64 After summarizing the findings of the Draft SEIR’s construction-related health risk assessment, the comment identifies an error in MM-AQ-2 that has been corrected and remedied, as discussed in Response to Comment O3-38 above. The comment also presents statewide data relating to the availability of construction equipment at the various engine tier levels, noting the limited availability of Tier 4 Final engines for certain equipment types. The Draft SEIR recognized that equipment availability constraints may be encountered during the Project’s 12-year construction period. As such, MM-AQ-2, which imposes engine specifications on the construction equipment, is structured to provide the Project with an alternative pathway that requires a demonstration that construction emissions would fall below the criteria pollutant mass daily thresholds for construction, the applicable localized significance thresholds, and the numeric cancer risk standards established by SCAQMD. This alternative pathway provides the flexibility that may be required during Project implementation while simultaneously ensuring that the Project’s less-than-significant with mitigation impact determination is valid.

O3-65 This comment makes concluding remarks, expresses opinions, and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of the Draft SEIR. The City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Project.

No further response is required or necessary.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-272
O3-66 The comment comprises the resume of James Clark, PhD. The City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Project. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-67 The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. The comment does not address the adequacy of any section of the Draft SEIR. Additionally, the comment briefly describes the Project. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decisionmakers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-68 The comment expands on its description of the Project and states that the comments are based on Appendix I of the Draft SEIR, which is the Noise Technical Report prepared by Dudek consultants. The comment does not address the adequacy of any section of the Draft SEIR. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-69 The comment summarizes the acoustical consulting firm that provided the comment letter to the Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo law firm. The comment does not address the adequacy of any section of the Draft SEIR. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-70 The comment summarizes adverse effects of noise. It does not raise any environmental issue with respect to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O3-71 The comment addresses the Draft SEIR’s construction vibration impact analysis. Please refer to Response to Comment O3-53.

O3-72 The comment states that the Draft SEIR incorrectly assessed the Project’s noise impacts because it compared 6 hours of noise generation to an 8-hour noise metric. According to Dudek’s experts, while a heavy equipment operator shift generally spans an 8-hour workday, required rest breaks, equipment re-fueling, and downtime waiting for haul trucks or other equipment to perform related functions results in an average heavy equipment operations duration of no more than 6 hours in any given 8-hour work shift. The 8-hour averaging period is employed because that is the basis of the Federal Transit Administrationrecommendation for limiting construction noise exposure at nearby residential receivers (80 A-weighted decibels 8-hour equivalent sound level). Averaging 6 hours of active construction equipment operation over an 8-hour work day is a common practice for construction noise assessment.

O3-73 The comment states that the Draft SEIR improperly evaluated construction-related noise impacts by failing to consider certain noise receptor locations. Please refer to Response to Comment O3-51.

O3-74 The comment states that the Draft SEIR failed to adequately consider the Project’s operational noise impacts because the analysis did not validate the traffic noise model. Please refer to Response to Comment O3-54.

O3-75 The comment states that the Draft SEIR did not sufficiently account for on-site noise generated by rooftop HVAC units. Please refer to Response to Comment O3-52. 2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-273
O3-76 The comment makes concluding remarks, expresses opinions, and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section of the Draft SEIR. The City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Project.

No further response is required or necessary.

O3-77 The comment comprises the resume of Jack Meighan. The City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Project.

No further response is required or necessary.

O3-78 The comment consists of the Judgment and Statement of Decision (along with attachments) in the Sierra Club General Plan Update litigation against the City (see Sierra Club v. City of Moreno Valley, No.

CVR12103300). The City will include the comment as part of the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the Project. No further response is required or necessary.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-274

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-275
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-276
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-277
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-278
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-279
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-280
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-281
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-282
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-283
Response to Comment Letter O4
Organization
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
July 15, 2024
O4-1 The comment states that the letter is on behalf of CBD and provides general background information about CBD. The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O4-2 The comment provides a general summary of the Project location within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area and the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP) area and introduces comments that follow, including a focus on mitigation. The comment restates information in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft SEIR.

The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision.

No further response is required or necessary.

O4-3 The comment states that the Draft SEIR acknowledges burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) may occur in the construction zone and has proposed mitigation consisting of pre-construction surveys and buffer zones from active nest sites. The comment asserts mitigation measures are “insufficient as the result is still loss of habitat for this population, which has suffered massive declines due to urbanization both onsite and across the State.”
The comment restates information in Section 4.4 of the Draft SEIR. The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. Please refer to responses to comments O4-4 through O4-9. This comment is included in the Final SEIR for review and consideration by the decisionmakers prior to a final decision. No further response is required or necessary.

O4-4 The comment provides general information regarding both the history of burrowing owls in western Riverside County and the petition filed by CBD and others with the California Fish and Game Commission on March 5, 2024, which seeks to list burrowing owl as endangered or threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The comment also covers the need to implement mitigation measures to protect remaining populations.

The City notes the comment provides general information that does not raise any specific environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is necessary or required.

Nonetheless, the City acknowledges CBD et al. filed a petition on March 5, 2024, that seeks to list the burrowing owl as endangered or threatened. However, at this time, there has been no change in the status of burrowing owl, which remains designated as a state species of special concern under CESA (Draft SEIR Section 4.4, p. 4.4-8). Therefore, it does not qualify for the same legal protections as a listed endangered species.
2 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SEIR FOR THE AQUABELLA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT 15010 OCTOBER 2024 2-284
Based on a review of the agenda for the August 14/15, 2024, meeting of the California Fish and Game Commission, it appears that the petition to list burrowing owl as threatened or endangered will not be discussed at this meeting. As such, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has not issued its determination whether to recommend the listing. If CDFW recommends action on the petition, it will prepare a report to be made public for at least 30 days prior to a California Fish and Game Commission hearing. The commission will review the petition and CDFW’s evaluation report and determine at a hearing whether sufficient scientific information indicates that the listing may be warranted. If not, the process ends. If so, the commission will designate the species as a “candidate species,” publish a notice in the notice register, and mail the notice to affected parties.

Moreno Valley City CouncilNovember 19, 2024

Moreno Valley City Council
November 19, 2024