2.2_Exhibit B_FEIR_and_MMRP.pdf — Moreno Valley City Council, June 3, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.

Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.

Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.

Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 2 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 3 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337 7 6,154.337
7 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6 2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34
40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13 2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40 80 11,710.40
80 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97 2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051 7 2,307.051
7 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34
40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 4 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337 7 6,154.337
7 1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6 2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34
40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13 2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40 80 11,710.40
80 0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97 2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051 7 2,307.051
7 0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7 Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34 40 12,035.34
40 1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 5 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37
87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37 87 74,422.37
87 2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 6 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 7 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 8 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 9 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855 5 1,269.855
5 0.0908 1,272.125
2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003

0.1141 9.5000e-
004

0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004

0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326 2 1,380.326
2 0.0941 1,382.679
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944 9 3,747.944
9 1.0549 3,774.317
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 10 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

0.1141 9.5000e-
004

0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004

0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326 2 1,380.326
2 0.0941 1,382.679
1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 11 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003

0.1369 1.1400e-
003

0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003

0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003

0.1369 1.1400e-
003

0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003

0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 12 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003

0.1369 1.1400e-
003

0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003

0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003

0.1369 1.1400e-
003

0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003

0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 13 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003

0.1521 1.2700e-
003

0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003

0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003

0.1521 1.2700e-
003

0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003

0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 14 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

0.1521 1.2700e-
003

0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003

0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003

0.1521 1.2700e-
003

0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003

0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 15 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003

0.1521 1.2300e-
003

0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003

0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003

0.1521 1.2300e-
003

0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003

0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 16 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

0.1521 1.2300e-
003

0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003

0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003

0.1521 1.2300e-
003

0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003

0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 17 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075 0 3,789.075
0 0.2381 3,795.028
3 Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935 4 5,691.935
4 0.1602 5,695.940
8 Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010 4 9,481.010
4 0.3984 9,490.969
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 18 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 19 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400 7 3,671.400
7 0.2096 3,676.641
7 Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797 4 5,483.797
4 0.1442 5,487.402
0 Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198 1 9,155.198
1 0.3538 9,164.043
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 20 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 21 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003

0.1141 9.0000e-
004

0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004

0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003

0.1141 9.0000e-
004

0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004

0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 22 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

0.1141 9.0000e-
004

0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004

0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003

0.1141 9.0000e-
004

0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004

0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 23 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003

0.1141 8.8000e-
004

0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004

0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003

0.1141 8.8000e-
004

0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004

0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 24 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

0.1141 8.8000e-
004

0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004

0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003

0.1141 8.8000e-
004

0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004

0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003

0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 25 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003

1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003

0.3315 1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003

1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003

0.3315 1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003

0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003

0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 26 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003

0.3315 1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003

1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003

0.3315 1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264 1,062.041
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 27 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80 05 47,917.80
05 2.1953 47,972.68
39 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 28 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 29 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 30 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003

2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003

2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003

0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003

0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004

5.4000e-
004

29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 31 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003

2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise

35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916 4 4,209.916
4 0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9 General Office
Building

1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003

2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634 2 2,677.634
2 0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0 Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003

0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782 Quality
Restaurant

5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658 Regional
Shopping Center

0.251616 2.7100e-
003

0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004

5.4000e-
004

29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983 2 8,355.983
2 0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 32 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00 00 18,000.00
00 0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50 Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003

0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 33 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542 Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59 50 18,148.59
50 0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 34 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 35 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
Local Hire Provision Net Change
With Local Hire Provision
Without Local Hire Provision
Attachment C
G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

EXHIBIT B
G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist

Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience

Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.

G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist

Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science , 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds , 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. ( 1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. ( 1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water .

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E . (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting . Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P . (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant . The 23 rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006 . Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference . Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants . Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference .

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust .

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association . Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants .. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conferenc e. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. ( October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E ., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings . Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America . Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112 th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015

In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014

In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014

G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013

In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013

G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

EXHIBIT C
G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: [email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.

Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
4 G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6 G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
7 G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011.
9 G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER G:

Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm (on behalf of Western States Regional Council of Carpenters) G-1 This comment summarizes the proposed Project description and introduces the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (Western Carpenters) and notes that members of the Western Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities. The comment states that the commenter reserves the right to supplement these comments at or before hearings on the Project, and requests notification of all future notices issued under CEQA regarding the Project. The commenter has been added to the Ci ty’s list for future public notices regarding the proposed Project as requested.

This comment also incorrectly identifies that there was a prior Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Report for the Project. There has been no prior Project -specific analysis conducted for the proposed TCMV Specific Plan.

This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

G-2 This comment requests the City require the Project to utilize local workers meeting certain apprenticeship requirements to build the proposed development. This comment asserts that local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can provide commu nity benefits, improve the jobs -housing balance, help reduce environmental impacts associated with worker/vendor trips and vehicular emissions, and provide local economic benefits (i.e., short- term construction jobs for local workers). The comment also discusses that other jurisdictions have tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues (e.g., City of Berkeley). The comment also refers to an attachment to the comment letter identified as Exhib it A, which is a March 8, 2021, SWAPE letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re. Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. Refer to response to comment G-21, which addresses the attachments to the comment letter.

The Draft EIR includes analyses regarding the Project’s impact on GHG emissions, air quality, and transportation. Regarding transportation impacts, the Draft EIR determined that transportation impacts, including VMT impacts, would be less than significant. Further, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.14, Population and Housing, it is anticipated that general construction labor would be available from the local and regional labor pool as suggested by the comment. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 .4(a)(3), CEQA does not require mitigation measures for effects determined to be less than significant.

The Project’s air quality impacts during construction were analyzed in Draft EIR Section 4.3, and GHG emissions impacts were analyzed in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As discussed, the Project’s construction-related emissions are anticipated to exceed the established South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional thresholds of significance for volatile organic compounds (VOC) primarily due to emissions associated with architectural coatings (not vehicular trips). The total amount of Project -related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would exceed the SCAQMD recommended interim screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e per year, which is used for Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

purposes of the Draft EIR analysis. However, as with air quality, these emissions are not due to vehicular trips during construction but are primarily associated with operations; construction emissions are estimated to be 147.43 MTCO2e per year, which would be less than significant.

As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would be required to implement air quality and GHG mitigation measures to reduce emissions, including during construction activities. In addition, the Project is in proximity to transit facilities, including site adjacent bus stops that would facilitate workers using transit to access the Project site during construction.

The Project would not result in construction -related air quality or GHG emissions impacts associated with vehicular trips during construction , as such, the commenter’s suggested mitigation in the form of employing local construction workers would not materially alter Project-related air quality or GHG emissions or change the conclusions in the Draft EIR.

Further, while the Project and the City do not have the ability to regulate vehicle emissions, state and federal regulations will continue to improve engin e efficiency and thus emissions.

California has set a goal of requiring all new vehicles sold in 2035 and beyond to be zero - emission vehicles. Therefore, as vehicle emissions decrease in the future, air quality and GHG impacts associated with the Project would also decrease.

G-3 This comment raises concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential for Project- related construction activities to create a public health risk for construction workers. The comment cites materials from 2020 and recommends the City incorporate ad ditional training and other requirements to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases during construction activities. The comment recommends measures related to construction site design, testing procedures, response plans, and worker safety training to reduce COVID-19 risk.

Effects of the environment on a project are not subject to CEQA review (Public Resources Code Sections 21065 and 21068). The effects the existing environment might have on proposed projects are generally not treated as changes in the physical environment u nder CEQA (California Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 62 Cal. 4th 369, 378 (2015).

CEQA does not require analysis of impacts that existing environmental conditions might have on a project, its residents, or its users, except when re quired by specific statutory exception .

Therefore, the City does not have to analyze the impact of COVID -19, an existing condition, on the Project. Moreover, in the absence of any applicable methodology, such an analysis would be speculative.

Nonetheless, the City recognizes the unprecedented nature of COVID -19 and the potential public health impacts associated with it. It is acknowledged that the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, terminated the State’s COVID -19 State of Emergency on March 1, 2023.

However, any projects being constructed during a period of time in which emergency measures or orders are in place would be required to adhere to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) workplace guidelines for construction workers. Adherence to these measures would ensure that potential health impacts during the period of time in which emergency measures or orders are in place would be minimized during construction.

Furthermore, any projects being developed are required to adhere to the applicable City of Moreno Valley and County of Riverside workplace guidelines at the time of groundbreaking.

No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

G-4 This comment suggests that the City should enter into a Development Agreement with the Project Applicant to secure additional community benefits (including local hire and apprenticeship requirements) and additional environmental mitigation. California Planning and Zoning Law and specifically, Government Code section 65864 et seq. governs the authority and contents of development agreements . While the City has the authority to enter into a Development Agreement, and a project applicant has the option to request one, a Development Agreement is voluntary. A Development Agreement is not required for the Project .

Development pursuant to the TCMV Specific Plan would result in a mixed-use community with up to 800 dwelling units, commercial, civic, and open space uses as envisioned by the City. As such, consistent with the commenter’s suggestion, the Project already includes substantial community benefits. Further, with regard to environmental mitigation, the Draft EIR identifies and includes mitigation measures to address the Project’s potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. These mitigation measures are set forth in the MMRP (refer to Section 4.0 of this document ). No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

G-5 This comment discusses general information regarding CEQA and the commenter’s understanding regarding preparation of EIRs including when an EIR should be prepared, and CEQA’s requirements for environmental analysis and reducing environmental impacts.

Several court cases are cited. The comment also describes the commenter’s understanding of the standard of review that courts apply to determine the sufficiency of an EIR. The comment states that an EIR must include sufficient information so that foreseeable impacts can be understood and the public can comment on them. The comment also describes its view of the “fair argument” standard and when it is to be applied.

The comment’s general description of CEQA’s goals and requirements is noted. With respect to when an EIR should be prepared, an EIR has been prepared for the Project that is compliant with CEQA. With respect to the description of the standard of review ap plicable to a court’s review of the sufficiency of an EIR, the City notes that an EIR’s adequacy with respect to, for example, methodology, baseline conditions, scope of environmental impact analysis, and adequacy of mitigation measures is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435; Mission Bay All. v. Office of Cmty. Inv. & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 192, 206; CEQA Guidelines §15384(a). Disagreements among experts do not invalidate an EIR, and the lead agency may adopt the environmental conclusions reached by the experts that prepared the EIR, even though others may disagree with the underlying data, analysis, or conclusions.

Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 407-08. “To the extent factual questions (such as the agency's decision which methodologies to employ for analyzing an environmental effect) predominate, a substantial evidence standard of review will apply.” South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 330-331. Only with respect to questions about whether the agency complied with the legal requirements of CEQA is the agency ’s action reviewed under a less deferential standard to determine whether the agency failed to proceed in a manner required by law. (Pub. Res. Code Section 21168.5)

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

No comment was made specific to the Project, or the adequacy and completeness of the Draft EIR.

G-6 This comment refers to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the standard for recirculation and expresses the commenter’s opinion that recirculation of the Draft EIR is required. As presented in the responses to comments above and below, the findings and conclusions of the Draft EIR are not affected by any of the comments contained herein. Therefore, there are no changes or revisions to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. Specific comments provided by the commenter regarding the Draft EIR are provided and responded to below. The Draft EIR is comprehensive, and none of the circumstances requiring recirculation of a Draft EIR set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been met.

G-7 The comment makes various general statements regarding an EIR’s analysis of potentially significant impacts and requirements to eliminate or lessen the impacts and cites to various legal cases. This comment also suggests that the Draft EIR fails to comply with the identified CEQA requirements based on the subsequent comments provided in the comment letter.

Responses to the referenced comments are provided below (see responses to comment G -8 through G-10 below).

G-8 This comment suggests that while the Draft EIR acknowledges that the Project would have significant impacts on air quality, it “fails to describe with sufficient specificity how the Project would contribute to exceeding those thresholds, and further fails to provide sufficient analysis regarding the sources of those emissions . (DEIR, p. S -10).” This comment is citing the summary section of the Draft EIR, which is not intended to or required to provide the level of detail suggested in this comment. A detailed analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts is appropriately provided in Draft EIR Se ction 4.3, Air Quality, and Draft EIR Technical Appendix B, which is summarized in the Draft EIR section. Draft EIR Section 4.3 clearly identifies the sources of criteria pollutant emissions resulting from the Project’s construction activities and operations. Notably, with respect to the Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, identifies operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources: area source emissions, energy source emissions, and mobile source emissions, as further described in Section 5.4 of the Air Quality Impact Analysis included in Draft EIR Technical Appendix B. The Draft EIR also identifies that t he majority of the Project’s operational emissions are from mobile so urces (passenger car and truck vehicle trips generated by the Project). Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality , further identifies w ith implementation of mitigation measure s MM 4.3 -2 through MM 4.3 -6, the Project’s operational related VOC, NO X, and CO emissions would be reduced, but not to a level below SCAQMD’s regional thresholds for these criteria pollutants. As explained in the Draft EIR, since the majority of the operational emissions are from vehicle trips and neither the Project Applicant nor the City ha ve regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures beyond the measures identified exist that would reduce emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. No further analysis or information with respect to this issue is required.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

G-9 This comment incorrectly asserts that : the Draft EIR only cursorily evaluates the Project’s potential GHG emissions impacts; the Draft EIR does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the Project’s potential GHG emissions; and the Draft EIR does not provide a thorough breakdown of how the Proj ect GHG emissions were calculated. On the contrary, GHG emissions were comprehensively evaluated in the Draft EIR consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

When noting the Draft EIR conclusions, the commenter refers only to the Draft EIR Executive Summary and neglects to cite extensive detailed discussion of Project GHG emissions presented in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and appended suppo rting technical analysis (Draft EIR Appendix G, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, GHGA).

The commenter cites various CEQA Guidelines sections addressing qualitative and quantitative methodologies for evaluating GHG emissions impacts. The City is aware of CEQA Guidelines GHG qualitative and quantitative analytic methodologies. Relevant CEQA Guidelines direction is specifically acknowledged in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and within the GHGA included in Draft EIR Appendix G.

The commenter also suggests incorrectly that the “DEIR does not rely on any quantitative analysis” in evaluation of the Project’s compliance with numerical GHG emissions thresholds, and instead “relies on the Project’s purported consistency with various la nd use plans and regulatory schemes.” First, the commenter appears to conflate quantified GHG impact significance criteria and GHG impact policy/plan significance criteria used by the City for this Project. The City has determined that each of the CEQA threshold criteria establish a separate and independent basis upon which to substantiate the significance of the Project’s potential GHG emissions impacts.

Project GHG Emissions in Context of Numeric Thresholds

Quantified Project GHG emissions in context of applicable numerical thresholds is presented in the Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Detailed modeling and quantification of Project GHG emissions in the context of applicable numerical thresholds is presented in the GHGA Section 5.3 (Construction Emissions), GHGA Section 5.4 (Operational Emissions), and GHGA Appendix 5.1 (CalEEMod Annual Emissions Model Outputs). All GHG emissions quantification and analyses have been prepared by accredited pro fessionals with extensive background in CEQA greenhouse gas analyses.

The City of Moreno Valley and the Project site are located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the CEQA responsible agency for review and assessment of GHG analyses for developments in the Basin.

All Draft EIR GHG analyses comply with accepted methodologies and protocols established by the SCAQMD. In combination, the Draft EIR and GHGA provide detailed quantified Project GHG emissions and present those emissions in context of applicable numer ic thresholds.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Project GHG Emissions in Context of GHG Reduction Plans and Policies

GHG emission reduction plans and policies applicable to the Project and Draft EIR analyses comprise plans and policies articulated in the adopted 2006 City of Moreno Valley General Plan, the previously adopted 2040 General Plan, Connect SoCal 2024, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan. Project consistency with these plans and policies is substantiated in detail in the Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and the GHGA included in Draft EIR Appendix G. The commenter is r eferred also to correlating discussions presented at Draft EIR Section 4.11 (Land Use and Planning), Draft EIR Section

4.14 (Population and Housing), and Draft EIR Section 4.16 (Transportation).

As such, contrary to the commenter’s assertions, the Draft EIR does not inappropriately rely “on purported consistency with various land use plans and regulatory schemes” in determination of the Project’s GHG impact significance.

This comment also summarizes various CEQA Guidelines sections addressing GHG emissions analyses in context of adopted GHG emissions reduction plans (e.g., Climate Action Plans), and CEQA direction regarding development and implementation of GHG reduction p lans.

Accompanying footnote citations are also provided in the comment (commenter footnotes 10, 11). The comment summarizes features of effective GHG reduction plans, and beneficial aspects of plan implementation. The City is aware of CEQA Guidelines direc tion regarding GHG emissions analyses in context of adopted GHG emissions reduction plans, and CEQA direction regarding development and implementation of GHG reduction plans such as a Climate Action Plan (CAP). As discussed in the Draft EIR Section 4.8, Gr eenhouse Gas Emissions, and the GHGA included in Draft EIR Appendix G, the City of Moreno Valley is in the process of developing a CAP. At present, there is no adopted City CAP allowing for comparative evaluation of the Project’s GHG emissions. Accordingly, the Draft EIR does not rely on CAP compliance in determination of Project GHG emissions policy/plan consistency.

Because the Draft EIR does not rely on CAP compliance in determination of Project GHG policy/plan impact significance, there is no “analytical gap” as asserted by the commenter. As noted previously, Project consistency with applicable GHG emissions reduction plans and policies is substantiated in detail in the Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and the GHGA included in Draft EIR Appendix G.

In addition to the general discussion regarding CAPs, the comment also incorrectly infers that the Draft EIR conclusions regarding the Project GHG impact significance are based solely on determination of Project compliance with a GHG reduction plan. The basis for determining the Project’s GHG emissions impact significance is clearly delineated in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As discussed in the Draft EIR, quantified Project GHG emissions exceeding the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e/year numeric thr eshold would be potentially significant. Quantified Project GHG emissions in context of applicable numerical thresholds is summarized in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Detailed modeling and quantification of Project GHG emissions in the c ontext of applicable numerical thresholds is presented in the GHGA included in Draft EIR Appendix G (GHGA Section 5.3 [Construction Emissions], GHGA Section 5.4 [Operational Emissions], and GHGA Appendix 5.1 [CalEEMod Annual Emissions Model Outputs]). The Draft EIR analysis substantiates that Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

even with application of mitigation, quantified Project GHG emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD numeric threshold. Accordingly, as disclosed in the Draft EIR Section

4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, quantified Project GHG emissions impacts would be individually and cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

With regard to Project consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans and policies, relevant plans and policies comprise those presented in the adopted 2006 City of Moreno Valley General Plan, the previously adopted 2040 General Plan, Connect SoCal SoCal 2024, and the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan. Project consistency with GHG reduction plans and policies is substantiated in detail at Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and GHGA included in Draft EIR Appendix G. Accordingly, the Project is determined to be consistent with applicable GHG reduction plans and policies. Impacts in this regard would therefore be individually and cumulatively less than significant. The commenter is referred also to correlating discussions presented at Draft EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning; Draft EIR Section 4.14, Population and Housing; and Draft EIR Section 4.16, Transportation.

In summary, substantial evidence supporting the Draft EIR GHG analysis and conclusions includes:
• Detailed modeling and quantification of GHG emissions in Draft EIR Section 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Table 4.8 -3, Amortized Annual Construction Emissions Summary; Table 4.8-4, Project GHG Emissions – Without Mitigation; GHGA Section

5.3, Construction E missions; GHGA Section 5.4, Operational Emissions; GHGA Appendix 5.1, CalEEMod Annual Emissions Model Outputs; and • Discussion presented at Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; GHGA Section 5, Project Greenhouse Gas Analysis; GHGA Section 6, GHG Emissions Findings and Recommendations; and GHGA Appendix 5.1, CalEEMod Annual Emissions Model Outputs.

Based on analysis and evidence presented in the Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Lead Agency has appropriately concluded that even with application of mitigation, quantified Project GHG emissions impacts would exceed applicable numeric thresholds. Quantified Project GHG emissions impacts would therefore be individually and cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Based on analysis and evidence presented in the Draft EIR, the Lead Agency has appropriately concluded that the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan adopted for purposes of reducing GHG emissions. Project impacts in this regard would therefore be individually and cumulatively less than significant.

As discussed above, contrary to the commenter’s suggestion, further GHG analysis is not required.

G-10 The comment incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR does not contain sufficient analysis of Project construction-source and operational-source diesel emissions impacts. With respect to operations, the Project does not propose significant operational sources of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions or other toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as freeways and high - traffic roads, distribution centers, warehouses, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome platers, or Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

gasoline stations. Only diesel delivery trucks would be considered a TAC source, of which the mixed-use Project would generate a limited amount that would not result in a health risk at the nearby residential receptors.

With respect to construction- related air quality analysis stemming from diesel trucks and other diesel equipment, a Project -specific Construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared, which confirms that the Project would result in a less than significant construction health risk impact and no mitigation would be required. Specifically, the Construction HRA concludes that w ithout mitigation, at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW) , and maximally exposed individual school child (MEISC) , the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction - source DPM emissions would be less than the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance threshold of 10 in one million. The non -cancer risks were all calculated to be ≤0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0 .

The HRA is included in Appendix A to this Final EIR. Notwithstanding, Draft EIR MM 4.3-1 requires the use of Tier 4 Final equipment and implementation of MM 4.3-1 would provide the benefit of reducing DPM emissions from construction equipment and would therefore further reduce cancer and non -cancer risk. As identified in the Construction HRA, with implementation of Draft EIR MM 4-3.1, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source DPM emissions would be further reduced.

Further, as discussed in the Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, and Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, and identified in Draft EIR MM 4.3 -2, Project diesel emissions would be effectively controlled by mandated compliance with existing CARB anti -idling regulations.

Compliance with existing CARB regulations ensures that potential effects of diesel emissions are maintained at levels that would be less than significant.

The comment provides no evidentiary support indicating that Project diesel -source emissions would somehow result in potentially significant impacts. Here, consistent with CEQA direction, the Draft EIR analysis of construction and operational -source emissions focuses on potentially substantial adverse effects of the Project, and not on effects that are clearly insignificant or speculative. By focusing on potentially significant effects, the Draft EIR avoids unnecessary expenditure of time and resources on ef fects that do not warrant detailed study.

This aligns with CEQA’s intent for efficient and effective environmental review.

This comment also summarizes estimated diesel fuel consumption of the Project.

Environmental effects of Project energy consumption, including diesel fuel consumption, are addressed at Draft EIR Section 4.6, Energy, and Draft EIR Appendix E, Energy Analysis. The Draft EIR analysis substantiates that the Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to provision or consumption of energy. This includes potential effects associated with provision and consumption of diesel fuel.

As discussed above, contrary to the commenter’s suggestion, air quality impacts related to diesel vehicles and equipment are properly disclosed and analyzed, and further analysis is not required.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

G-11 The comment makes various statements regarding requirements for the identification of mitigation measures to minimize a Project’s significant environmental effects and cites various provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as well as legal cases. This comment makes a general statement that the Draft EIR mitigation measures are inadequate based on the subsequent comments provided in the comment letter. Responses to the referenced comments are provided below (see responses to comment G-12 through G-15 below).

G-12 This comment discusses deferred mitigation generally, outlines CEQA requirements relative to mitigation, and suggests that the Draft EIR mitigation measures are improperly deferred for various impact categories. The comment does not identify mitigation measures by number but appears to be referring to Draft EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3-3, 4.4-1, 4.5-1, 4.7-1, and 4.8-1.

The mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR have been developed in accordance with the requirements outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(c), which indicate that the public agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. “Reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. “Monitoring” is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. The choice of program may be guided by the following:

(1) Reporting is suited to projects which have readily measurable or quantitative mitigation measures or which already involve regular review. For example, a report may be required upon issuance of final occupancy to a project whose mitigation measures were confirmed by building inspection.
(2) Monitoring is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures, such as wetlands restoration or archeological protection, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency to oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require careful implementation to assure compliance.
(3) Reporting and monitoring are suited to all but the most simple projects. Monitoring ensures that project compliance is checked on a regular basis during and, if necessary after, implementation. Reporting ensures that the approving agency is informed of compliance with mitigation requirements.

As indicated, there are project activities and subsequent (non-discretionary) approvals after a project’s discretionary actions have been approved that are the appropriate time for implementation of mitigation measures (such as during construction or as part of building plan review). Retaining technical experts for monitoring construction activities, protection of resources found during construction activities, ensuring design features are incorporated into building plans, etc. , and demonstrating compliance with identif ied mitigation after project approval is not deferral as suggested by the comment . As required, the Project -specific mitigation monitoring and report ing program (MMRP) included in Section 4.0 of this document clearly identifies the action required for each mitigation measure, the responsible parties for implementing the mitigation measure and monitoring implementation, and when the mitigation measure should be implemented. The City of Moreno Valley is responsible for Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

ensuring compliance with the MMRP after project approval. The MMRP provides for monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of all mitigation measures.

G-13 This comment discusses CEQA requirements regarding mitigation measures generally (including repetition of similar statements in Comment G -11) and asserts without specificity that the Draft EIR fails to consider and deploy all feasible mitigation measu res. Per PRC Sections 21002 and 21002.1(b), CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable feasible mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects. Further, the comment does not provide any suggestions for additional mitigation. Notwithstanding, as identified in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions , additional mitigation to further reduce the Project’s operational air quality and GHG emission impacts have been identified.

G-14 This comment discusses mitigation measures and project design features generally and incorrectly indicates without specificity that the Draft EIR improperly mischaracterizes mitigation measures as “project design features.” The Project does not identify any Project Design Features (or PDFs) as mitigation measures, and the commenter has not provided any specific example of where this has occurred in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

G-15 This comment incorrectly indicates that the Project improperly relies on model or optional rules that are not legally enforceable or binding rather than mandatory mitigation measures.

The only example referenced in the comment is mitigation measure MM 4.8-1 in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. MM 4.8-1 is presented below and the text referred to in the comment is presented as bold -faced text for emphasis. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion that this mitigation measure is voluntary, th is mandatory mitigation measure, which is included in the Project’s MMRP (refer to Section 4.0 of this document) is requiring implementation of these measures, which would otherwise be voluntary. The MMRP provides for monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of all mitigation measures.

Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the project site, the project applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., building plans, site plans) to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division to verify implementation of the applicable design requirements specified in this mitigation Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

measure. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City shall verify implementation of these design requirements.

G-16 This comment includes speculative remarks regarding the Project construction schedule and potential air quality impacts that could result should Project construction timing and sequencing differ from the construction schedule presented in the Draft EI R. This comment also suggests that a time and duration -specific Project construction schedule should be mandated.

To the contrary, as explained in the Draft EIR, Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed TCMV Specific Plan is designed to provide flexibility for development within the Specific Plan area. The proposed Specific Plan provides the regulatory framework to implement the proposed Project, recognizing that the market demand for the exact type and amount of uses may change. Further, as discussed in the Draft EIR, development pursuant to the proposed TCMV Specific Plan would occur in phases based on market demands. A reasonable potential buildout development scenario and the estimated construction schedule are set forth in the Draft EIR for purposes of analysis. Analysis of air quality impacts presented at Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, and Draft EIR App endix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis ( AQIA), including impacts based on the assumed Project construction schedule, are based on the best available information and reflect the Project and Project context described in the Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Descr iption. All AQIA modeling, including impact modeling predicated on the assumed Project construction schedule, has been prepared by accredited professionals in conformance with adopted CalEEMod and SCAQMD protocols and best practices. The City considers the AQIA included in Draft EIR Appendix B, including all air emissions modeling related to Project construction scheduling and construction sequencing, to accurately and adequately reflect potential Project construction-source air quality impacts.

As noted above, the comment is speculative. The commenter offers no evidentiary support indicating that alteration of the Project construction schedule and Project construction sequencing assumed in the Draft EIR and AQIA would somehow result in potentiall y significant impacts, or in any impacts not already considered and addressed in the Draft EIR and AQIA.

Additionally, variables (notably weather and economic factors) beyond the control of the City and Project Applicant can substantially affect construction activities and their scheduling. The City on this basis considers imposition of a time and duration -specific Project construction schedule to be infeasible.

Finally, with regard to the commenter’s concern about delay, the estimated construction schedule represents a conservative analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates assumed in the analysis since emission factors for co nstruction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

G-17 This comment generally discusses CEQA requirements for the cumulative impact analysis, identifies various court cases addressing this issue, and states generally, without specificity, Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

that the Draft EIR fails to adequately evaluate the Projects cumulative impacts. However, no comment was made regarding a specific cumulative impact analysis (i.e., for which topical issue) and no specific cumulative projects that should be considered in the analysis were identified (including completed past projects) . T herefore, a specific response to these comments cannot be provided. A detailed description of the cumulative analysis approach used in the Draft EIR is provided in Section 4.0.2, Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis. As explained in the Draft EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources, either:

A. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or Statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect.

There is no requirement to consider all cumulative projects within a certain distance of a Project, as asserted by the commenter. Cumulative impacts are addressed for each topic analyzed in Section 4.1 through Section 4.19 of the Draft EIR. The analysis em ploys both methods of analysis prescribed by the CEQA Guidelines. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR does not analyze related cumulative projects, where appropriate to the analysis in question, cumulative impacts are assessed with reference to a list of cumulative projects. For example, the cumulative impacts analysis provided in Section 4.1, Aesthetics; Section 4. 11, Land Use and Planning; and Section 4. 13, Noise, specifically address the potential for cumulative impacts resulting from the Project in conjunction with adjacent and nearby cumulative projects. A comprehensive cumulative project list was compiled based on information provided by the City of Moreno Valley Planning and Engineering Departments.

Draft EIR Figure 4.0-1, Cumulative Projects Location Map, illustrates the location of identified cumulative development with respect to the Project site. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are provided in Draft EIR Table 4.0-1, List of Cumulative Projects. With respect to completed past projects, these projects are considered in the Draft EIR as part of the existing/baseline condition, as appropriate. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

G-18 This comment discusses general plans generally and states that the Project is inconsistent and in conflict with land use plans for the Project site, including the General Plan and Housing Element. The comment asserts that Draft EIR fails to support its consistency finding with substantial evidence as required and further asserts that the Project cannot rely upon approval of its requested changes to conclude that the Project is consistent with the General and Specific Plans. The City has broad discretio n in determining a project’s consistency with its own General Plan, and the courts have repeatedly acknowledged that the body which adopted general plan policies has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them.

Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood Preservation Ass’n v City of Modesto (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 9, 21; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass’n v City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719. The Draft EIR includes detailed discussions throughout the document about the City’s existing 2006 General Plan, the 2040 General Plan that was previously adopted by the City but set aside Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

in response to a court decision, and the City’s current project to adopt a new General Plan (refer to the discussion provided in Draft EIR Section 3.1, Project Background). As described in Draft EIR Section 3.4.1, General Plan Amendment, the Project does require an amendment to the General Plan due to the current “Public Facilities” land use designation under the 2006 General Plan. However, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the approval of a General Plan is not the basis for analysis or for the conclusion that the Project would not conflict with the General Plan. As identified in Draft EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, under the analysis of Threshold “b,” the State’s general rule for a General Plan consistency determination is that “an action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstru ct their attainment.” Therefore, a detailed General Plan policy consistency analysis is pro vided for both the 2006 General Plan, and the City’s previous 2040 General Plan (refer to Draft EIR Table 4.11-1 and Table 4.11-2, respectively), which the City is considering readopting. Additionally, similar General Plan policy consistency analysis is provided in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and Section 4.16, Transportation, as there are thresholds of significance for these topics related to consistency with General Plan policies related to scenic quality and circulation, respectively.

As presented in the detailed consistency analysis, the Project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan policies identified in the 2006 General Plan or previous 2040 General Plan for the respect ive General Plan elements; therefore, the Project was determined to be consistent with these General Plans.

G-
19 The comment discusses CEQA requirements relative to regulatory compliance and references a number of related court cases, repeating prior general comments . The commenter fails to explain that compliance with relevant regulatory standards can provide a basis for determining that the Project will not have a significant environmental impact. Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912; Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906 (“a condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance.”) This comment states generally, without specificity, that the Draft EIR improperly relies on future compliance with regulatory standards to support its findings regarding lack of significant impacts; however, the comment does not provide any specific identification of where this occurs in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR appropriately analyzes the Project and its potential impacts and considers regulatory compliance where it is proper and reasonable to do so in compliance with CEQA.

G-
20 The comment is conclusory in nature and reflects the commenter’s opinion that recirculation of the Draft EIR is required. As presented in the responses to comments in this document, the Draft EIR adequately analyzed the proposed Project and evaluated and disclosed the potential environmental impacts of the Project, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The findings and conclusions of the Draft EIR are not affected by any of the comments contained herein, or the revisions to the Draft EIR identified in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions.

None of the circumstances set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been met .

Specifically, based on the comments and responses within the Final EIR, no new significant impacts or substantial increases in already identified significant impacts have been identified.

Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

G-21 The comment consists of three attachments to the comment letter. The first attachment (Exhibit A to the comment letter) is the March 8, 2021, SWAPE letter to Mitchell Tsai regarding local hire requirements and considerations for GHG modeling. The SWAPE letter is more than four years old, and it does not reference this particular Project, its impacts, or mitigation. The City and its consultants have thoroughly reviewed the SWAPE letter. It explains how the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) calculates emissions from construction-related vehicle trips and discusses the relationship between trip length and GHG emissions. It is a generalized discussion, not made applicable to this Project. The SWAPE letter also provides an example of a local hi re requirement for an example project. However, the example is not applicable to this Project in the City of Moreno Valley; therefore, while considered, it is inapplicable and does not raise any specific environmental issue related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The SWAPE letter also conducts an exercise using its sample project and the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated sample project-level GHG emissions, though it does not state that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction - related GHG emissions for all projects in all geographic areas. In short, the SWAPE letter is general and not applicable to the Project. Finally, the comment includes a disclaimer by SWAPE—the technical preparer. The disclaimer provides that as additional information is made available, SWAPE may amend its technical report.

T
he other two attachments (Exhibits B and C to the comment letter) are the resumes of Paul Rosenfeld and Matt Hagemann, respectively.

Th
e comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

3.0 DRAFT EIR CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS
Changes made to the text, tables, and/or exhibits of the D raft EIR in response to public comments on the Draft EIR are itemized in Table 3-1, Errata Table of Clarifications and Revisions to the Draft EIR, and are hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. Additions are shown in Table 3 -1 as bold and underlined text and deletions shown as stricken text. Minor changes to the Draft EIR (e.g., corrections of non-substantive typographical errors) are not listed in Table 3-1. No corrections or additions made to the D raft EIR are considered substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Table 3-1 Errata Table of Clarifications and Revisions to the Draft EIR Section(s) Page(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions Incorporated into the Draft EIR
S.0, Executive Summary S-8
Future development implementing the proposed TCMV Specific Plan would adhere to the established Development Standards and Design Guidelines included in the TCMV Specific Plan and would not conflict with goals or policies outlined in the 2006 and 2040 General Plans or MVMC requirements that regulate scenic quality.

S.0, Executive Summary S-26
S-27
MM 4.8-1 The project applicant shall design and build future non - residential development to meet/include the following:
• The project will utilize on -site renewable energy
sources such as solar, to reduce electrical demand as
per Division A5.211, Renewable Energy, of Appendix
A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, of the 2022
California Green Building Standards Code.
• The project will incorporate measures to reduce the
overall use of potable water within the building by
12% as per Division A5.3, Water Efficiency and
Conservation, as outlined under Section A5.303.2.3.1
of Appendix A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures,
of the 2022 California Green Building Standards
Code.
• The project will incorporate facilities to allow
charging of electric bikes and scooters in
appropriate locations within the Project site. A
minimum of two charging spaces will be provided
on-site.
• Either 25% of the parking stalls in the
Commercial/Civic Area will be made-ready for EV
charging, or 20% of the 25% make -ready stalls
will be installed as a level 3 charger. All EV
chargers installed will be appropriately
maintained for use.
• Concrete sidewalks will be installed to meet City
requirements, provide safety, and allow a
reflectance level to minimize heat absorption as
practicable.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Section(s) Page(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions Incorporated into the Draft EIR
• Electric HVAC units with electric heat pumps will
be installed.

Prior to the issuance of building permits for new
development projects within the project site, the project applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., building
plans, site plans) to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division to verify implementation of the applicable
design requirements specified in this mitigation measure.

Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City shall verify implementation of these design
requirements.

MM 4.8-2 The project applicant shall design and build future residential development to meet/include the following:
• No wood-burning fireplaces shall be installed in any
of the dwelling units.
• No natural gas or propane will be installed in the
residential units. All buildings shall be electric, to the extent feasible, meaning that electricity is the primary source of energy for water heating; heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) within the
building, excluding pool heating.
• All major appliances provided/installed shall be
EnergyStar-certified or of equivalent energy
efficiency, where applicable.
• Level 2 electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)
with National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) 14- 50 outlets for each
residential unit.
• Solar installations on residential buildings to the
extent practicable, considering necessary roof
penetrations, design constraints, and solar/utility
provider guidelines and restrictions.
• Concrete sidewalks will be installed to meet City
requirements, provide safety, and allow a
reflectance level to minimize heat absorption as
practicable.
• Residential buildings will be designed to
accommodate ceiling fans.

Prior to the issuance of building permits for new
development projects within the project site, the project applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., building
plans, site plans) to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division to verify implementation of the applicable
design requirements specified in this mitigation measure.

Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City shall verify implementation of these design
requirements.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Section(s) Page(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions Incorporated into the Draft EIR
S.0, Executive Summary S-37

The Project, which includes roadway improvements, and features to encourage non-vehicular travel and use of transit, would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, and/or policy addressing the circulation system, including SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the 2006 or 2040 General Plans, and the MVMC resulting in a less than significant impact.

2.0, Environmental Setting 2-1
The area immediately north of the Project site has an “R5 Residential” land use designation in the existing City of Moreno Valley General Plan (2006 General Plan) and is zoned “Residential 5 (R5) District.”

3.0, Project Description 3-11 Linear Park +/- 1.3 1.4 AC.

4.1, Aesthetics 4.1-24
Future development implementing the proposed TCMV Specific Plan would adhere to the established Development Standards and Design Guidelines included in the TCMV Specific Plan and would not conflict with goals or policies outlined in the 2006 and 2040 General Plans or MVMC requirements that regulate scenic quality.

4.2, Agriculture and Forestry
Resources 4.2-7
This cumulative impact analysis for agricultural and forest land resources considers development of the Project site in conjunction with other development projects and planned development pursuant to the City’s 2006 or 2040 General Plans.

4.2, Agriculture and Forestry
Resources 4.2-7 The City does not contain any areas with 2006 or 2040 General Plan land use or zoning designations for agricultural uses.

4.4, Biological Resources 4.4-18
This cumulative impact analysis for biological resources considers development of the Project area in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project area as well as full 2006 and 2040 General Plan buildout in the City of Moreno Valley and other jurisdictions in the region within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.

4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.8-18
As identified, the Project would not conflict with the 2006 or 2040 General Plan goals and policies, or the Connect SoCal goals and growth projections.

4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4-8-20

4.8-21
MM 4.8-1 The project applicant shall design and build future non - residential development to meet/include the following:
• The project will utilize on -site renewable energy
sources such as solar, to reduce electrical demand as
per Division A5.211, Renewable Energy, of Appendix
A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, of the 2022
California Green Building Standards Code.
• The project will incorporate measures to reduce the
overall use of potable water within the building by
12% as per Division A5.3, Water Efficiency and
Conservation, as outlined under Section A5.303.2.3.1
of Appendix A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures,
o
f the 2022 California Green Building Standards
Code.
• The project will incorporate facilities to allow
charging of electric bikes and scooters in
appropriate locations within the Project site. A
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Section(s) Page(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions Incorporated into the Draft EIR
minimum of two charging spaces will be provided
on-site.
• Either 25% of the parking stalls in the
Commercial/Civic Area will be made-ready for EV
charging, or 20% of the 25% make -ready stalls
will be installed as a level 3 charger. All EV
chargers installed will be appropriately
maintained for use.
• Concrete sidewalks will be installed to meet City
requirements, provide safety, and allow a
reflectance level to minimize heat absorption as
practicable.
• Electric HVAC units with electric heat pumps will
be installed.

Prior to the issuance of building permits for new
development projects within the project site, the project applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., building
plans, site plans) to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division to verify implementation of the applicable
design requirements specified in this mitigation measure.

Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City shall verify implementation of these design
requirements.

MM 4.8-2 The project applicant shall design and build future residential development to meet/include the following:
• No wood-burning fireplaces shall be installed in any
of the dwelling units.
• No natural gas or propane will be installed in the
residential units. All buildings shall be electric, to the extent feasible, meaning that electricity is the primary source of energy for water heating; heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) within the
building, excluding pool heating.
• All major appliances provided/installed shall be
EnergyStar-certified or of equivalent energy
efficiency, where applicable.
• Level 2 electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)
with National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) 14- 50 outlets for each
residential unit.
• Solar installations on residential buildings to the
extent practicable, considering necessary roof
penetrations, design constraints, and solar/utility
provider guidelines and restrictions.
• Concrete sidewalks will be installed to meet City
requirements, provide safety, and allow a
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Section(s) Page(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions Incorporated into the Draft EIR
reflectance level to minimize heat absorption as
practicable.
• Residential buildings will be designed to
accommodate ceiling fans.

Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the project site, the project applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., building plans, site plans) to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Division to verify implementation of the applicable design requirements specified in this mitigation measure. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City shall verify implementation of these design requirements.

Section 4.15, Public Services
and Recreation 4.15-12
The proposed TCMV Specific Plan includes approximately 4.9 acres of designated park area, including an approximately 3.5- acre area to be centrally located and open to the public, and an approximately 1.3

1.4-acre linear park.

4.16, Transportation

4.16-36
The Project, which includes roadway improvements, and features to encourage non-vehicular travel and use of transit, would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, and/or policy addressing the circulation system, including SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the 2006 or 2040 General Plan s, and the MVMC resulting in a less than significant impact.

5.0, Other CEQA
Considerations 5-3
The 2006 and 2040 General Plan s and Moreno Valley zoning ordinance anticipate development of the Project site. Implementation of the Project would commit the Project site to a mixed -use development consisting of residential, commercial/civic, and park uses.

5.0, Other CEQA
Considerations 5-5
With respect to parks, the proposed TCMV Specific Plan includes approximately 4.8 4.9 acres of public open space area, including an approximately 3.5-acre area to be centrally located within the Project site and an approximately 1.3 1.4-acre linear park.

5.0, Other CEQA
Considerations 5-6
However, this type of growth is already anticipated in the City’s 2006 and 2040 General Plan s, and as identified on Figure 4.0- 1, Cumulative Projects Location Map , is already being proposed.

Therefore, implementation of residential and non - residential uses allowed by the proposed TCMV Specific Plan would support existing uses in the area, and could encourage or facilitate the growth envisioned in the 2006 and 2040 General Plans.

6.0, Alternatives 6-19
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would comply with City requirements and would not conflict with 2006 or 2040 General Plan policies related to transportation and circulation, including the construction of adjacent roadways and access improvements necessary to serve the Project, and the construction of improvements to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, and transit use.

6.0, Alternatives 6-28
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would comply with City requirements and would not conflict with 2006 or 2040 General Plan policies related to transportation and circulation, including construction of adjacent roadways and access improvements necessary to serve the Project, Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Section(s) Page(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions Incorporated into the Draft EIR
and construction of improvements to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, and transit use.

6.0, Alternatives 6-31
As with the Project, this Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to impacts on a scenic vista, and conflict with goals or policies outlined in the 2006 and 2040 General Plans or MVMC requirements that regulate scenic quality, and no impact related to degrading scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway.

6.0, Alternatives 6-36
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would comply with City requirements and would not conflict with 2006 or 2040 General Plan policies related to transportation and circulation, including construction of adjacent roadways and access improvements necessary to serve the Project, and construction of improvements to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, and transit use.

3.1 NO RECIRCULATION OF DRAFT EIR REQUIRED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 describes the conditions under which a draft EIR that was circulated for public review is required to be re -circulated for additional public review and comment.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a) states that “[ n]ew information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project 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. ‘Significant new information’ requiring recirculation include[s], for example, a disclosure showing that:

(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.”

Based on the comment letters received by the City of Moreno Valley and the responses thereto (presented in Section 2.0, above) and the minor revisions made to the Draft EIR (presented in Table 3- 1 above), there were no public comments or changes to the text or analysis presented in the Draft EIR that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental effect that were disclosed in the Draft EIR. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, two of the Project’s mitigation measures were altered (MM 4.8-1 and 4.8- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

2, as described in Table 3-1); however, the changes to the mitigation measures did not substantially alter the mitigation actions required of the Project Applicant or create new impacts. Additionally, the Draft EIR was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions within the D raft EIR were supported by evidence provided within the D raft EIR or the administrative record for the Project.

Furthermore, public comment letters on the Draft EIR did not identify any alternatives to the proposed Project which were considerably different from those analyzed in the D raft EIR that would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project while still attaining the Project’s basic objectives. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for use in ensuring the implementation of the required mitigation for the Town Center at Moreno Valley (TCMV) Specific Plan Project (Project). The MMRP has been prepared in compliance with State law and the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040417).

CEQA requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the Project or conditions of Project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (PRC Section 21081.6). The law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during Project implementation.

This MMRP includes mitigation measures (MMs) from the TCMV Specific Plan Final EIR.

4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND RESPONSIBILITIES
As the Lead Agency, the City of Moreno Valley (City) is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the Project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development throughout the Project site. In this regard, the responsibilities for implementation have been assigned to the Property Owner/Developer, Contractor, or a combination thereof.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

Table 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

4.1 AESTHETICS
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
site is not within a City-designated view corridor, and the Project does not involve any development within
or adjacent to any scenic resources that define a scenic vista. The public views available from Nason Street,
Alessandro Boulevard, and
Cottonwood Avenue
adjacent to the Project site would largely be retained, and the Project’s potential impacts to scenic views of
distant mountains and Moreno Peak would be less
than significant.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold b: No Impact. The Project site is not within
the viewshed of a State scenic highway; therefore, the
Project would not degrade scenic resources within a
State scenic highway. No impact would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. Future
development implementing the proposed TCMV
Specific Plan would adhere to the established
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
included in the TCMV Specific Plan and would not
conflict with goals or policies outlined in the General Plan or MV MC requirements that regulate scenic
quality. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold d: Potentially Significant Impact
(Construction)/Less than Significant Impact
(Operation). Construction-related lighting has the
potential to create substantial light, which could
adversely affect adjacent residential uses, resulting in a potentially significant temporary impact.

Future development implementing the proposed
TCMV Specific Plan would adhere to established
Development Standards and Design Guidelines and
MVMC requirements related to lighting and non -
reflective building materials and would not create a
new source of sub stantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Impacts would be less than significant.

MM 4.1-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
the Property Owner/Developer shall
provide evidence to the City that the
contractor specifications require that the
construction staging area be located as
far as possible from the existing
residential development surrounding
the Project site to minimize light
intrusion. Temporary nighttime lighting
installed during construction for
security or any other purpose shall be
downward-facing and hooded or
shielded to prevent light from spilling
outside the stagi ng area and from
directly broadcasting security light into
the sky or onto adjacent residential
properties. Compliance with this
Property
Owner/Developer
City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division
Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
measure shall be verified by the City
during inspections of the construction
site.

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Threshold a: No Impact. The Project site does not
contain Farmland (Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance) and
there are no agricultural activities onsite. The Project would not convert Farmland to non -agricultural uses
and no impact would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold b: No Impact. The City does not contain
areas zoned for agricultural uses and the Project site
does not contain land under a Williamson Act
Contract. The Project would not conflict with a
Williamson Act Contract or agricultural zoning and no
impact would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold c: No Impact. The City does not have a
forest land zone; therefore, the Project would not
conflict with any forest land zoning and no impact
would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold d: No Impact. There is no forest land within
the City; therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest uses and no impact would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold e: No Impact. The Project would not result
in any other changes that would result in the
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses or the
conversion of forest land to non -forest use and no
impact would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Threshold a: Significant Project and Cumulative
Impact. The Project could result in or cause NAAQS
or CAAQS violations because operational -source
emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD
regional thresholds for VOC, NOX, and CO. As such,
the Project is conservatively considered to have the
potential to conflict with the AQMP and a significant
impact would occur with respect to this threshold.

MM 4.3-2 Legible, durable, weather -proof signs
shall be placed at commercial loading
docks and truck parking areas that
identify applicable CARB anti- idling
regulations. At a minimum, each sign
shall include: 1) instructions for truck
drivers to shut off engines when not in
use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel
trucks to restrict idling to no more than
five (5) minutes
once the vehicle is
stopped, the transmission is set to
"neutral" or "park," and the parking
brake is engaged; and 3) telephone
numbers of the building facilities
manager and CARB to report
violations. Prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit, the Cit y shall
conduct a site inspection to ensure that
the signs are in place.

MM 4.3-3 Prior to the issuing of each building
permit, the Project proponent and its
contractors shall provide plans and
specifications to the City that
demonstrate that electrical service is
provided to each of the areas in the
vicinity of the buildings t hat are to be
landscaped in order that electrical
equipment may be used for landscape
maintenance.

MM 4.3-4 Once constructed, the Project
proponent shall ensure that all
commercial tenants shall utilize only
electric or natural gas pallet jacks and
forklifts in the loading areas.

MM 4.3-5 Upon occupancy and annually
thereafter, the operators of the
commercial space shall provide
information to all delivery truck
drivers, regarding:

Property Owner/
Developer

Property
Owner/Developer and
Project Contractor

Property
Owner/Developer and
Commercial tenants

City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division

Prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit.

Prior to issuance of each
building permit.

Prior to tenant
occupancy.

Upon occupancy and
thereafter.

Significant and
Unavoidable Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
• Building energy efficiency, solid
waste reduction, recycling, and water
conservation.
• Vehicle GHG emissions, electric
vehicle charging availability, and
alternate transportation opportunities
for commuting.
• Participation in the Voluntary
Interindustry Commerce Solutions
(VICS) “Empty Miles” program to
improve goods trucking efficiencies.
• Health effects of diesel particulates,
State regulations limiting truck idling
time, and the benefits of minimized
idling.
• The importance of minimizing traffic,
noise, and air pollutant impacts to any
residences in the Project vicinity.

MM 4.3-6 Prior to issuance of a building permit,
the Project proponent shall provide the
City with an on -
site signage program
that clearly identifies the required on -
site circulation system. This shall be
accomplished through posted signs and
painting on d riveways and internal
roadways.

Property Owner/
Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division

Prior to issuance of each
building permit.

Threshold b: Significant Project and Cumulative
Impact. Prior to mitigation, the Project would exceed
the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOC
during construction, and VOC, NO
X, and CO during
operation. Therefore, construction and operation of
the Project would contribute to existing violations of
the O3 standard (VOC and NOX are O3 precursors) and
would result in a significant cumulatively
considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for
which the Project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or State ambient air q uality
standard.

MM 4.3-1 The Project shall incorporate the
following mitigation measures to
reduce air pollutant emissions during
construction activities. These
identified measures shall be
incorporated into all appropriate
construction documents (e.g.,
construction management pla ns)
submitted to the City and shall be
verified by the City.
• Require fugitive -dust control
measures that exceed SCAQMD’s
Rule 403 requirements, such as:
o Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to
reduce wind erosion.

Property
Owner/Developer and
Project Contractor

City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit.

Construction: Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated.

Operations: Significant
and Unavoidable Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
o Apply water every four hours to
active soil-disturbing activities.
o Tarp and/or maintain a minimum
of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks
hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other
loose materials.
• Encourage the use of construction
equipment equal to or greater than 50
horsepower be electrically powered
or alternatively fueled. At a
minimum, use construction
equipment rated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency as
having Tier 4 Final (model year 2008
or newer) emission limits. Include
this requirement in applicable bid
documents, purchase orders, and
contracts.
• Ensure that construction equipment
is properly serviced and maintained
to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limit nonessential idling of
construction equipment to no more
than five consecutive minutes.
• Limit on-site vehicle travel speeds on
unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting
trucks or wash off all trucks and
equipment leaving the project area.
• Use Super -Compliant VOC paints
for coating of architectural surfaces
whenever possible. A list of Super -
Compliant architectural coating
manufacturers can be found on
SCAQMD’s website.

See MM 4.3 -2 through MM 4.3- 6 above for
operations.

Refer to Air Quality
Threshold “a”

Refer to Air Quality
Threshold “a”
Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. During
construction, the Project would not expose nearby
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations because the Project’s localized
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs and
impacts would be less than significant. Additionally,
No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
the Project does not propose uses that include
stationary sources or attract mobile sources that may
spend long periods of time queuing and idling at the
site; thus, no long-
term localized significance
threshold analysis is needed. Impacts would be less
than significant. Under long -term operating
conditions, the Project’s contributions to CO “Hot
Spots” would also be less than significant.

Threshold d: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would not produce air emissions that would lead to
unusual or substantial construction- related or
operational odors. The Project is required to comply
with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the
discharge of odorous emissions that would create a
public nuisance.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Threshold a: Potentially Significant Impact. No
sensitive plant species were detected within the
Project area and potential impacts to the San Diego
tarplant, a CRPR 4.2 species, would be less than
significant.

One special- status species (Cooper’s hawk) was
observed within the Project area during the biological
survey and has a low potential to nest in the trees
within the Project area. The Project area has suitable
foraging and nesting habitat for BUOW and roost ing
habitat for the western mastiff bat. Construction
activities also have the potential to result in indirect noise impacts to roosting western mastiff bats in trees near the Project area. If any of these species, active
nests, or roosts are present withi n the Project area
during construction, impacts to the biological
resources would be potentially significant.

MM 4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
the Property Owner/Developer shall
provide the City with proof of retention
of a qualified biologist to implement
this mitigation measure. If the removal
of any trees, shrubs, or any other
potential nestin g and foraging habitat
for avian species, including sensitive
species and raptor nests, is to be
conducted within the nesting season
(September 1 to February 14 for
songbirds; September 1 to January 14
for raptors), a nesting bird survey shall
be required within three days prior to
start of work. If active nests are
identified, the biologist will establish
appropriate buffers around the area
(typically 500 feet for raptors and
sensitive species, and 200 feet for non-
raptors/non-
sensitive species). All
work within these buffers will be halted
until the nesting effort is finished (i.e.,
the juveniles are surviving independent
from the nest). The on -
site biologist
will review and verify compliance with
Property
Owner/Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division

Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
these nesting boundaries and verify the
nesting effort has finished. Work can
resume within the buffer area when no
other active nests are found.

Alternatively, a qualified biologist may
determine that certain work can be
permitted within the buffer areas and
develop a monitoring plan to prevent
any impacts while the nest continues to
be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). If
vegetation clearing is not initiated
within 72 hours of a negative survey
during nesting season, the nesting
survey must be repeated to confirm the
absence of nesting birds. If vegetation
removal occurs outside of nesting
season or if no nesting birds are found,
no further action will be required.

MM 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
the Property Owner/Developer shall
provide the City with proof of retention
of a qualified biologist to implement
this mitigation measure. A pre -
construction presence/absence survey
for BUOW within the Pro ject area
where suitable habitat is present shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist
within 30 days prior to the
commencement of ground -disturbing
activities. If active BUOW burrows are
detected during the breeding season, all
work within an appropriate buffer
(typically a minimum of 300 feet) of
any active burrow will be halted. If
there is an active nest at the burrow,
work will not proceed within the buffer
until that nesting effort is finished. The
on-site biologist will review and verify
compliance with these boundaries and
will verify the nesting effort has
finished. Work can resume in the buffer
when there are no occupied/active

Property
Owner/Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division

Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
BUOW burrows found within the
buffer area.

If there are occupied burrows within the
buffer area and avoidance of burrowing
owls is not possible, no work shall
occur within the buffer area until the
appropriate course of action is
determined and implemented in
accordance with applicable regulations
related to burrowing owl at the time of
project construction. CDFW may
require an Incidental Take Permit (ITP)
or a Burrowing Owl Relocation and
Mitigation Plan, in accordance with
applicable regulations at the time of
project construction. If burrowing ow l
is no longer a candidate or listed species
under CESA at the time of project
construction, permits shall not be
required.

MM 4.4-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
the Property Owner/Developer shall
provide the City with proof of retention
of a qualified biologist to implement
this mitigation measure. Pre -
construction surveys shall be conducted
by a qualified bat biologist no more
than 30 days prior to the initiation of
vegetation removal and ground -
disturbing activities if within the
maternity season (March 1 to August
31). If no active roosts are present, then
trees shall be removed within two
weeks following the survey. If active
bat roosts are found, then then the
following shall be implemented, as
appropriate:

a. If active bat roosts are present, a
qualified bat biologist shall
determine the species of bats
present and the type of roost (i.e.,

Property
Owner/Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division

Prior to the issuance of
grading permits.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
day roost, night roost, maternity
roost). If the biologist determines
that the roosting bats are not a
special‐status species and the roost
is not being used as a maternity
roost and direct removal of active
roosts is required, then the bats
may be evicted from the roost by a
qualified bat biologist experienced
in developing and implementing
bat mitigation and exclusion plans.

If special -status bat species or a
maternity roost of any bat species
is present, but no direct removal of
active roosts will occur, a qualified
bat biologist shall determine
appropriate avoidance measures,
which may include implementation
of a construction -free buffer
around the active roost.
b. If special -status bat species or a
maternity roost of any bat species
is present and direct removal of
habitat (roost location) will occur,
then a qualified bat biologist
experienced in developing bat
mitigation and exclusion plans
shall develop a mitigation plan to
compensate for the lost roost site.

Removal of the roost shall only
occur when bats are not present in
the roost. The mitigation plan shall
detail the methods of excluding
bats from the roost and the plans
for a replacement roost in the
vicinity of the project site. The plan
shall include: (1) a description of
the species targeted for mitigation;
(2) a description of the existing
roost or roost sites; (3) methods to
be used to exclude the bats if
necessary; (4) methods to be used
to secure the existing roost site to
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
prevent its reuse prior to removal;
(5) the location for a replacement
roost structure; (6) design details
for the construction of the
replacement roost; (7) monitoring
protocols for assessing
replacement roost use; (8) a
schedule for excluding bats,
demolishing of the existing roost,
and construction of the
replacement roost; and (9)
contingency measures to be
implemented if the replacement
roosts do not function as designed.
c. All potential roost trees shall be
removed in a manner approved by
a qualified bat biologist, which
may include presence of a
biological monitor.
d. All construction activity in the
vicinity of an active maternity roost
shall be limited to daylight hours.
e. Results of the survey shall be
submitted to the City prior to
removal of the trees. If additional
measures are required under (a)
through (d), the submittal to the
City will include those additional
measures.

Threshold b: No Impact. The Project area does not
contain any riparian habitat, critical habitat, or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, the Project
would have no impacts to these biological resources.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold c: No Impact. The Project area does not
contain State - or federally -protected wetlands;
therefore, no impact would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold d: Potentially Significant Impact. The
Project would not interfere with the movement of fish
or impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site;
however, construction activities could result in
impacts to nesting avian species, which would be in
Mitigation measures MM 4.4 -1 through MM 4.4 -3
shall apply.

Refer to Biological
Resources Threshold a
Refer to Biological
Resources Threshold a
Refer to Biological
Resources Threshold a
Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
violation of the MBTA and CFGC and/or would result
in impacts to protected bat maternity roosts if
construction activities are to take place during nesting or maternity roosting season.

Threshold e: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would comply with MVMC Chapter 3.48 and Chapter

8.60, which require fee payments for the MSHCP and
protection of the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. In addition,
the Project would comply with MVMC Section

9.17.030(g), as applicable, with regards to tr ee
protection (compliance with this requirement is
ensured with implementation of MM 4.4- 4). The
Project would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources.

MM 4.4-4 Prior to any removal of trees potentially
regulated by the City of Moreno Valley
Municipal Code, a qualified arborist
shall conduct a tree survey in the area of
the Project site in which regulated trees
are proposed to be removed. Data to be
collected on a
ppropriate data forms
includes the exact location of the tree,
species, diameter at breast height, and
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. This information shall be
included in an arborist report to be
submitted to the City.

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
tree of the same species or a minimum
36-
inch box for a 1:1 replacement, in
locations approved by the City.

Property
Owner/Developer
City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division
Prior to removal of
regulated trees.

Less than Significant
Impact.

Threshold f: Potentially Significant Impact. The
Project area is subject to the Western Riverside
County MSHCP and its survey requirements for the
BUOW. Although the Project is compliant with all
applicable MSHCP provisions, and given the BUOW
was not observed during the biological survey or
focused surveys, the Project area has suitable habitat
for the species. If the species migrates within the
Project area and is present at the time the grading
permit is issued, impacts on BUOW would be
potentially significant.

Mitigation measures MM 4.4 -1 through MM 4.4 -3
shall apply.

Refer to Biological
Resources Threshold a
Refer to Biological
Resources Threshold a
Refer to Biological
Resources Threshold a
Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold a: No Impact. No historic resources as
defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 are
present within the Project area; therefore, no historic resources would be altered or destroyed by
construction or operation of the Project.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold b: Potentially Significant Direct and
Cumulatively Considerable Impact. No known
archaeological resources are present on the Project
site. Nonetheless, the potential exists for Project-
related construction activities to result in a direct and cumulatively considerable impact to significant
subsurface prehistoric archaeologica l resources
should such resources to be discovered during Project-
related construction activities.

MM 4.5-1 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 Archaeologist, in
consultation with the Consulting
Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City,
shall develop a Cultural Resources
Management Plan (CRMP) in
consultation pursuant to the definition in
AB 52 to address the details, timing, and
responsibility of all archaeological and
cultural activities that will occur on the
Project site. A Consulting Tribe is
defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52
tribal consultation process for the
Project, has not opted out of the AB 52
consultation process, and has completed
AB 52 consultation with the City as
provided for in California Public
Resources Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1)
of AB 52. Detail s in the Plan shall
include:
a. Project grading and development
scheduling;
b. The Project Archeologist and the
Consulting Tribes(s) as defined
above shall attend the pre- grading
meeting with the City, the
construction manager, and any
contractors, and will conduct a
Project Developer and
Project Archaeologist

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.

Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
mandatory Cultural Resources
Worker Sensitivity Training for
those in attendance. The Training
will include a brief review of the
cultural sensitivity of the Project and
the surrounding area; what
resources could potentially be
identified during earthmovin g
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 a nd the Project
Archaeologist and Consulting
Tribe(s) shall make themselves
available to provide the training on
an as needed basis;
c. The protocols and stipulations that
the contractor, City, Consulting
Tribe(s), and Project archaeologist
shall follow in the event of
inadvertent cultural resources
discoveries, including any newly
discovered cultural resource
deposits that shall be sub ject to a
cultural resources evaluation.

MM 4.5-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the Developer shall secure an
agreement with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseño Indians regarding monitoring
during ground-disturbing activities. The
Developer is also required to provide a
minimum of 30 days’ advance notice to

Project Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
the tribe of all mass grading and
trenching activities. The Native
American Tribal Representative shall
have the authority to temporarily halt
and redirect earth -moving activities in
the affected area in the event that
suspected archaeological resources ar e
unearthed. If the Native American
Tribal Representative suspects that an
archaeological resource may have been
unearthed, the Project Archaeologist or
the Tribal Representative shall
immediately redirect grading operations
in a 100 -foot radius around the find to
allow identification and evaluation of
the suspected resource. In consultation
with the Native American Tribal
Representative, the Project
Archaeologist shall evaluate the
suspected resource and make a
determination of significance pursuant
to California Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2.

MM 4.5-3 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 final disposition
of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following
treatments, in order of preference,
shall be employed with the tribes.

Evidence of such shall be provided
to the City of Moreno Valley
Planning Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the
cultural resources, if feasible.

Preservation in place means
avoiding the resources, leaving
them in the place they were
found with no development

Project Developer and
Project Archaeologist

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

If Native American
cultural resources are
discovered during
grading

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
affecting the integrity of the
resources.
ii. On-site reburial of the
discovered items as detailed in
the treatment plan required
pursuant to Mitigation Measure
(MM) 4.5 -1. This shall include
measures and provisions to
protect the future reburial area
from any future impacts in
perpetuity. Reburial shall not
occur until all legally required
cataloging and basic recordation
have been completed. No
recordation of sacred items is
permitted without the written
consent of all Consulting Native
American Tribal Gov ernments
as defined in MM 4.5-1.

MM 4.5-4 The City shall verify that the following
note is included on the Grading Plan:

If any suspected archaeological
resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities and the
Project Archaeologist or Native
American Tribal Representative 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 Representative to the site to
assess the significance of the find.

MM 4.5-5 If potential historic or cultural
resources are uncovered during
excavation or construction activities at
the project site, work in the affected
area must cease immediately and a
qualified person meeting the Secretary
of the Interior’s standards (36 CFR 61),
Tribal Representatives, and all site
monitors per the Mitigation Measures,
shall be consulted by the City to

Project Developer and
Project Archaeologist

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Prior to issuance of
grading permit and if
any suspected
archaeological resources
are discovered during
ground-disturbing
activities

If potential historic or
cultural resources are
uncovered during
excavation or
construction activities
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
evaluate the find, and as appropriate
recommend alternative measures to
avoid, minimize or mitigate negative
effects on the historic, or prehistoric
resource. Determinations and
recommendations by the consultant
shall be immediately submitted to the
Planning Division for consideration
and implemented as deemed
appropriate by the Community
Development Director and any and all
Consulting Native American Tribes as
defined in MM 4.5-1 before any further
work commences in the affected area.

Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. In the
unlikely event that human remains are discovered
during Project grading or other ground- disturbing
activities, the Project would be required to comply
with the applicable provisions of California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section
5097 et seq. Mandatory compliance with State law
would ensure that human remains, if encountered, are
appropriately treated and would preclude the potential
for significant impacts to human remains.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

4.6 ENERGY
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The
amount of energy and fuel consumed by construction
and operation of the Project would not be inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary. Furthermore, the Project
would not cause or result in the need for additional
energy facilities or energy facilities or energy delivery systems.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would not cause or result in the need for additional
energy production or transmission facilities, the
Project would not conflict with or obstruct the
achievement of energy conservation goals identified
in State and local plans for renewable e nergy and
energy efficiency.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact.

Implementation of the Project would not expose
people or structures to substantial direct or indirect
adverse effects related to fault rupture. The Project site is subject to seismic ground shaking associated with
earthquakes and has a low to moderate susceptibility
to liquefaction; however, mandatory compliance with
local and State regulatory req uirements and building
codes, and adherence to recommendations from site -
specific geotechnical report(s) (via conditions of
approval), would ensure that the Project minimizes
potential hazards related to seismic ground shaking
and seismic- related ground fa ilure, including
liquefaction, to less than significant levels.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact.

Implementation of the Project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Construction activities would be conducted in compliance with
regulations addressing erosion during construction
(e.g., NPDES permit and preparation of a SWPPP) ,
and preparation of an erosion control plan is required
to minimize water and wind erosion. Following
completion of development, implementation of a
WQMP during operation is required (via conditions of
approval), which would preclude substantial long -
term erosion impacts.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. There is no
potential for the Project’s construction or operation to cause, or be impacted by, on - or off-
site landslides.

Potential hazards associated with unstable soils would
be precluded through mandatory adherence (via
conditions of approval) to the recommendations
contained in the site -specific geotechnical report(s)
during Project construction.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold d: No Impact. The Project site does not
contain expansive soils. As such, the Project is not
located on a geologic unit with a high expansion
potential.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold e: No Impact. The Project does not propose
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal system.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold f: Potentially Significant Impact. The
Project site contains sediment deposits with a
sensitivity for paleontological resources. Accordingly, construction activities on the Project site have the
potential to unearth and adversely impact
paleontological resource that may be buried beneath
the ground surface.

MM 4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits
and/or action that would permit Project
site disturbance, the Project Applicant
shall provide written evidence to the
City of Moreno Valley that the Project
Applicant has retained a qualified
Paleontologist to observe grading
activities into the paleontologically
sensitive fluvial fan deposits and to
conduct salvage excavation of
paleontological resources as necessary.

Sediment samples should also be
recovered to determine the small-fossil
potential of the site. The Paleontologist
shall be present at the pre -grading
conference; shall establish procedures
and a schedule for paleontological
resources surveillance; and shall
establish, in cooperation with the City,
procedures for temporarily halting or
redirecting work to permit the
sampling, identification, and evaluation
of the fossils as appropriate. These
actions, as well as final mitigation and
disposition of the resources, shall be
subject to the approval of the City of
Moreno Valley.

The Project Paleontologist shall
prepare a final paleontological resource
monitoring and mitigation report of
findings and significance, including
lists of all fossils recovered and
necessary maps and graphics to
accurately record their original
location(s). All recovered fossils will
be offered for curation in perpetuity to
the Western Science Center in Hemet,
the principal fossils repository in
Riverside County. A letter
documenting receipt and acceptance of
all fossil collections by the receiving
institution must be included in the final
report. The report, when submitted to
Property
Owner/Developer and
Project Paleontologist
City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit and/or
action that would permit
site disturbance.

Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
(and accepted by) the City of Moreno
Valley, shall signify satisfactory
completion of the project program to
mitigate impacts to any nonrenewable
paleontological resources.

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Threshold a: Cumulatively Considerable Impact. The
Project would exceed the SCAQMD significance
threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e/yr. As such the Project
would generate substantial, cumulatively -
considerable GHG emissions that may have a
significant impact on the environment.

MM 4.8-1 The project applicant shall design and
build future non -residential
development to meet/include the
following:
• The project will utilize on -site
renewable energy sources such as
solar, to reduce electrical demand
as per Division A5.211, Renewable
Energy, of Appendix A5,
Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures, of the 2022 California
Green Building Standards Code.
• The project will incorporate
measures to reduce the overall use
of potable water within the building
by 12% as per Division A5.3, Water
Efficiency and Conservation, as
outlined under Section
A5.303.2.3.1 of Appendix A5,
Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures, o f the 2022 California
Green Building Standards Code.
• The project will incorporate
facilities to allow charging of
electric bikes and scooters in
appropriate locations within the
Project site. A minimum of two
charging spaces will be provided
on-site.
• Either 25% of the parking stalls in
the Commercial/Civic Area will be
made-ready for EV charging, or
20% of the 25% make -ready stalls
will be installed as a level 3 charger.

Property
Owner/Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Significant and
Unavoidable Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
All EV chargers installed will be
appropriately maintained for use.
• Concrete sidewalks will be
installed to meet City requirements,
provide safety, and allow a
reflectance level to minimize heat
absorption as practicable.
• Electric HVAC units with electric
heat pumps will be installed.

Prior to the issuance of building permits
for new development projects within
the project site, the project applicant
shall provide documentation (e.g.,
building plans, site plans) to the City of
Moreno Valley Planning Division to
verify implementation of the applicable
design requirements specified in this
mitigation measure. Prior to the
issuance of the certificate of
occupancy, the City shall verify
implementation of these design
requirements.

All buildings shall be electric,
meaning that electricity is the
primary source of energy for
water heating; heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) within the building,
excluding pool heating.
• All major appliances
provided/installed shall be
EnergyStar-certified or of

Property
Owner/Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
equivalent energy efficiency,
where applicable.
• Level 2 electric vehicle supply
equipment (EVSE) with
National Electrical
Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) 14-50 outlets for each
residential unit.
• Solar installations on residential
buildings to the extent
practicable, considering
necessary roof penetrations,
design constraints, and
solar/utility provider guidelines
and restrictions.
• Concrete sidewalks will be
installed to meet City
requirements, provide safety,
and allow a reflectance level to
minimize heat absorption as
practicable.
• Residential buildings will be
designed to accommodate
ceiling fans.

Prior to the issuance of building permits
for new development projects within
the project site, the project applicant
shall provide documentation (e.g.,
building plans, site plans) to the City of
Moreno Valley Planning Division to
verify implementation of the applicable
design requirements specified in this
mitigation measure. Prior to the
issuance of the certificate of
occupancy, the City shall verify
implementation of these design
requirements.

MM 4.8-3 Exterior electric receptacles on non -
residential buildings shall be provided
for charging or powering electric
landscaping equipment.

Property
Owner/Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

MM 4.8-4 The Project shall use light- color
roofing and building materials to
minimize the heat island effect and
reduce lighting, heating, and cooling
needs.

Mitigation measures MM 4.3 -2 through MM 4.3- 6
shall also apply.

Property
Owner/Developer

Refer to Air Quality
Threshold a

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Refer to Air Quality
Threshold a

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Refer to Air Quality
Threshold a
Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would be consistent with or otherwise would not
conflict with applicable regulations, policies, plans,
and goals that would further reduce GHG emissions.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Thresholds a and b: Less than Significant Impact. The
Project site does not contain any RECs. During Project
construction and operation, mandatory compliance
with federal, State, and local regulations would ensure that the Project would not create a significant hazard
to the environment due to routine transport, use,
disposal, or upset of hazardou s substances or
materials. Additionally, due to the nature of the
Project, routinely used hazardous materials would not
be of the type or occur in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
site is located within one -quarter mile of existing
schools; however, there would be no hazardous
emissions, and the handling of hazardous materials,
substances, or waste would not involve the type or
quantity that would pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with federal,
State, and local regulations to ensure that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or
environment.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold d: No Impact. The Project site is not
identified on any list of hazardous materials sites
complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold e: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
site is located more than two miles northeast of
MARB/IP Airport and is not within the AIA.

Additionally, the Project does not involve any
construction or operations that require FAA
notification pursuant to FAR Part 77. As such, the
Project would not result in an airport safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold f: No Impact. The Project site does not
contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as
an emergency evacuation route. During construction
and long-term operation, adequate emergency vehicle
access is required to be provided. The Project would
involve the constr uction of new roadways, which
would improve local access. Accordingly,
implementation of the Project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan.

No mitigation is required NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold g: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
site does not contain wildlands and is not within a
VHFHSZ; the nearest VHFHSZ is approximately 0.4-
mile from the Project site. The Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant wildfire
risk.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality. Adherence to
a SWPPP and site-specific WQMPs is required as part
of the Project’s implementation
to address
construction- and operational-related water quality.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would not physically impact any groundwater
recharge facilities. The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
Project would impede sustainable groundwater
management of the Groundwater Basin.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would increase stormwater runoff from the Project
site, which would be discharged to the public storm
drain system. The Project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern or site or area and would be
required to comply with applicable water quality
regulatory requirements to minimize erosion and
siltation. Additionally, the Project would not result in flooding onsite or offsite or impede/redirect flood
flows. Lastly, the Project would not create or
contribute to increased flooding risks due to
insufficient capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or and would not
provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold d: No Impact. The Project site would not be
subject to inundation from tsunamis, seiches, or
hazards.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold e: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation
of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

4.11 LAND USE PLANNING
Threshold a: No Impact. The Project would involve
development of the currently vacant Project site with
residential, commercial/civic, and park uses, on a
vacant site planned for development. The Project
would not obstruct access to and from the existing
neighborhoods, and would improve connectivity with
implementation of proposed roadway improvements.

The implementation of the Project would not
physically divide an established community and no
impact would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact.

Implementation of the Project would not conflict with
the City’s existing 2006 General Plan or proposed
2040 General Plan, which the City is in the process of
readopting; MVMC; or SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024,
and specifically would not conflict with applicable
environmental plans, policies, and regulations adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
environmental effect. This impact would be less than
significant.

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Threshold a: No Impact. The Project site does not have
any known mineral resources that would be of value
to the region or residents of the State. Accordingly,
with implementation of the Project, there would be no
impact on known mineral resources.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold b: No Impact. The Project site is not within
a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the
Project would not 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. No impact would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

4.13 NOISE
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. During
construction and operation (onsite noise sources and
off-site traffic noise) the Project would not generate
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. Therefore, this impact is less than
significant.

Conditions of Approval (COAs) are required to ensure
that the City’s noise standards for the proposed uses
are met.

No mitigation is required; however, the following
COAs would be implemented.

COA 4.13-1 Six-foot-high noise barriers shall be
constructed for the private yards of
single-family residential land use and
outdoor common areas for multi -
family residential land use represented
by the on -site receiver locations ON1,
ON2, and ON7 on EIR F igure 4.13-5,
Onsite Receiver Locations and
Recommended Noise Abatement
Measures. The noise control barriers
shall be constructed so that the top of
each wall extends to the recommended
height above the pad elevation of the
lot it is shielding. When the ro
ad is
elevated above the pad elevation, the
barrier shall extend to the
recommended height above the highest
point between the residential home and
the road. The barrier shall provide a
weight of at least 4 pounds per square
foot of face area with no decor ative
cutouts or line -of-
sight openings
between shielded areas and the

Property
Owner/Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division

During Construction

Less than Significant
Impact
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
roadways, or a minimum transmission
loss of 20 dBA. The barrier must
present a solid face from top to bottom.

Unnecessary openings or decorative
cutouts shall not be made. All gaps
(except for weep holes) should be filled
with grout or caulking.

COA 4.13-2 To satisfy the State of California’s 45
dBA CNEL noise insulation standards,
all residential land uses adjacent to
Cottonwood Avenue, Nason Street,
and Alessandro Boulevard shall require
a windows -
closed condition and a
means of mechanical ventilation (e.g .,
air conditioning). Upgraded windows
with minimum STC rating of 30 are
required for the single -family
residential land uses located west of
Nason Street represented by the on-site
receiver location ON2. With the
following noise abatement measures,
the on-site interior traffic noise levels
would satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL
interior noise requirements.

Windows/Sliding Glass Doors : All
residential units require windows and
sliding glass doors that have well -
fitted, well- weather-stripped
assemblies, and the following sound
transmission class (STC) ratings:

1. Single-family residential land
uses located west of Nason Street
represented by the on -site
receiver location ON2 require
upgraded windows and sliding
glass doors with minimum STC
ratings of 30 (all windows/glass
doors, all floors);

2. All other residential lots require
windows and sliding glass doors
with minimum sound

Property
Owner/Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
transmission class (STC) ratings
of 27.

Exterior Doors (Non -Glass): All
exterior doors shall be well weather -
stripped and have well-sealed
perimeter gaps around the doors to
achieve the STC ratings recommended
below:

1. Single-family residential land
uses located west of Nason Street
represented by the on -site
receiver location ON2 require
upgraded doors with minimum
STC ratings of 30 (all floors);

2. All other residential lots require
doors with minimum sound
transmission class (STC) ratings
of 27.

Exterior Walls: At any penetrations of
exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or
conduits, the space between the wall
and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be
caulked or filled with mortar to form an
airtight seal.

Roof: Roof sheathing of wood
construction shall be per
manufacturer’s specification or
caulked plywood of at least one -half
inch thick. Ceilings shall be per
manufacturer’s specification or well -
sealed gypsum board of at least one -
half inch thick. Insulation with at least
a rating of R -19 shall be used in the
attic space.

Ventilation: Consistent with MVMC
Section 9.03.040(F)(3), in all
residential districts, air conditioners,
heating, cooling and ventilating
equipment and all other mechanical,
lighting or electrical devices shall be
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
operated so that noise levels do not
exceed 60 dBA (Ldn) at the property
line. Additionally, such equipment,
including roof -mounted installation,
shall be screened from surrounding
properties and streets and shall not be
located in the required front yard or
street side yard. All equipment shall be
installed and operated in accordance
with other applicable city ordinances.

Future Noise Studies : Final noise
studies shall be prepared for the future
noise-sensitive residential uses prior to
issuance of building permits. Each
noise study shall finalize the noise
attenuation measures described in the
Town Center at Moreno Valley Noise
Analysis using the precise grading
plans and actual building design
specifications, and may include
additional mitigation, if necessary, to
meet the interior noise level standards
for residential land uses. These noise
studies would utilize any
recommendations identified in this
study and use the precise grading plans
and actual building design
specifications to identify any
additional noise abatement measures,
such as exterior noise barriers and/or
building materials (e.g., sound
transmission class ratings for windows
and doors), if necessary, based on the
site-specific noise impacts within these
planning areas.

Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact. The
Project’s construction and operational activities would not result in a perceptible groundborne vibration or
noise. This impact is less than significant.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
site is not within an area exposed to high levels of
noise from the MARB/IP Airport. As such, the Project
No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
would not expose people to excessive noise levels
associated with a public airport or public use airport.

This impact is less than significant.

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would include the development of residential,
commercial/civic, and park uses, and associated
roadways and utility infrastructure that would be used
to accommodate the proposed development. The
estimated 800 units (3,080 residents) and 421 new
employment opportunities resulting from
implementation of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan
would not directly or indirectly induce substantial
unplanned population growth. Impacts would be less
than significant.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold b: No Impact. The Project site is
undeveloped and implementation of the proposed
TCMV Specific Plan would not displace a substantial
number of existing people or housing. No impacts
would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The
proposed TCMV Specific Plan would generate new
residents and employees at the Project site, which is
currently undeveloped, and would increase the
demand for public services compared to existing
conditions. With payment of mandatory DIFs
pursuant to MVMC Title 3, payment of school impact
fees, and adherence to requirements for the provision
of parkland, the Project’s potential impacts related to public services and facilities would be less than
significant and the Project would not result in or
require the construction of new or physically altered
facilities. No physical impacts would occur and
Project impacts related to fire, police, school, park and other public facilities would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold b: Less Than Significant Impact. The total
parkland demand for the Project (approximately 8.9
acres) would be accommodated by the park and
recreational facilities anticipated by the proposed
TCMV Specific Plan, and through mandatory
No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
compliance with the MVMC Chapter 3.40 of the
MVMC, which requires the payment of park in- lieu
fees in the event a project does not provide adequate
parkland onsite. With adherence to requirements for
the provision of parkland or payment of in -lieu fees,
and payment of the required DIFs for park and
community/recreation center facilities, which ensure
that adequate park and recreational facilities are
provided to serve Project residents, the Project would
not result in the substantial physical deterioration or accelerate the deterioration of existing parks or
recreational facilities and impacts would be less than
significant.

Threshold c: Less Than Significant Impact. The
proposed TCMV Specific Plan anticipates the
development of park and recreational uses, and the
physical impacts resulting from construction and
operational of these uses is evaluated for each
environmental topic in this EIR. No additional
physical impacts would result and this impact would
be less than significant.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

4.16 TRANSPORTATION
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The
Project, which includes roadway improvements, and
features to encourage non-vehicular travel and use of
transit, would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, and/or policy addressing the circulation
system, including SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the
General Plan, and the MVMC resulting in a less than
significant impact.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact. The
Project’s proposed commercial/civic uses meet the
Project Type Screening for VMT, and the Project’s
proposed residential uses would not exceed the City’s
per capita VMT threshold for the base year and the
cumulative year. Therefore, VMT impacts would be
less than significant.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would not introduce traffic safety hazards through
Project design features or incompatible uses resulting
in a less than significant impact.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold d: Less than Significant Impact. Adequate
emergency access would be provided to the Project
site during construction and long -term operation and
this impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

4.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold a.i: No Impact. The Project site does not
contain any known tribal cultural resources listed or
eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register of historical resources. Therefore, no impact would
result.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold a.ii: Significant Direct and Cumulatively -
Considerable Impact. The Project site does not contain
known tribal cultural resource sites; therefore, the
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

Nonetheless, because the Project site is within a
Native America n traditional use area, the Project
construction activities have the potential to unearth
and adversely impact tribal cultural resources that may be buried at the Project site.

Refer to MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-5 under Cultural
Resources.

Refer to Cultural
Resources Threshold a
Refer to Cultural
Resources Threshold a
Refer to Cultural
Resources Threshold a
Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation.

4.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The
physical environmental effects associated with
installing the Project’s water, wastewater, stormwater
drainage, natural gas, electric power, and
telecommunications infrastructure is evaluated
throughout this EIR and no significant impacts
specific to the provision of utilities services have been identified.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact. EMWD
would have sufficient water supplies to service the
Project. The Project would not exceed the EMWD’s
available supply of water during normal years, single-
dry years, or multiple-dry years.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. EMWD
would provide wastewater treatment services to the
Project via the MVRWRF, which would have
adequate capacity to service the Project and no new or
expanded facilities would be needed.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Page 4 ends

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold d: Less than Significant Impact. There is
adequate capacity available at the Badlands Landfill,
El Sobrante Landfill, and Lamb Canyon Landfill to
accept the Project’s solid waste during both
construction and long- term operation. The Project
would not generate solid waste in excess of Sta te or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure to handle the solid waste.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold e: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would comply all applicable statutes and regulations
related to the management and reduction of solid
waste and pertaining to waste disposal, reduction, and
recycling.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.

4.19 WILDFIRE
Thresholds a, b, c, and d: No Impact. The Project site
is not within or near an SRA or a VHFHSZ. Therefore,
the Project would not expose people or structures to
wildfire hazards, impair emergency plans, or
exacerbate the spread of wildfires. No impact would
occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Moreno Valley City CouncilJune 3, 2025

Moreno Valley City Council
June 3, 2025