Moreno Valley City Council
June 3, 2025

Exhibit B
Final Environmental Impact Report with Appendices and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2022040417
Town Center at Moreno Valley
Specific Plan Project
PEN21-0334, PEN21-0335,
PEN22-0077, and PEN25-0007
Lead Agency:

City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92552
May 2025
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2022040417

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
City of Moreno Valley, California

Lead Agency
City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92552

CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602

Project Applicant
Lewis Acquisition Company, LLC
1156 North Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91785

Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
General Plan Amendment (PEN25-0007)
Change of Zone (PEN21-0335)
TCMV Specific Plan (PEN21-0334)
Tentative Tract Map No. 38421 (PEN22-0077)

May 2025
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Page

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Content of this Final EIR .......................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Public Review of Draft EIR ...................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 Responses to Draft EIR Comments ..................................................................... 2-1

2.1 List of Draft EIR Commenters .................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 CEQA Requirements ................................................................................................ 2-1

3.0 Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions ................................................................. 3-1

3.1 No Recirculation of Draft EIR Required .................................................................. 3-6

4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................................................. 4-1

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Responsibilities ............................................................. 4-1

LIST OF TABLES
Table Number and Title Page
Table 2-1 Public Agencies and Organizations that Commented on the Draft EIR ................. 2-1 Table 3-1 Errata Table of Clarifications and Revisions to the Draft EIR ............................... 3-1 Table 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...................................................... 4-2

FINAL EIR APPENDICES
Appendix A Construction Health Risk Assessment
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 CONTENT OF THIS FINAL EIR
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Town Center at Moreno Valley (TCMV) Specific Plan Project (Project) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the final EIR shall consist of:
a. The draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
b. Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR. d. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
e. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The purpose of the Final EIR is to respond to all comments received by the City of Moreno Valley, the CEQA lead agency, regarding the environmental information and analyses contained in the Draft EIR.

Additionally, any clarifications/revisions to the Draft EIR generated from responses to comments are stated in this Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR, as modified per the clarifications and revisions presented in Section 3.0 of this document.

In addition to the Final EIR (including supporting technical appendices), the City of Moreno Valley will also consider adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) (included as Section 4.0 of this document), a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, staff reports, and Resolutions as part of the approval process for the proposed Project.

This Final EIR document was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the City of Moreno Valley.

1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, a Notice of Completion (NOC) and a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR for the Project was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH) on the SCH CEQAnet web portal on February 14, 2025, and the NOA of the Draft EIR was also filed with the Riverside County Clerk. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from February 14, 2025, to April 10, 2025. The NOA was sent to responsible agencies and other interested agencies and parties on February 14, 2025, and was also posted in the Press Enterprise (the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project) on February 14, 2025. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review in person at City Hall, located at 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley and on the City’s website at http://www.moreno-valley.ca.us/cdd/documents/about-projects.html. ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

2.0 RESPONSES TO DRAFT EIR COMMENTS

2.1 LIST OF DRAFT EIR COMMENTERS
The City of Moreno Valley received seven comment letters/emails in response to the Draft EIR. A list of the agencies and organizations that submitted comments on the D raft EIR is presented in Table 2 - 1, Public Agencies and Organizations that Commented on the Draft EIR.

Table 2-1 Public Agencies and Organizations that Commented on the Draft EIR Comment
Letter/Email Commenting Party Date
A California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 2/24/2025 B Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC) 2/27/2025 C Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) 3/13/2025
D City of Riverside, Community & Economic Development Department 4/10/2025 E Sierra Club, Moreno Valley/Box Springs Group (Letter) 4/10/2025 F Sierra Club, Moreno Valley/Box Springs Group (Email) 4/10/2025 G Mitchell M. Tsai Law Firm (on behalf of Western States Regional Council of Carpenters) 4/10/2025

2.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires the Lead Agency to evaluate comments received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the Draft EIR and to provide written responses with good faith and reasoned analysis to comments that relate to significant environmental issues. Comments that address environmental concerns have been thoroughly addressed.

Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:

a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.
b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report.
c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.
d) The responses to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the responses to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either:

1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or

2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to comments.

Copies of each of the seven comment letters /emails referenced in Table 2 -1 are provided on the following pages, followed by responses to each individual comment.

Revisions to the Draft EIR have been prepared to make minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received during the public review period (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this document). Therefore, this Response to Comments section, along with the Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions and MMRP, are included as part of this Final EIR along with the Draft EIR for consideration by the City of Moreno Valley prior to a vote to certify the Final EIR.

■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Comment Letter A

dtsc.ca.gov

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
February 24, 2025
Emily Elliott, AICP
Contract Planner
City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
[email protected]
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TOWN CENTER AT MORENO VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2025, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2022040417
Dear Emily Elliott,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Project (Project). The Project includes:
• Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, • A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for the Project Site from Public Facilities to Residential, Open Space, and Commercial to allow a mixed-use development with residential, commercial, park, and civic uses,
• A Specific Plan involving a mixed-use development consisting of residential, commercial/civic, and open spaces uses, and,
• A Tentative Tract Map involving a subdivision of the Project Site into six residential-use lots, one commercial-use lot, two open space lots, and associated dedicated areas for necessary infrastructure.

A-1
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Emily Elliott, AICP
February 24, 2025

DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. When agricultural crops and/or land uses are proposed or rezoned for residential use, a number of contaminants of concern (COCs) can be present.

The Lead Agency shall identify the amounts of Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If present, OCPs requiring further analysis are dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin. Additionally, any level of arsenic present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet HHRA NOTE NUMBER 3, DTSC-SLs approved local area baselines or thresholds. If they do not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds.

Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed. If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required.

2. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual.

Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.

DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic A-4 A-2
A-3
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Emily Elliott, AICP
February 24, 2025

substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via our CEQA Review email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,

Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
A-4
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER A:

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
A-1 This comment makes introductory remarks and summarizes the proposed discretionary actions associated with the Project. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

A-2 This comment indicates that contaminants of concern (COCs) may be present on land that has been used for agricultural crops or designated for agricultural land uses and that if these lands are proposed or rezoned for residential use, the Lead Agency must identify the presence and amount of the agriculturally related COCs on these properties and ensure that proper remediation activities are completed. As identified in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Agriculture, there are no existing agricultural activities on the Project site and the last known agricultural activity on the Project site occurred in the late 1960s. As identified in EIR Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, a Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was conducted to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical RECs (HRECs), or controlled RECs (CRECs) in connection to the Project site. The presence of undocumented soil stockpiles on site and the former agricultural use of the Project site constitute potential RECs; therefore, further investigation was completed. A Limited Phase II Investigation was completed to assess the potential for residual agricultural chemicals related to former agricultural usage at the Project site, and for certain potential compounds in the stockpiled soils. The results of the Limited Phase II Investigation are presented in Section 7.0 of the Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA included in Draft EIR Technical Appendix H. As summarized in EIR Section 4.9, soil samples were collected at 18 locations across the formerly agricultural portions of the Project site and at 10 locations in the undocumented soil stockpiles. The results of the soil sampling did not identify concentrations of Title 22 metals, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), or PCBs at concentrations exceeding the US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential land use or the California Department of Toxic Substanc es Control (D TSC)-Modified Screening Levels for residential land use, with the exception of arsenic. Arsenic was detected at a maximum concentration of

2.73 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). This concentration is well below the DTSC Human Health Risk Assessment ( HHRA) Note 11 ambient arsenic screening level of 12 mg/kg. All reported arsenic concentrations are acceptable for residential property usage. Therefore, as identified in the Draft EIR, the historical agricultural use of the Project site and stockpiled soils do not represent a REC; thus, no human health risk is present, and implementation of the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No further action or remediation is required. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

A-3 This comment provide s recommendations regarding assessment of imported soil and fill materials for COCs. As identified in Draft EIR Section 3.5, Project Construction Characteristics, the earthwork required for the Project would balance onsite and there would be no need for import of soils. Therefore, no additional COC assessment for imported soil and/or fill materials is required. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required. ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

A-4 This comment provides concluding remarks. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Comment Letter B
From: Vega, Jaqueline <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 9:38 AM
To: Vicente, Roxanna <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Notices_DG <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mail Transmittal Scan 2-26-25 PEN21-0336
Warning: External Email – Watch for Email Red Flags!
Hello,
the site is located outside the AIA, and review by the ALUC is not required.

From: Vicente, Roxanna <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 1:06 PM
To: Vega, Jaqueline <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Mail Transmittal Scan 2-26-25 PEN21-0336
Hi Jackie,
Please see the attached transmittal for your review, thank you.

Regards,
Roxanna Vicente
Executive Assistant II – TLMA ALUC

Confidentiality Disclaimer
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the author's intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author immediately.

County of Riverside California

B-1
■■
■□
Riverside County Airport Land Use Comm ission
4080 Lemon Street 14th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 955-5132
[email protected]
www.rcaluc.org
J
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER B:

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC)
B-1 This comment states that the Project is outside the airport influence area (AIA) and review of the Project by the RCALUC is not required. This is consistent with the information included in Draft EIR Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, which identified that the Project site is located outside the MARB/IP AIA and therefore not subject to review by the RCALUC.

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

■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Comment Letter C
C-3
C-1
C-2
■■
■□
March 13, 2025
Emily Elliott, AICP
Contract Planner
City of Moreno Valley, Community Development Dept.
14177 Frederick St.

Moreno Valley, CA 92553
Subject: Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Project - Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022040417)
Dear Ms. Elliott:

Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) appreciates the opportunity to review the Notice of Availability for the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report.

EMWD requests that the Draft EIR identify and evaluate the Project's proposed water demands, wastewater generation/discharge, potential recycled water use, and determine if the remaining available capacity in the existing EMWD facilities can adequately serve this Project. EMWD requests the Draft EIR identify and analyze facility improvements needed for this Project if existing EMWD facilities do not have adequate capacity to serve the project or cumulative development . To help in this effort, EMWD can assist the Lead Agency/project proponent to identify EMWD's Design Conditions (DC), formerly known as the Plan of Service (POS), to determine conditions and required facilities . The Draft EIR should identify any needed District facilities as part of the Proposed Project, and evaluate impacts associated with construction/ operation of these project features.

J
EMWD requests the Lead Agency/project proponent contact the District early in the design process via l a one-hour complementary Due Diligence meeting . This meeting will inform the Lead Agency/project proponent as to whether facility/pipeline improvements are required to service the project . To set up this meeting the Lead Agency/project proponent should complete a Project Questionnaire (form NBD- Board of Directors
Stephen J Corona. President David J Slawson, ½ce President Jeff Armstrong Joe Grindstaff Philip E Paule

EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
2270 Trumble Road • Perr is, CA 92572-8300
T 951 .928 .3777 • F 951 .928 .6177 • www.emwd .org
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

C-3
(CONT .)
C-4
■■
■□
Ms. Elliott
March 13, 2025

058) and submit to EMWD. To download this form or for additional information, please visit our web page www.emwd .org, then select the "Developer" link, then select the "New Development Process Forms" link. This meeting will offer the following benefits :

1. Describe EMWD's development process

2. Identify project scope and parameters

3. Provide a preliminary review of the project within the context of existing infrastructure

4. Discuss potential candidacy for recycled water service

5. Identify project submittal requirements to start the Design Conditions review Following the Due Diligence meeting, to proceed with this project, the Design Conditions will need to be developed by the developer's engineer and reviewed/approved by EMWD prior to submitting improvement plans for Plan Check. The DC process and approval will provide the following:

1. Technical evaluation of the project's demands and existing system capacities

2. Identification of impacts to existing facilities

3. Identification of required on-site and off-site facilities, necessary to serve the project

4. Identification of easement requirements, if necessary

5. Identification of potential EMWD's cost participation in facility oversizing, if applicable If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Maroun El-Hage at (951) 928-3777, extension 4468 or by e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Anthony Budicin
Director of Environmental and Regulatory Compliance
Cc: Maroun El-Hage, MPA, MS, PE, EMWD Principal Civil Engineer, Dev. Services Dept.

Jose Ruiz, EMWD Assistant Engineer, Dev. Services Dept.

Martha Vilchis, EMWD Water Resources Specialist Assistant, ERC Dept.

EASTERN MUNICIP AL WATER DISTRICT - CELEBRATING 75 YEARS OF SERVICE Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

C-5
■■
■□
Ms. Elliott
March 13, 2025

Attachment : Copy of Public Notice
l
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - CELEBRATING 75 YEARS OF SERVICE Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

C-5
(CONT .)
■■
■□
RECEIVED FEB 2 4 2025
Community Development Department
Planning Division
14177 Frederick Street
P. 0 . Box 88005
Moreno Valley CA 92552-0805
Telephone: 951.413-3206
FAX: 951.413-3210

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

TOWN CENTER AT MORENO VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PEN21-0336, PEN25-0007 , PEN21-0335, PEN21-0334, and PEN22-0077 .

SCH No. 2022040417
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Moreno Valley has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan. The Project Site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Nason Street & Alessandro Boulevard .in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. The Project Site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5.

The Project includes the following :

Project Title: Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Project Location:

Description:

The Project Site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Nason Street & Alessandro Boulevard . The Project Site is located south of Cottonwood Avenue , west of Nason Street, and north of Alessandro Boulevard . The Project Site comprises Assessor Parcel Numbers 487- 4 70-030 and 487-4 70-031.

The Project includes the following discretionary actions under consideration by the City of Moreno Valley:
1) PEN21-0336 (EIR) Certification of the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report. 2) PEN25-0007 (General Plan Amendment) A General Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation for the Project Site from Public Facilities (P) to Residential (30 dwelling units/acre maximum), Open Space, and Commercial to allow a mixed-use development with residential , commercial , park, and civic uses. 3) PEN21-0335 (Zone Change) A Change of Zone to rezone the Project Site from Public (P) District to TCMV Specific Plan (PEN21- 0335) for the TCMV Specific Plan (SP 222).
4) PEN21-0334 (Specific Plan) The Specific Plan involving a mixed­ use development consisting of residential , commercial /civic, and open spaces uses. The proposed Specific Plan is designed to provide flexibility for development within the Specific Plan area and serves as the regulatory document governing the orderly growth and development of the Project site.

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

C-5
(CONT .)
■■
■□
5) PEN22-0077 (Tentative Tract Map) The Tentative Tract Map for subdivision of the Project Site into six (6) residential-use lots, one (1) commercial-use lot, two (2) open space lots, and associated dedicated areas for necessary infrastructure. The existing alignment of Bay Avenue would be vacated and existing road easements along Alessandro Boulevard, Cottonwood Avenue, and Nason Street would be dedicated to the City.

Significant Environmental Impacts:

The DEIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts to the following resources:
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (paleontological resources), greenhouse gas emissions, and tribal cultural resources. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant impacts. Even with mitigation incorporated, potentially significant impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

Cortese List Notice: Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092.6(a), the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 (California Department ofT oxic Substances Control list of various hazardous sites).

Document Availability: The DEIR and its technical appendices are available for review on the City's website at (https://moval.gov/cdd/documents/about-projects .html) and at City Hall located at 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley during normal business hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday and Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.).

In addition, the Draft EIR is available for review at the City's three Library Branches located at:
• Main Branch, 25480 Alessandro Boulevard
• Mall Branch, 22500 Town Circle
• Iris Plaza Branch, 16170 Perris Boulevard
45-day Public Review Period: The Public Review Period shall commence February 24, 2025, through April 10, 2025.

Submission of Written Comments: Members of the public, responsible and trustee agencies, and other interested parties may submit written comments (including emailed comments ) on the DEIR during the 45-day Public Review Period. Written comments must be received at the City of Moreno Valley Community Development Department no later than the conclusion of the 45-day review period, at 5:30 p.m. on April 10, 2025.

Emily Elliott, AICP, Contract Planner
City of Moreno Valley, Community Development Department14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92553
Email: [email protected]
For additional information, please contact Emily Elliott, AICP, Contract Planner, at (951) 413-3206 or Email: [email protected]
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Project 2
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER C:

Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD)
C-1 This comment makes introductory remarks . This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

C-2 This comment requests that the Draft EIR include an analysis of the Project’s water demands, wastewater generation/discharge, and recycled water use. Th is comment also notes that the Draft EIR should include a determination that there is adequate capacity in the existing EMWD facilities to serve the Project; if there is not adequate capacity, the Draft EIR should identify and analyze the EMWD facility improvements necessary to provide adequate capacity.

Additionally, the commenter identifies that they can assist in determining the EMWD Design Conditions and facilities that would be required.

The information requested in the comments was included the Draft EIR. Draft EIR Section

3.4.3.F, Utility Infrastructure Improvements, identifies the utility infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed development, including EMWD domestic water and sanitary sewer facilities. As explained in the Draft EIR, t he Project is not a candidate for recycled water due to the lack of existing or planned reclaimed water lines in the area. As identified under the analysis of Threshold “a” in Draft EIR Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems , the domestic water and sewer facilities would be installed with the proposed development and would connect to the existing utility lines adjacent to the Project site , which have sufficient capacity to serve the Project. The final sizing and design of the utility infrastructure to be installed as part of the Project would occur during final design in coordination with EMWD as part of the Design Conditions process. As also identified under the analysis of Threshold “a” in Draft EIR Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems construction activities associated with installation of new domestic water and sewer lines and connections to existing water lines in the site-adjacent roadways would be within the physical impact area identified for the Project and evaluated throughout the Draft EIR (refer to the construction and physical impact discussions in Draft EIR Section 4.1 through Section 4.19). As identified, the installation of utility lines has the potential to cause construction -related environmental effects (e.g., short- term air pollutant emissions, noise, impacts to biological, cultural and paleontological resources, and traffic movement disruptions), which are an inherent part of the Project’s construction process. As determined in the Draft EIR, there are no significant environmental impacts specifically related to installation of the proposed water lines or the proposed sewer lines. The proposed water facilities would be installed in compliance with applicable City Engineering Standards, which incorporate EMWD standards.

With respect to the Project’s estimated water demands, EMWD prepared the required Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Project, which is included in Draft EIR Technical Appendix M and summarized in the analysis for Threshold “b” in Draft EIR Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems. EMWD estimated the water demands for the Project to be 279,498 gallons per day and determined that it has adequate water supplies to meet the Project’s potable water Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

demand. Further, as identified under the analysis of Threshold “c” in Draft EIR Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems, the Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (MVRWRF) would have adequate wastewater treatment capacity for the Project.

No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

C-3 This comment requests that the Project proponent schedule a “Due Diligence” meeting with EMWD early in the design process to discuss the proposed Project, provides a list of the benefits of the Due Diligence meeting, and describes the process following the Due Diligence meeting and leading up to the review and approval of the Project’s Design Conditions by EMWD prior to submitting plans for plan check. As requested, the Project proponent will coordinate with EMWD early in the design process. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

C-4 This comment provides concluding remarks. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

C-5 This attachment to the comment letter is a copy of the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the proposed Project received by EMWD on February 24, 2025; no response is required.

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

Comment Letter D

3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 | Phone: (951) 826-5371 | RiversideCA.gov Community & Economic Development
Department
Planning Division

April 10, 2025

Emily Elliott, AICP
Contract Planner
City of Moreno Valley, Community Development Department 14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92553

Subject: City of Riverside’s Review a Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan

Dear Ms. Elliott:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan.

The City of Riverside (City) understands that the project consists of various discretionary actions intended to allow for the development of up to 800 homes; a neighborhood commercial center; a civic building; and a public park.

Given the proximity to the City of Riverside, the City would like to provide the following comments:

Public Works Department – Traffic Engineering Division:
• Appendix L1- VMT Analysis
o Page 5 – City of Moreno Valley VMT Per Capita
▪ Table 4: City of Moreno Valley VMT Per Capita
• Please be advised that the latest WRCOG VMT Screening Tool, which is also based on the RIVCOM 4.0.1, reports that the City HB VMT per capita is 13.5 for 2019 and 13.2 for 2025.
o Page 6 – Project Generated VMT & Project’s Cumulative Effect on VMT ▪ Table 6: Project Generated VMT
• Please be advised that the latest WRCOG VMT Screening Tool, which is also based on the RIVCOM 4.0.1, reports that the TAZ HB VMT per capita is 15.3 for 2019 and 14.1 for 2025.
▪ Table 7: Project Effect on VMT
• The difference between the service population in the baseline year and horizon year, both with and without the project, is greater than the 3,080 new residents projected to be added as a result of the project. Please provide an explanation and/or correct the service population numbers.

D-1
D-2
D-3
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- City ef Aris &._Innovation
]
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

• Appendix L2- VMT Alternatives
o Page 2 – Alternative 2: Reduced Development – Less Commercial ▪ Table 2: Alternative 2 VMT Per Capita
• Based on the WRCOG VMT screening tool, the TAZ PA VMT per resident is 15.3 VMT per capita. Please explain why the VMT value is lower than what the WRCOG tool reports.
o Page 3 – Alternative 3: Reduced Development – Less Development and Less Commercial
▪ Table 4: Project VMT Comparisons with WRCOG VMT Per Capita • Please be advised that the latest WRCOG VMT Screening Tool, which is also based on the RIVCOM 4.0.1, reports that the City threshold for HB VMT per capita is 13.2 VMT/capita.

The City appreciates your consideration of the comments provided in this letter. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (951) 826-5944, or by e-mail at [email protected].

We thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal and look forward to working with you in the future.

Sincerely,

Matthew Taylor
Principal Planner

cc: Patricia Lock Dawson, Mayor
Riverside City Council Members
Mike Futrell, City Manager
Rafael Guzman, Assistant City Manager
Jennifer A. Lilley – Community and Economic Development Director Maribeth Tinio, City Planner
Gil Hernandez, Public Works Director
Jack Liu, Interim City Attorney

D-4
D-5
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER D:

City of Riverside, Community & Economic Development Department D-1 This comment makes introductory remarks and briefly summarizes the Project. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

D-2 This comment addresses the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis included in Draft EIR Technical Appendix L1, specifically information provided in Table 4 and Table 6 of the VMT Analysis regarding City of Moreno Valley VMT Per Capita, and Project Generated VMT, respectively. The comment advises that the latest Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) VMT Screening Tool based on Riverside County Model (RIVCOM)

4.0.1 reports that the City home -based (HB) VMT per capita is 13.5 for 2019 and 13.2 for 2025, and the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) HB VMT per capita is 15.3 for 2019 and 14.1 for 2025. The VMT Screening Tool referenced in the comment was not used as the basis for the Project VMT analysis presented in the Draft EIR. The Project VMT Analysis was based on use of RIVCOM model 4.0.1, which is the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analyses. Further, the commenter does not indicate how year 2019 and 2025 VMT per capita referenced in the comment is relevant to the Project analysis. As specifi ed in the City of Moreno Valley’s adopted VMT methodology, VMT analyses and significance thresholds must be evaluated under both the Existing plus Project condition and the Horizon Year condition. The Existing plus Project scenario is defined as the year 2024, corresponding to when the VMT analysis was prepared. The Horizon Year is defined as 2045, consistent with long-range regional planning assumptions. As such, the Project analysis is methodologically sound and compliant with applicable guidance. No revisions to the VMT analysis are warranted.

D-3 This comment requests an explanation as to why the estimated Project service population calculations between the baseline year and horizon year are greater than the 3,080 new residents projected to be added as a result of the Project. As noted in the VMT screening Step 3: Project Type Screening, included in the VMT Analysis in Draft EIR Technical Appendix L1, all of the proposed uses except the residential land use designation meet the Project Type Screening criteria and are not subject to further VMT analysis. However, in order to fully disclose any possible Project effect on cumulative VMT impacts, employment generated from the proposed non -residential uses was conservatively included in the modeling inputs to identify any potential cumulative VMT impacts. As such, the VMT analysis included a service population of 3,444, which includes the residential population identified in the comment plus employees. No revisions to the VMT analysis are required.

D-4 This comment addresses the VMT per capita assumptions used for the VMT alternatives analysis provided in Draft EIR Technical Appendix L2. Please refer to the response to comment D-2 above, which addresses this comment. No revisions to the VMT analysis are required.

D-5 This comment provides concluding remarks. This 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

Comment Letter e
1 Moreno Valley/Box Springs Group

To Planner Emily Elliot, April 10, 2025

Re: Comments on the Moreno Valley Town Center (MVTC) Draft EIR and Specific Plan.

As a result of the Arabella developer being able to get his 15,000 units approved without enough onsite active parks for more than 40,000 apartment dwellers, we again have a developer doing the same thing for those of his project. The Moreno Valley Trade Center (MVTC) is expected to have 800 units on less than 35 acres which means more than 3,000 people. Based on our city's standards of 3 acres per 1,000 residents, the MVTC should be required to have more than 9 acres of parks onsite. Instead only one real 3.5 acres park is provided for those more than 3,000 people without any yard of their own. They are also offering a 1.3 acre “linear park” which is adjacent to their main internal road and will act as a wide setback next to their commercial. Like Aquabella they only offer the following:

"The proposed onsite park facilities alone do not meet the parkland standards established in the General Plan. Therefore, in compliance with the MVMC Chapter 3.40, the parkland requirement for the Project would be met through a combination of dedication of land, provision of onsite recreational facilities, and payment of in-lieu fees." (DEIR page 4.15-12).

Even with the non-functional “linear park” the acreage provided is less than half of the more than 9 acres that should be required onsite for those without any place of their own — except inside their high density unit. With 1,200 acres on the project site this should be as unacceptable to Moreno Valley Planning Commissioners and City Council members as it is to the Sierra Club.

"A prominent feature of the Downtown Center will be a new Central Park, providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity”. (MoVal General Plan page 2-16) If not on these 1,200 acres, where will we have a Central Park?

Lijin Sun’s SCAQMD NOP letter had the following: "In the event that the Proposed Project results in significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize these impacts”

The mitigation measures required by city planners to reduce the project’s significant air quality and greenhouse (GHG) impacts as shown below from the Draft EIR or any other impacts do not have to be agreed to by the developer. They can later present their case to the city council to try and eliminate them.

"5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF

THE PROJECT IS
E-3
E-1
E-2
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- ~
SIERRA
ClUB
7 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

2 IMPLEMENTED

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require that an environment impact report (EIR) disclose the significant environmental effects of a project which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[b]). As identified through the topical issues analysis provided in EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, the Town Center at Moreno Valley (TCMV) Specific Plan Project (Project) is anticipated to result in impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance after the consideration of Project design features, compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, and the application of the feasible mitigation measures identified in this EIR. The significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below thresholds of significance consist of the following:

• Air Quality

o Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Conflict. The Project’s operational-source emissions are anticipated to exceed the regional thresholds of significance for volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. VOC and NOX are precursors for ozone (O3); thus, Project operational activities could contribute a substantial volume of pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) that could delay the attainment of federal and State ozone standards.

As such, the Project is conservatively considered to have the potential to conflict with the AQMP. Project impacts due to a conflict with the AQMP would be significant and unavoidable.

o Cumulatively Considerable Increase in Criteria Pollutant During Operation.

After the application of mandatory regulatory requirements and feasible mitigation measures, maximum daily emissions from Project operations would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for NOx, VOC, and CO, and cannot be effectively reduced to a level below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Because NOx and VOC are O3 precursors, this could also result in additional violations of the State and federal O3 standards. O3 is a nonattainment pollutant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures beyond those identified in EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, that would reduce the Project’s NOx, VOC, and CO emissions to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project’s operational air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable, and the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, which is a significant and unavoidable impact.

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project’s operational GHG emissions would be reduced but not to a level below the established significance threshold. Since the majority of the operational emissions are from vehicle trips and neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control vehicle-source 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 GHG emissions impact.” (Draft EIR pages 5-1 and 5-2)

Below are some additional feasible mitigation measures, but not all that the Town Center at Moreno Valley project must be required to include to further reduce their significant impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas in our non-attainment area,

E-4
E-3
(CONT .)
■■
■□ -----------
1 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

3 — Public transit needs to be a priority. In fact this area was to have a transit center for our city. Several long turn outs/pull outs to allow buses to pull out of the flow of traffic on both Alessandro Blvd and Nason St must be required. Several large shelters that provide protection for many people from the sun and rain as well as a place to sit. They must be in a well-lit area.

— Throughout the entire project there must be recycling which includes organic waste. All units must be able to easily recycle that includes organic waste and this must be explained/shown in the Final EIR. All commercial, office and pubic uses — including parks — must provide for easy recycling which includes organic waste. All sidewalk areas inside and along its permitter must also include recycling for different materials and organic waste containers — ideally solar compacting ones.

— Active transportation must be encouraged. This means walking where people do not face oncoming traffic without trees between them and vehicles. The project cannot be permitted to do sidewalks on the cheap by doing curbs/sidewalks in one motion. Sidewalks must be set back from the curb with vegetation/trees separating those walking from the traffic. This must be done on Alessandro Blvd as well as Nason St and on the interior of the project.

--- Bicycling must be given a priority along both Alessandro Blvd and Nason St with more than painted lines -- ideally class 1 bike paths, but at least class 2 bike lanes — and with bike lanes leading into/throughout the project site.. There must be secure bike lockers at all multi-unit buildings as will as elsewhere near units. This must also be the case at all commercial, office, parks, and public buildings.

— Electric bikes and scooters are becoming more prevalent. They need to be accommodated throughout the project site with charging at all apartments/housing/non-residential buildings as well as secure lockers. As with all of the above encouraging their use is a way to reduce your carbon footprint and reduce the pollution the project will generate.

— At least 25% of parking spaces in multi-unit buildings must be equipped with working EV chargers and each individual unit must have operational EV chargers. All parking areas throughout the project site must be equipped with at least level 2 EV chargers with signs discouraging those not needing to use them from parking in the EV space. There also need to have EV charging for vans servicing the project site. All EV chargers must remain operational for at least 25 years and replaced with the same or better as needed.

— All buildings must have maximum solar and even much of the parking areas need to be covered by solar. Ideally the non-residential would also be required to have battery storage. The solar and battery storage must be required to be in full operation for at least 25 years. With EV’s charging powered by solar the vehicles would be running on sunshine.

— The portion of the building’s rooftops that are not covered with solar panels, sky lights, or other essential utilities must me required to have a solar reflective index of not less than 78. This material must be required to be the minimum solar reflective rating of the roof material for the life of the buildings.
https://www.deansteelbuildings.com/products/panels/sr-sri-by-color/

— Concrete flatwork and parking lots must be required to have a reflectance of at least 29 and maintained for the life of the project.

E-4
(CONT .)
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

4 — All lighting is ideally powered by solar. After 10 pm outside lighting needs to be dimmed to 30% after 10 minutes unless motion is detected. This also needs to be done within all non-residential buildings.

— Large trees along both streets between sidewalk and traffic as explained above. The following link has a 2025 report in which USC "Researchers found that vegetation in a section of central L.A. offsets a surprising 60% of fossil fuel emissions (CO2), particularly during the growing season.” https://dornsife.usc.edu/stories/l-a-s-urban-trees-absorb-more-carbon-than-expected-usc-dornsife- study-finds-2/
The project needs to eliminate small ornamental trees that are only good for visibility and include those that will produce significant shade and also reduce the project's carbon footprint. They must also not be allowed to trim them to produce more visibility and must replace them immediately with a similar tree if they die.

— Ceiling Fans must be required to be in as many rooms as possible to reduce the use of air- conditioning. This must happen in all residential as well as all non-residential buildings.

The following is from US Department of Energy: "Energy Savings: Using a ceiling fan allows you to raise the thermostat setting by about 4°F without reducing comfort. In moderate climates, ceiling fans can sometimes replace air conditioning altogether.” and can be found in this ink https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/fans-cooling

— No natural gas or propane in any residential units as will be the case in the 15,000 unit Aquabella project approved a few month ago. Doing so would not only reduce pollution, but help reduce health impact especially to children as mentioned in a 2023 Scientific American article as follows: "Most recently, a study published last December found that 12.7 percent of childhood asthma cases in the U.S. can be attributed to gas stove use.” According to the previous link in California 20.1 % is "the proportion of childhood asthma that could be theoretically prevented if gas stove use was not present” The same article in the following link warned of methane being released from gas stoves "where it traps heat and contributes to climate change.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-health-risks-of-gas-stoves-explained/ In all non- residential building every HVAC and water heaters must be require to be electric which will reduce pollutions.

— All Landscaping and maintenance crews must in their contracts be required to use only electric equipment or other ZE equivalent at the project site for the life of the project.

—- Only Tier 4 Construction Equipment or better must be required. All 50-horsepower or greater diesel-powered construction equipment must be at least Tier 4.

—- Construction contractors must be required to ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes (total) or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.

--- During construction electrical hook-ups to the power grid must be required to be provided to encourage the use of electric construction tools such as saws, drills, and compressors. Those electric tools should be required by the city.

E-4
(CONT .)
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

5 ---All off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction must be required to be powered by battery or electric (plugged in) power.

----Each phase of the project must be required to provide meal options on-site on a regular basis, such as scheduling food trucks to service the buildings, or providing shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations, to reduce the need for employee vehicle trips to off-site locations.

— All heavy-duty haul trucks must be required to meet CARB’s lowest optional low-oxides of nitrogen (Nox) standard or minimally shall be required to meet CARB’s 2020 low-oxides of nitrogen (Nox) standard.

— Ideally all, but at least some buildings must be required to be built to the current v4 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards. Verification of LEED equivalency must be required to be in the form of the USGBC LEED checklist prepared by an Accredited LEED professional

The recommendations found above are only a sample of feasible mitigation measures that the Sierra Club expects to see required in the Final EIR to reduce what the project’s own documents read are its Significant Environmental Effects on Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas.

There are cities and counties that require buildings to be built to reduce bird strikes that cause the death of tens of thousands of birds every year. The San Jacinto Wildlife Area (SJWA) is a world class birding area. It is always listed in the top 2% for all of North of America for diversity of bird species or inland areas. The Audubon Christmas bird count usually identifies 140 to 155 species for this area. The 10,000 acre SJWA and adjoining 9,000 acre Lake Perris is home to 25 species of Raptors which includes 5 species of owls. This project being so close to these special areas should make it easy to understand the importance of adapting some these measures during design/construction of these multi-story buildings. Examples of some such special building techniques can be found in the following links, but there are others which I hope you will use:

https://www.audubon.org/our-work/cities-and-towns/bird-friendly-buildings Bird-Friendly Buildings | Audubon

https://birdallianceoregon.org/our-work/protect/habitat-and-wildlife/urban/reducing-wildlife- hazards/bird-safe-building/bird-safe-building-design-toolkit/ Links to products for Bird-Safe Building Design Toolkit - Bird Alliance of Oregon

https://www.cannondesign.com/perspectives/bird-friendly-building-design Energy Saving and Bird-friendly building design | CannonDesign

Many, but not all, of the suggestions focus on windows and lighting. Each multistory building can be made safe for the many special birds in our area. The Audubon Society supports rooftop solar and therefore maximizing the project’s solar is not a problem. The Sierra Club expects to read how this project will protect the SJWA resources which is a major benefit to our city. Without the special designs to prevent bird strikes/deaths this project will kill 1,000’s o birds during the life of the project. Designing/constructing project buildings that are bird friendly will assuredly provide points towards LEED certification.

E-4
(CONT .)
E-5
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

6 The city’s website (https://www.moval.org/cdd/documents/about-projects.html) with notices for this Draft EIR along with technical appendices reads as follows:

"The Project is consistent with land use and growth assumptions for the Project site included in the adopted City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2040 (General Plan), which was adopted in June 2021.

The Project site has a land use designation of Downtown Center and is zoned Downtown Center (DC) District."

This misinformation as well as the documents themselves make for a very confusing read by the public which is counter to the entire purpose of CEQA. Every time “General Plan” is used in the Draft EIR it needs to have either “2021” or the one we are currently using “2006” or both in front so the public as well as agencies know which one is being referenced at the time. Ideally the Draft EIR needs to be recalculated with this correction or it will be totally inadequate as an information document for the public and agencies. The same is true for the Technical Appendices and the Final EIR.

To help you appreciate/understand this problem throughout the Draft EIR I have included only some of the places where this confusion exists with the following:

"Design Guidelines
included in the TCMV Specific Plan and would not
conflict with goals or policies outlined in the General Plan or MVMC requirements that regulate scenic
quality.” (DEIR page S-8)

"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” (DEIR page S-32).

"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” (DEIR page S-37)

"The area immediately north of the
Project site has an “R5 Residential” land use designation in the City of Moreno Valley General Plan (General Plan) and is zoned “Residential 5 (R5) District.””(DEIR page 2-30

"the Specific Plan zoning district allows for “flexibility in design and development requirements which will afford the

opportunity to create major developments on large tracts of land which will implement the general plan and the planned industrial, planned residential and planned commercial designations shown on the general plan map,” (DEIR page 3-7)
E-7
E-6
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

7 "Additionally, the cumulative projects would be required to adhere to established development standards addressing scenic quality as outlined in the General Plan and MVMC,” (DEIR page 4.1- 23)

"Specific Plan and would not conflict with goals or policies outlined in the General Plan or MVMC requirements that regulate scenic quality” (DEIR page 4.1-24)

"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 General Plan” (DEIR page 4.2-7)

"The City does not contain any areas with General Plan land use or zoning designations for agricultural uses.” (DEIR page 4.2-7)

"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 General Plan buildout in the City of Moreno Valley and other jurisdictions in the region within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.” (DEIR page 4.4-18)

"As identified the Project would not conflict with the General Plan goals and policies, or the Connect SoCal goals and growth projections.” (DEIR page 4.8–18)

"Where discrepancies occur between the proposed TCMVSpecific Plan and the MVMC, the TCMV Specific Plan development standards would prevail. Where no regulations or guidelines are specified in the TCMV Specific Plan, the City’s General Plan and MVMC would govern development.” )DEIR page 4.11-23)

"The existing Environmental Safety section of the General Plan Safety Element and proposed Noise Element rely on the transportation noise criteria that are derived from standards contained in the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan Guidelines.”(DEIR page 4.13-6)

"City of Moreno Valley General Plan Community Noise Compatibility Matrix, Table N-1 (Exhibit 3-A of EIR Technical Appendix K).” (DEIR page 4.13-9)

"Additionally, for future development located in areas where exterior noise levels exceed the land use compatibility standards as defined in the Noise Element, site-specific interior noise analyses demonstrating compliance with the interior noise standards of Title 24 and the General Plan would be required” (DEIR page 4.13-21)

"Based on the General Plan land use compatibility guidelines as shown on Exhibit 3-A of EIR Technical Appendix K. For conditionally acceptable land use, new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.” (DEIR page 4.13-23)

"intended to recover for each new residential,
commercial, and industrial development, its reasonable share, of the cost of each type of public facility and infrastructure improvements needed to serve that development and to ensure implementation of, and consistency with the City’s General Plan and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that adequate public facilities and related improvements will be E-7
(CONT .)
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

8 constructed and made available to serve new residential development concurrent with the need.” (DEIR page 4.15-7)

"The amount of land required to be dedicated to
the City for parks and recreation facilities is to be consistent with the standards and policies for park facilities adopted in the General Plan or an applicable specific plan. As identified above, the City has established a standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents.” (DEIR page 4.15-8)

"Landscape and Water Efficiency Requirements, provides landscape development requirements consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and implements landscape-related General Plan objectives and compliance with California Model Water Efficiency Ordinance.” (DEIR page 4.18-11)

"The General Plan 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.” (DEIR page 5-3)

"The Project and its environmental effects would
not compel or commit surrounding properties to land uses other than those that are existing today or those that are planned by the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance. For this reason, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to nearby, off-site properties” (DEIR page 5-3)

"However, this type of growth is already anticipated in the City’s General Plan, and as identified on Figure 4.0-1, Cumulative Projects Location Map, is already being proposed. Therefore, implementation of residential and nonresidential 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 General Plan.” (DEIR page 5-6)

"Accordingly, the Project’s potential influence on other nearby properties to redevelop at greater intensities and/or different uses than the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance allow is speculative.” (DEIR page 5-6)

"As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would comply with City requirements and would not conflict with 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” (DEIR page 6-19)

"As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would comply with City requirements and would not conflict with 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.” (DEIR page 6-28)

"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 General Plan or MVMC requirements that regulate scenic quality, and no impact related to degrading scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway.” (DEIR page 6-31)

E-7
(CONT .)
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

9 The above are only some of the confusing uses of “General Plan” throughout the Draft EIR. The public as well as the agencies deserve better. Just because the Draft EIR correctly identifies which General Plan in other places doesn’t excuse the confusion in many important areas.

In several places in the Draft EIR the following thought is expressed:

"However, if the City readopts the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Update, the areas east and south of the Project site and the area west of the southern portion of the Project site would be zoned “Downtown Center (DC) District.” (DEIR page 4.11-9’)

Throughout the Draft EIR it is very evident the developer is planning on the city to “readopt the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Updates’. Since that is expressed throughout the Draft EIR, the project must be required to meet the standards expressed in those documents for the town center. It was what was in the 2040 Genera Plan that the residents expected when they approved of the idea of a Town Canter on these 1,200 acres. Failing to respond to those areas we provide below as part of the MoVal 2040 General Plan will make approval of this project under a readopted 2040 General Plan invalid because the Final EIR will be inadequate.

During the 2021 General Plan Update (GPU) process the idea of a downtown center was supported by most Moreno Valley residents because of what is written below about it from those documents — beginning with DOWNTOWN CENTER. The Draft EIR needed to reflect that which is written below — especially on lands which are mainly under the “control” by the city.

If a new Central Park is not put in this location’s 1,200 acres, what private land owner is going to put on their lands instead of structures? It is like bait and switch because we were told there was going to be a central park and these 1,200 aces are probably the last place one could be located. With the 1,600 units at the Moreno Valley mall and the 15,000 units at the nearby Aquabella project the city can reduce the number of units on this project to 300 and replace them with park acres. This was an alternative that was not discussed and needs to be in the Final EIR. Maybe the Aqabella developer would help pay for those park acres that his more than 40,000 nearby residents will need.

Many school age children will be living on this project site and other lands within the 1,200 acres designated as Downtown Center lands. Many of the nearby roads will attract major traffic. The Final EIR must explain and show where and how the best safe crossings are available for these students. The same must be done for the safest bike paths for students going to/from schools.

The Draft EIR failed to show which street within/adjacent/leading to this site will be developed as Complete Streets (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/what-are-complete-streets/). The Final EIR must show this or explain why complete streets are not part of this project for both Nason St and Alessandro Blvd.

The Draft EIR failed to show how it will do the following: "Create a layered network of roadways with segments assigned for different travel modes in order to provide for both roadway safety and efficient traffic flow” as explained in MoVal 2040 General Plan.

Where will the city "Provide a transit center to serve as a hub connecting destinations within Moreno Valley and the surrounding region with modern transit options such as on-demand service or micro- transit that are appropriate for the Moreno Valley context” as written below if not on these lands or E-12 E-7
(CONT .)
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-11
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii J
J
1 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

10 any of the Downtown Center’s proposed 1,200 acres? Another bait and switch? This site must include very friendly transit/bus stops for people to be able sit out of the elements/sun/rain and where buses can pull out of the flow of traffic. This must be required of the project on both sides of Nason St and Alessandro Blvd.

The buildings need to be LEED certified. The Final EIR needs to show that maximum solar, waterless hardware and only electric buildings with no gas are required. Recycling inside and outside of all buildings using solar trash and recycling compactors outside as seen in the following link (https://bigbelly.com/) . In addition to multi-family units commercial buildings must also have living units on top floors. Such practices as using graywater, natural drainage systems and pervious paving to recharge aquifers are becoming more common. Landscaping with native plants and drought-tolerant plants is a must. Tree canopies that are not trimmed/pruned for visibility, but allowed to grow to full height/width to provide foliage cover/shade for people is important for Town Centers and also for reducing climate disruption/climate change. Palm trees do not provide help in any of these areas and should not be used. "Sustainability requires having a flexible approach and thinking in the long term. Sustainability is the glue that binds financing, planning, zoning, designing, marketing, and building and creates quality of life and a sense of community. Planning for sustainability does not stop at buildout.” (Page 33 of "Ten Principles of Developing a Successful Town Center” (http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/TP_TownCenters.ashx_.pdf by the Urban Land Institute-ULI) This entire ULI document is incorporated into these comments by reference. The Draft EIR failed to show that most of the excellent suggestions by the ULI have been included, realized and made part of this project. Therefore please read this excellent ULI document and make the necessary modifications in the Final EIR to incorporate many more of their ideas like those found below.

"Designing a great sidewalk requires consideration of five points:
§ Sidewalks need to be activated by being next to occupied retail space, residential stoops, and well-maintained lobbies for office and other compatible uses. § Sidewalks need to be occupied, with people always there throughout the day and evening. § Sidewalks need to be well maintained and free of litter. Having an involved com- munity presence is important in this respect.
§ Sidewalks need to impart a sense of permanence. They should be lined by mature trees, high-quality landscaping, and high-quality materials.
§ Sidewalks need to be retail-friendly, safe, secure, and comfortable. These characteristics are achieved by making streets easy to cross (with on-street parking) and by providing inventive signage and few sidewalk distractions. “ (ULI page 27)
What will be the set of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) and who will enforce them? Most Town Centers operate 24 hours a day and its design must be such that implementing the CC&Rs are easy on all concerned — including the police and fire departments which are not be added to with the building of this project. Does the nearest Fire Station have vehicles with the ladders that will reach to the top of their proposed buildings? If not, then this project needs to significantly contribute to those vehicles being at the closest Fire Station and even the modification of the building if needed.

Alessandro Blvd is a city designated truck route. The World Logistic Center (WLC) will eventually have more than 11,000 Daily diesel truck trips with many coming from the west and using roads like Alessandro Blvd and/or Cactus Ave. The projects Draft EIR must analyze the impacts on the health of those who live along these routes and the impact of toxic diesel pollution on those who want to E-15
E-12
(CONT .)
E-13
E-14
■■
■ □ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii J
]
l
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

11 sit/work outside or inside at this Town Center. The impact of noise from these diesel big rigs must also be studied, analyzed as to how it will impact the outside activities of people on this site. This has not been done and we expect to see it in the Final EIR or it will be inadequate. Protecting the Health, Safety and Welfare of Moreno Valley residents must be a priority of each project approved.

The alternatives failed to include an environmentally/sustainability superior model — other than the no project alternative and less residents. The superior environmental/sustainability alternative must be proactive in including that which will make it a sustainable project long after being built and not just a smaller project.

It is sad that the MVTC project submitted will not be the environmentally/sustainability superior model.

The project needs to include the following:

• Reduce contribution to global climate change during construction and operation • Enhance individual human health as written in our General Plan • Protect and restore water resources which includes ground water • Protect and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services through the native plants used • Promote sustainable and regenerative material cycles
• Enhance community quality of life at a minimum as written in our General Plan "DOWNTOWN CENTER
Fostering a downtown destination with a full range of choices for shopping, dining, doing business, and having fun is an important objective for Moreno Valley, strongly supported in the community.

Although activity centers are distributed throughout the city today, there is no distinct downtown core. However, a large area around the prominent cross- roads of Nason and Alessandro presents a prime opportunity to foster a Downtown Center for the city and the region. Encompassing approximately 1,200 acres near the geographic center of the com- munity, the Downtown Center area features two regional medical facilities – the Riverside University Health System and the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center – direct access to SR-60 and I-215, and the impressive backdrop of the Bernasconi Hills to the southeast. Moreno Valley College is located a short distance to the south.

Approximately 80 percent of the land is vacant and undeveloped today, including the 730-acre Aquabella Specific Plan area and a 56-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Nason and Alessandro where the Town Center Project is proposed.

The Downtown Center is envisioned as the primary hub and focal point of Moreno Valley and an economic and cultural engine in the region. With a range of activities day and night, this thriving area will draw people and businesses to Moreno Valley and will showcase the highest quality architecture/design to rival anything in the region. The Downtown Center will integrate the existing hospital complexes and provide visual and physical connections to Moreno Valley College, Lake Perris, and other key destinations within the community. Nason Street is envisioned as a grand boulevard and central spine of the Downtown Center, with the highest intensity of development focused along it. A walkable new “main street” is envisioned at the core, lined with shops, restaurants, workplaces, and cultural venues. Density and intensity will reduce gradually outward from the core to transition to the surrounding neighborhoods. New development will be organized around an interconnected grid of streets within the Downtown Center to break up the super blocks and provide convenient, safe bicycle and pedestrian linkages within the area. A prominent feature of E-17
E-15
(CONT .)
E-16
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- J
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

12 the Downtown Center will be a new Central Park, providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the hospitals and residential areas and designed with family-friendly amenities and programmed with regular festivals and events. Recognizing recreation and entertainment as key contributors to the vitality of the Downtown Center, the area is envisioned to host a performing arts venue and sports and recreation facilities". (2-16 I MoVal 2040 General Plan.

Visibility is a critical design consideration for the Downtown Center. Design standards for development at the core of the Downtown Center seek to take advantage of the relatively flat terrain and promote higher building heights to help build visual connections from other locations within the community and enhance the prominence of the Downtown Center as an important destination. A marquee building, like a clock tower, is envisioned to serve as an identifiable downtown landmark visible from anywhere in the city. Additionally, public plazas and other vantage points within the Downtown Center should be designed to allow for view of the scenic hills surrounding the city, enhancing sense of place.

Full realization of the Downtown Center will take many years. The Plan lays out a flexible framework to guide the evolution of the area, including principles for land use and urban design, circulation, and parks and open space. As individual projects are proposed in the area, proponents will be required to develop an area plan demonstrating consistency with these principles and the buildout projections for the area analyzed in the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The Plan envisions the integration of the Aquabella Specific Plan area into the Downtown Center, allowing for development of supportive medical facilities, a hotel, and shops and services oriented to patients and their families adjacent to the hospitals, while also permitting development of the low-to-mid density development consistent with the underlying zoning for the Specific Plan Area. (Land Use and Community Character I 2-17)

E-17
(CONT .)
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

13 Create a Downtown Center with a vibrant mix of uses that will serve as the primary hub and focal point of Moreno Valley economic and cultural engine in the region.

Require that proposed projects in the Downtown Center prepare an area plan demonstrating consistency with the principles outlined in Table LCC-2 and the illustrative development program shown in Table LCC-3 prior to approval. Development on smaller parcels may satisfy this requirement with a site plan.

Within the Downtown Center, ensure the high intensity of development is concentrated so as to create a central core with a mix of uses to activate it throughout the day and evening and to promote strong connectivity between new uses and RUMC, Aquabella, and the Kaiser hospital campus.

Leverage the presence of the hospitals and large tracts of vacant land to attract new higher-wage employers to the Downtown Center.

E-22
E-17
(CONT .)
E-18
E-19
E-20
E-21
■■
■□ ........................................................................................................................ ........

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

14 LCC 2-6 Create a Central Park facility to serve as a defining feature of the Downtown Center. (MoVal 2040 General Plan 2040 page 2-18) If not on these 1,200 acres, then where? You show these images of the Town Center to the residents and then do not deliver — bait and switch. .

LCC 2-8 Transform Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard into grand boulevards with a distinctive, inviting character that announces arrival in Downtown Moreno Valley.

LCC 2-10 Create an attractive, safe environment for bicycles and pedestrians that promotes “micro- mobility” and connectivity within the Downtown Center as well as encourage electric and autonomous vehicles.
"Preserve views of the hills to the southeast from within the Downtown Center and incorporate the natural topography into site development plans to help create a distinctive sense of place.” (MoVal 2040 page 2-19) The MVTC has not shown they have accomplished this and the Final EIR must show it will be accomplished.

(Land Use and Community Character I 2-19)

"Table LCC-2: Downtown Center Development Principles: Circulation • ◆ Extend Brodiaea through the Cactus/ Alessandro superblock to serve as the “Main Street” with two central traffic circles and a walkable, pedestrian-oriented streetscape. • ◆ Create a layered network of roadways with segments assigned for different travel modes in order to provide for both roadway safety and efficient traffic flow. • ◆ Create smaller urban blocks to promote walk- ability. Block sizes should range between 330 and 660 linear feet. Blocks over 500 feet should feature mid-block connections such as pedestrian pathways or alleys.
• ◆ Provide a transit center to serve as a hub connecting destinations within Moreno Valley and the surrounding region with modern transit options such as on-demand service or micro-transit that are appropriate for the Moreno Valley context.

E-22
(CONT .)
E-23
E-24
E-25
E-26
E-27
E-28
E-29
E-30
■■
■□ -----------
J
~
J
J
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

15 ◆ Provide a grid of interconnecting streets with designated bicycle and pedestrian routes lined with sidewalks and furnished with pedestrian amenities throughout the area. Grade separated connections across arterial roadways should also be considered. Mid-block connections created as new developments are built will provide additional pedestrian and bicycle paths. ◆ Accommodate and encourage electric and autonomous vehicles with appropriate design and infrastructure.
◆ Provide distinctive connections between destinations within the Downtown Center (ex: RUMC, Aquabella, and the Kaiser hospital campus), using curvilinear roads, generous pedestrian paseos, branded wayfinding, signage and other design techniques that contribute to a unique sense of place.

◆ Design the interconnecting streets that break up the superblocks with reduced street widths, street parking, consistent trees and landscaping to control traffic speed and create a more intimate feel and comfort through shading.
◆ Connect the Downtown Center to the city, state, and regional trail network with connections via Cactus, John F. Kennedy, and Iris."

(Page 2-20 I MoVal 2040 General Plan)

The MVTC Draft EIR not only doesn’t provide the above circulation elements found in the MpVal 2040 General Plan for our downtown center, but makes each of them much more difficult to achieve. The Sierra Club hopes the Final EIR will explain how the MVTC with its 1,200 acres being the largest remaining undeveloped land mass will accomplish what is written above of about the 2040 MoVal vision or the town center.

Table LCC-2: Downtown Center Development Principles: Parks and Open Space • ◆ Provide a linear Central Park feature that serves as both a focal point and gathering place for surrounding neighborhoods and the city as a whole. • ◆ Connect the RUMC and the Nason/Alessandro Town Center development with a pedestrian paseo, lined with ground floor uses and featur- ing seating, landscaping, trees, and public art to create an active public space. Provide pedes- trian paseos to connect new developments with each other and with the Kaiser hospital campus. ◆ Create a network of public outdoor spaces including neighborhood and community parks, so that all residents of the Downtown Center are within a half-mile walk of outdoor recreational space. ◆ Promote a variety of plazas, pocket parks, and other common outdoor spaces in commercial and employment areas. These are envisioned as privately-owned, publicly accessible spaces. ◆ Locate neighborhood parks and open spaces along designated bicycle and pedestrian routes.

E-31
E-32
E-33
E-34
E-35
E-36
E-37
E-38
E-39
E-40
E-41UUULJU t t ULJLJUL__t
■■
□■
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

16 (Land Use and Community Character I 2-21)
The Specific Plan and Final EIR for this project should be part of the larger project envisioned above and not just a stand-alone project. This project must plan for human connectivity between it and lands south of Alessandro Blvd with its future development as part of the Downtown Center envisioned above. We look forward to reading the Specific Plan and Final EIR to see how this will be accomplished and made a reality with this project because the current proposal bears little resemblance to the vision in the MoVal 2040. The pictures used above come from the Town Center section of the MoVal 2040 General Plan and were used to gain the support of the public. The Sierra Club hopes the Final EIR will actually incorporate many of the ideas from the Downtown Center vision in the MoVal General Plan that allowed Moreno Valley residents to support it.

It appears the city must redo their vision of the Moreno Valley Town Center that they sold to the public as part of the MoVal 2040 General Plan. This will be especially true if the MVTC is approved like the Aquabella project. These two projects represent almost 2,000 acres of what was to be our Town Center with a Central Park and Transit Center.

Please keep the Sierra Club & myself informed of all documents and meetings related to this project.

Sincerely,

George Hague
Sierra Club
Moreno Valley/Box Springs Group
Conservation Co-Chair

1325 P.O. Box 1325

Moreno Valley, CA 92556

E-43
E-44
E-42
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER E:

Sierra Club, Moreno Valley/Box Springs Group (Letter)
E-1 This comment suggests that the parkland to be provided as part of the currently proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley (TCMV) Specific Plan Project (Project) is not sufficient . This comment also incorrectly identifies the Project as the M oreno Valley Trade Center. The Moreno Valley Trade Center is a previously proposed non-residential project in the City that has no relationship to the proposed TCMV Specific Plan Project. The comment also refers to the Aquabella project, which is a mixed -use residential community project in the City that is separate from the TCMV Specific Plan Project.

Further, this comment erroneously indicates that the Project site encompasses 1,200 acres. As described throughout the Draft EIR, and specifically in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project site encompasses approximately 69.6-gross-acres in the central portion of the City of Moreno Valley, and is bound by Cottonwood Avenue to the north, Nason Street to the east, Alessandro Boulevard to the south, and vacant land planned for development and a residential subdivision to the west. The referenced 1,200-acre area is the approximate area designated as “Downtown Center” in the previous ly adopted Moreno Valley General Plan 2040 Update (referred to herein as the “2040 General Plan”) , which was adopted by the City in June 2021 and the City is in the process of readopting following litigation. As further described in Draft EIR Section 3.1, Project Background, the approval of the 2040 General Plan has been set aside by the City based on a June 2024 court ruling

1. The Project site represents only a small portion
(approximately 5.8%) of the identified Downtown Center area. The Project does not, and is not required to, implement all of the anticipated components of the Downtown Center area as envisioned by the City in the 2040 General Plan.

With respect to the parkland provided by the Project, the commenter is correct that based on the City’s established parkland ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, the Project would generate a demand for approximately 9.2 acres of parkland. However, the commenter incorrectly asserts that (1) this parkland should be provided onsite, and (2) that the Project is only providing 4.8 acres of parkland on a 1,200-acre site (as noted above, the Project site is actually 69.6 acres).

With respect to the provision of on-site parkland, and as described in Draft EIR Section 4.15, Public Services and Recreation (refer to the analysis provided under Thresholds “a” and “b”), in compliance with the Moreno Valley Municipal Code (MVMC) Chapter 3.40, the parkland requirement for the Project would be met through a combination of dedication of land, provision of onsite recreational facilities, and payment of in-lieu fees. The provision of on-site private open space and recreational facilities may be credited against the parkland dedication and/or fee requirement at the discretion of the City. Until the on-s ite facilities are further defined and considered in the context of public outdoor spaces, the calculation of the “credit” for parkland cannot, and is not required to be made. Additionally, in compliance with MVMC Chapter 3.38, the Project Applicant would also pay the required Development Impact Fees (DIF) for residential uses, which are collected for the purposes of acquiring, designing, constructing, improving, providing, and maintaining, to the extent permitted by law, park

1 A lawsuit entitled Sierra Club v. The City of Moreno Valley , Riverside Superior Court Case No. CVRI2103300, challenged the validity of the 2040 General Plan, the Climate Action Plan, and the EIR. In June 2024, the City Council set aside the 2021 approvals and certification based on a May 2024 ruling and judgment of the court.

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

improvements and recreation/community center facilities as provided for in the City’s adopted General Plan and CIP, or an adopted Master Plan of Parks and Recreation Facilities.

With respect to the amount of parkland provided, the 4.9 acres reserved for open space as part of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan represents approximately 7% of the total Project site.

As discussed above, the Project site is not 1,200 acres, and it is not appropriate to consider the amount of parkland provided in comparison to the entire 1,200-acre Downtown Center area.

Further, the proposed open space/park is not intended by the City to be the “Central Park” anticipated in the Downtown Center referenced in this comment , which is envisioned by the City to “host a performing arts venue and sports and recreation facilities” (refer to 2040 General Plan page 2-16). Rather, the Project site is located along Nason Street, envisioned as a “grand boulevard and central spine of the Downtown Center, with the highest intensity of development focused along it” (refer to 2040 General Plan page 2-16). Density and intensity are intended to reduce gradually outward from the core to transition to the surrounding neighborhoods.

Consistent with this vision, the proposed TCMV Specific Plan includes residential and commercial uses, and the proposed park would be a community amenity that would provide passive and recreational opportunities for the community. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-2 This comment refers to the comment letter provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in response to the Notice of Preparation for the TCMV Specific Plan Draft EIR, which addressed the requirement to identify mitigation measures for significant air quality impacts. The letter was included in Appendix A to the Draft EIR, and, as discussed in the Draft EIR, all relevant comments received in response to the NOP are addressed in the Draft EIR. As identified in Table 1-1, Summary of NOP Comme nts, in Section 1.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR, the SCAQMD’s NOP comments are addressed in Sections 3.0,

4.1, and 4.8 of the Draft EIR. This comment also incorrectly asserts that the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR do not have to be agreed to by the developer. The mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is presented in Section 4.0 of this document. The City is responsible for ensuring that each of the identified mitigation measures is implemented. The MMRP provides for monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of all mitigation measures.

E-3 This comment excerpts the summary of Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts resulting from the Project, which are presented in Draft EIR Section 5.1. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-4 This comment provides a list of additional mitigation measures for the City to consider to further reduce the Project’s significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts. The commenter does not provide any substantial evidence regarding the feasibility of these suggestions and does not provide any evidence to indicate to what level of emissions reduction and air quality improvement, if any, the suggested mitigation measures would achieve.

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

With respect to mitigation measures for construction -related emissions, as identified in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, the Project’s construction-related emissions were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of Draft EIR MM 4.3-1, which sets forth measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities, including the use of Tier 4 Final construction equipment and limiting idling of construction equipment as suggested by the commenter. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures for construction-related emissions are required.

Although CEQA does not require the lead agency to analyze a list of every imaginable mitigation measure, the feasibility and practicality of each suggest ed mitigation measure for operational emissions provided by the c ommenter is presented in the table below . The table also identifies which of c ommenter’s suggestions are duplicative of mandatory regulatory requirements or of mitigation measures already set forth in the Draft EIR. The table is followed by revised Draft EIR MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2, which include additional measures that the City is requiring to reduce the Project’s air quality and GHG emissions. These mitigation measures are also included in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, and Section

4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of this document.

Commenter Suggestions Response
Public transit needs to be a priority. In fact this area was to have a transit center for our city. Several long turn outs/pull outs to allow buses to pull out of the flow of traffic on both Alessandro Blvd and Nason St must be
required. Several large shel ters that provide protection for many people from the sun and rain as well as a place to sit. They must be in a well-lit area.

As further discussed in response to comment E -12, the
previously adopted 2040 General Plan did not anticipate implementation of the Downtown Center transit center at the Project site. However, a s described in Draft EIR
Section 3.0, Project Description, there are bus stops on Nason Street (at Cottonwood Avenue and Alessandro
Boulevard) as well as a stop on Alessandro Boulevard
(toward the southwestern corner of the Specific Plan
area). Based on co ordination with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) conducted b y the City and the Project
Applicant during preparation of the proposed TCMV
Specific Plan, potential new bus routes and bus stops may be implemented within the Specific Plan area with the
specific locations to be determined in coordination with RTA during the processing of site development plans.

The specific design and placement of bus stop locations would also be reviewed with the site development plan
submittal. This is not a mitigation measure and is already included as part of the Project.

Throughout the entire project there must be recycling
which includes organic waste. All units must be able to easily recycle that includes organic waste and this must be explained/shown in the Final EIR. All commercial,
office and public uses — including parks — must provide for easy recycling which includes organic waste. All
sidewalk areas inside and along its permitte r must also include recycling for different materials and organic
waste containers — ideally solar compacting ones.

As described in Draft EIR Section 4.18, Utilities and
Service Systems, t he Project would comply with state - mandated organic waste recycling (S enate Bill 1383),
and local waste ordinances and incorporate recycling,
including organic waste diversion, subject to City
municipal code requirements and programs. This is not a mitigation measure as this is a regulatory requirement.

Active transportation must be encouraged. This means
walking where people do not face oncoming traffic
As discussed in the 2006 General Plan policy consistency analysis provided in Draft EIR Section 4.11, Land Use
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Commenter Suggestions Response
without trees between them and vehicles. The project
cannot be permitted to do sidewalks on the cheap by
doing curbs/sidewalks in one motion. Sidewalks must be
set back from the curb with vegetation/trees separating those walking from the traffic. This mus t be done on
Alessandro Blvd as well as Nason St and on the interior of the project.
and Planning, and Section 4.16, Transportation, t he
Project is designed to meet the City’s arterial street and street design standards regarding sidewalk locations and tree placements. This is not a mitigation measure as this is a regulatory requirement.

Bicycling must be given a priority along both Alessandro Blvd and Nason St with more than painted lines -- ideally class 1 bike paths, but at least class 2 bike lanes — and with bike lanes leading into/throughout the project site..

There must be secure bik e lockers at all multi- unit
buildings as will [sic] as elsewhere near units. This must also be the case at all commercial, office, parks, and
public buildings.

As described in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project
Description, and Section 4.16, Transportation, bicycle
lanes are included as part of the Project to allow access to various land uses, including a Class II Bike Lane along Nason Street, a proposed Class II Bike Lane along
Alessandro Boulevard and a Class III Bike Route along
Cottonwood Avenue. Bicycle parking facilities would be
provided per City code requirements. This is not a
mitigation measure as this is a regulatory requirement.

Electric bikes and scooters are becoming more prevalent.

They need to be accommodated throughout the project
site with charging at all apartments/housing/non -
residential buildings as well as secure lockers. As with all of the above encouraging their use is a way to reduce your carbon footprint and reduce the pollution the project will generate.

Refer to revised MM 4. 8-1 below, which requires that
facilities to allow charging of electric bikes and scooters be accommodated in appropriate locations within the
Project site, a minimum of two charging spaces shall be provided on-site.

At least 25% of parking spaces in multi -unit buildings must be equipped with working EV chargers and each
individual unit must have operational EV chargers. All
parking areas throughout the project site must be
equipped with at least level 2 EV chargers wi th signs
discouraging those not needing to use them from parking in the EV space. There also need to have EV charging for vans servicing the project site. All EV chargers must
remain operational for at least 25 years and replaced with the same or better as needed.

Refer to revised MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 below, which
include the following additional requirements:
• Residential buildings will provide Level 2 EVSE with
NEMA 14-50 outlets for each residential unit.
• (1) 25% of the parking stalls in the Commercial/Civic Area will be made-ready for EV charging, or (2) 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.

All buildings must have maximum solar and even much
of the parking areas need to be covered by solar. Ideally the non-residential would also be required to have battery storage. The solar and battery storage must be required to be in full operation for at least 25 years. With EV’s
charging powered by solar the vehicles would be running on sunshine.

Refer to revised Draft EIR MM 4.8 -1 below, which
requires non-residential development to use on-site
renewable energy sources such as solar.

Refer to revised Draft EIR MM 4.8 -2 below, which
requires solar installations on residential buildings to the extent practicable, subject to necessary roof penetrations, design constraints, and solar/utility provider guidelines and restrictions.

The portion of the building’s rooftops that are not
covered with solar panels, sky lights, or other essential utilities must me [sic] required to have a solar reflective index of not less than 78. This material must be required to be the minimum solar refl ective rating of the roof
material for the life of the buildings.
https://www.deansteelbuildings.com/products/panels/sr-
sri-by-color/
This measure is infeasible as it has the potential to
adversely impact adjacent uses due to glare.

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

Commenter Suggestions Response
Concrete flatwork and parking lots must be required to
have a reflectance of at least 29 and maintained for the life of the project.

Refer to revised Draft EIR MM 4.8 -1 and MM 4.8 -2
below, which require that concrete sidewalks be installed to meet City requirements, provide safety, and allow a
reflectance level to minimize heat absorption as
practicable.

All lighting is ideally powered by solar. After 10 pm
outside lighting needs to be dimmed to 30% after 10
minutes unless motion is detected. This also needs to be done within all non-residential buildings.

Outdoor lighting will comply with the California Energy Code and Dark Sky requirements. Lighting shall be
installed and sourced to meet City requirements for
adequate coverage, operation, and safety considerations.

This is not a mitigation measure as this is a regulatory requirement. Requiring a “solar only” lighting system is not operationally reliable to meet P roject needs and city safety requirements.

Large trees along both streets between sidewalk and
traffic as explained above. The following link has a 2025 report in which USC "Researchers found that vegetation
in a section of central L.A. offsets a surprising 60% of fossil fuel emissions (CO2), parti cularly during the
growing season.” https://dornsife.usc.edu/stories/l-a-s- urban-trees-absorb-more-carbon-than-expected-usc-
dornsifestudy-finds-2/
The project needs to eliminate small ornamental trees that are only good for visibility and include those that will produce significant shade and also reduce the project's carbon footprint. They must also not be allowed to trim them to produce more visibil ity and must replace them
immediately with a similar tree if they die.

Tree selection will utilize City-approved Street Tree Lists and adhere to visibility and infrastructure protection
requirements. Large canopy species will be used where
appropriate. The P roject will meet the City’s adopted
landscape requirements for tree plantings, species
selections and required maintenance. This is not a
mitigation measure as this is a regulatory requirement.

Ceiling Fans must be required to be in as many rooms as possible to reduce the use of air -conditioning. This must happen in all residential as well as all non -residential buildings. The following is from US Department of
Energy: "Energy Savings: Using a ceiling fan allows you to raise the thermostat setting by about 4°F without
reducing comfort. In moderate climates, ceiling fans can sometimes replace air conditioning altogether.” and can be found in this ink [sic]
https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/fans-cooling
Refer to revised Draft EIR MM 4.8-2, which requires that residential buildings be designed to accommodate ceiling fans.

No natural gas or propane in any residential units as will be the case in the 15,000 unit Aquabella project approved a few month ago. Doing so would not only reduce
pollution, but help reduce health impact especially to
children as mentioned in a 2023 Scie ntific American
article as follows: "Most recently, a study published last December found that 12.7 percent of childhood asthma
cases in the U.S. can be attributed to gas stove use.”
According to the previous link in California 20.1 % is
"the proportion of childhood asthma that could be
theoretically prevented if gas stove use was not present” The same article in the following link warned of methane being released from gas stoves "where it traps heat and contributes to climate change.”
Refer to revised Draft EIR MM 4.8 -1 and MM 4.8 -2,
which require n o natural gas or propane be installed in the residential units, and in all non-residential buildings, electric HVAC units with electric heat pumps will be
installed.

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

Commenter Suggestions Response
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-health-
risks-of-gas-stoves-explained/ In all nonresidential
building every HVAC and water heaters must be require
to be electric which will reduce pollutions.

All Landscaping and maintenance crews must in their
contracts be required to use only electric equipment or other ZE equivalent at the project site for the life of the project.

Refer to Draft EIR MM 4. 3-3, which requires electrical service be provided to each of the areas in the vicinity of the buildings that are to be landscaped in order that
electrical equipment may be used for landscape
maintenance.

Ideally all, but at least some buildings must be required to be built to the current v4 Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards.

Verification of LEED equivalency must be required to be in the form of the USGBC LEED checklist p repared by
an Accredited LEED professional
Buildings will be designed to meet CALGreen standards
related to energy efficiency; however, as discussed under response to comment E-
13, there is no requirement for
the buildings to be LEED designated buildings.

The following revisions to Draft EIR MM 4.8-1 and Draft EIR MM 4.8-2 (shown in bold and underlined format below) are hereby incorporate d into the Project and would further reduce criteria pollutant and/or GHG emissions. However, the emissions reductions from these mitigation measures cannot be quantified and the Project’s impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

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.
• Electric HVAC units with electric heat pumps will be installed.

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

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.

E-5 This comment discusses bird species in the San Jacinto Wildlife Area (SJWA) and Lake Perris and recommends that the Project include design features to prevent bird strikes. The Project is approximately 3.1 miles from the SJWA and 3.6 miles from Lake Perris. Birds are more susceptible to collision with tall man-made structures at migration heights. 2 A recent study by
the BirdCast team, a partnership of Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Colorado State University, and University of Massachusetts Amherst, analyzed migrating bird altitudes above ground. 3 2 USFWS. 2022. Threats to Birds: Collisions. https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds- collisions. 3 Living Bird. Autumn 2021. As viewed online 9/21/22 https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/new-birdcast- analysis-shows-how- high-migrating-birds-fly/#.

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

Average flight heights in the western United States are at about 2,600 feet. A broad summary of the range of altitudes that most birds migrate includes 500 to 6,000 feet above ground level (AGL) for songbirds ; 1,000 to 13,000 feet AGL for shorebirds ; 200 to 4,000 feet AGL for waterfowl; and 700 to 4,000 feet AGL for raptors.4 Based on this information, birds migrate at higher elevations than the P roject, which would have maximum building heights of 75 feet .

Therefore, birds migrating to the SJWA and Lake Perris areas are expected to fly at elevations well above the Project. The commenter’s assertion that thousands of migrating birds could be subject to strikes/death is not supported by the scientific studies nor is any evidence thereof provided by commenter.

The commenter provides links to webs ites with suggestions on how to design buildings to minimize bird strikes. Notwithstanding the information provided above, which indicates birds would fly well above the Project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) notes threats to birds can also occur in buildings shorter than four stories and with smaller structures like glass walkways and bus stop shelters as birds can be attracted to the reflection of their natural habitat in glass and can therefore fly into it . USFWS notes that one of the simplest actions has more to do with lighting than glass.
5 As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, pursuant to MVMC Section 9.08.100, exterior lighting would be unobtrusive, reduce off- site glare, and light only the intended area. Additionally, pursuant to MVMC Section 9.10.110, illumination from the Project would not exceed 0.5 footcandles on any adjacent property, whether the illumination is direct or indirect light from the source, and lighting would be designed to project downward and not create glare on adjacent properties. Minimizing artificial lights by focusing lighting down towards walkways and utilizing light shields in common areas would minimize threats to birds. Additionally, the TCMV Specific Plan “Materials & Finishes” section requires the use of materials and finishes that minimize reflection and glare, stating that “material shall not result in substantial light or glare that adversely affects day or nighttime views.” Further, the TCMV Specific Plan Commercial Architectural Guidelines require the use of finish metal panels, materials, elements or wall systems that reduce reflection and glare, which wi ll also minimize risk to birds. The Project would not result in a significant impact related to the potential for bird strikes. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-6 This comment includes information presented on the City’s website about the Project. The commenter is correct that information on the City’s website with respect to the status of the City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2040 is outdated. As identified in response to comment E-1 above and explained in the Draft EIR, the City has set aside the adopti on of the 2040 General Plan. The City will update this outdated information on its website. However, the Draft EIR and supporting technical studies disclose the current status of the previous 2040 General Plan, and the fact that the 2006 General Plan is the currently adopted General Plan. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-7 This comment identifies various locations within the Draft EIR that reference “General Plan,” without being specific to the 2006 General Plan or 2040 General Plan and asserts that this may lead to confusion for readers. The Draft EIR clearly distinguishes whether the text is referring

4 Smithsonian’s National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute. 2022. Help Migratory Birds. https://nationalzoo.si.edu/migratory-birds/neotropical-migratory-bird-faqs. 5 USFWS. 2025. https://www.fws.gov/story/threats-birds-collisions-nighttime-lighting.

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

to the current 2006 General Plan of the 2040 General Plan when it is pertinent to the discussion or the analysis provided. As further described below, the instances where this is not specified are primarily associated with text that is applicable to any version of general plan adopted by the City, text that is taken directly from the City Municipal Code, or where the applicable version of the General Plan is explained within the context of the full discussion provided. An explanation for each of the references to “General Plan” raised by the commenter is provided in the table below.

Comment Response
“Design Guidelines included in the TCMV Specific Plan
and would not conflict with goals or policies outlined in the General Plan or MVMC requirements that regulate
scenic quality.” (DEIR page S-8)
This General Plan reference is presented in the Draft EIR summary table and is generally referring to regulations governing scenic quality. For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 and 2040 General Plan
(refer to Section 3.0, Draft EI R Clarification and
Revisions).
“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” (DEIR page S-32).

This General Plan reference is presented in the Draft EIR summary table and is consistent with language in the
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, which refers to
any general plan. No revision to the Draft EIR is
required.
“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 G eneral
Plan, and the MVMC resulting in a less than significant impact” (DEIR page S-37)
This General Plan reference is presented in the Draft EIR summary table . For clarification, the text is hereby
revised to indicate 2006 or 2040 General Plan (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions).
“The area immediately north of the Project site has an
“R5 Residential” land use designation in the City of
Moreno Valley General Plan (General Plan) and is zoned
“Residential 5 (R5) District.” (DEIR page 2-30)
The Draft EIR does not include page 2 -30; however,
similar text is presented on Draft EIR page 2 -1. For
clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate that these land uses designations are referring to the current land uses designations as identifie d in the 2006 General Plan (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions).
“the Specific Plan zoning district allows for “flexibility in design and development requirements which will
afford the opportunity to create major developments on
large tracts of land which will implement the general plan and the planned industrial, plann
ed residential and
planned commercial designations shown on the general
plan map,” (DEIR page 3-7)
This text is citing MVMC Section 9.13, Specific Plans,
which is not specific to any version of the City’s general plan. No revision to the Draft EIR is required.
“Additionally, the cumulative projects would be required to adhere to established development standards
addressing scenic quality as outlined in the General Plan and MVMC,” (DEIR page 4.1- 23)
This text is not specific to any version of the City’s
general plan and would be applicable to any version of
the general plan in effect when a development project is processed. No revision to the Draft EIR is required.
"Specific Plan and would not conflict with goals or
policies outlined in the General Plan or MVMC
requirements that regulate scenic quality” (DEIR page

4.1-24)
For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 and 2040 General Plans, which are both analyzed
in the Draft EIR (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR
Clarification and Revisions).

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

Comment Response
“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 General Plan” (DEIR page 4.2-7)
For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 or 2040 General Plans, (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions).
“The City does not contain any areas with General Plan
land use or zoning designations for agricultural uses.” (DEIR page 4.2-7)
For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 and 2040 General Plans (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions).
“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 General Plan buildout in the City of Moreno Valley and ot her
jurisdictions in the region within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.” (DEIR page 4.4-
18)
For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 and 2040 General Plans (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions).
“As identified the Project would not conflict with the
General Plan goals and policies, or the Connect SoCal
goals and growth projections.” (DEIR page 4.8-18)
For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 or 2040 General Plans (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions).
“Where discrepancies occur between the proposed
TCMV Specific Plan and the MVMC, the TCMV
Specific Plan development standards would prevail.

Where no regulations or guidelines are specified in the TCMV Specific Plan, the City’s General Plan and
MVMC would govern development.” DEIR page 4.11-
23)
This text is not specific to any version of the City’s
general plan and would be applicable to any version of
the general plan in effect when a project implementing
the TCMV Specific Plan is processed. No revision to the Draft EIR is required.
“The existing Environmental Safety section of the
General Plan Safety Element and proposed Noise
Element rely on the transportation noise criteria that are derived from standards contained in the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan
Guidelines.” (DEIR page 4.13-6)
The text in the Draft EIR preceding this excerpt clearly distinguishes that the 2006 General Plan includes noise standards in the Environmental Safety section of the
Safety Element, and the proposed 2040 General Plan
includes noise standards in the Noise E lement. The
referenced OPR General Plan Guidelines are applicable
to the 2006 General Plan and proposed 2040 General
Plan. No revision to the Draft EIR is required.
“City of Moreno Valley General Plan Community Noise
Compatibility Matrix, Table N -1 (Exhibit 3- A of EIR
Technical Appendix K).” (DEIR page 4.13-9)
This text is a footnote in Draft EIR Table 4.13-2, and the referenced table is from the 2040 General Plan. This table replicates the noise compatibility information from the OPR General Plan Guidelines and would be applicable
to development under the 2006 General Plan or 2040
General Plan. No revision to the Draft EIR is required. “Additionally, for future development located in areas
where exterior noise levels exceed the land use
compatibility standards as defined in the Noise Element, site-
specific interior noise analyses demonstrating
compliance with the interior noise standards of Title 24 and the General Plan would be required” (DEIR page

4.13-21)
This text is not specific to any version of the City’s
general plan and would be applicable to any version of
the general plan in effect when a project implementing
the TCMV Specific Plan is processed. No revision to the Draft EIR is required.
“Based on the General Plan land use compatibility
guidelines as shown on Exhibit 3- A of EIR Technical
Appendix K. For conditionally acceptable land use, new
The referenced table is from the 2040 General Plan. This table replicates the noise compatibility information from the OPR General Plan Guidelines and would be
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Comment Response
construction or development should be undertaken only
after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation
features included in the design.” (DEIR page 4.13-23)
applicable to development under the 2006 General Plan
or 2040 General Plan. No revision to the Draft EIR is
required.
“intended to recover for each new residential,
commercial, and industrial development, its reasonable
share, of the cost of each type of public facility and
infrastructure improvements needed to serve that
development and to ensure implementation of, and
consistency with the City’s General Plan and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that adequate public facilities and related improvements will be constructed and made available to serve new
residential development concurrent with t he need.”
(DEIR page 4.15-7)

This text is citing MVMC Title 3, Revenue and Finance,
which is not specific to any version of the City’s general plan. No revision to the Draft EIR is required.
“The amount of land required to be dedicated to the City for parks and recreation facilities is to be consistent with the standards and policies for park facilities adopted in the General Plan or an applicable specific plan. As
identified above, the City has established a standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents” (DEIR page 4.15-8)
This text is citing MVMC Chapter 3.40, which is not
specific to any version of the City’s general plan. No
revision to the Draft EIR is required.
“Landscape and Water Efficiency Requirements,
provides landscape development requirements consistent
with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and
implements landscape- related General Plan objectives
and compliance with California Model Water Efficiency
Ordinance.” (DEIR page 4.18-11)
This text is citing MVMC Chapter 9.17, which is not
specific to any version of the City’s general plan. No
revision to the Draft EIR is required.
“The General Plan 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.” (DEIR page 5-3)
For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 and 2040 General Plans (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions).
“The Project and its environmental effects would not
compel or commit surrounding properties to land uses
other than those that are existing today or those that are planned by the City’s General Plan and zoning
ordinance. For this reason, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to nearby, off -site properties” (DEIR page 5-3)
This text is not specific to any version of the City’s
general plan and would be applicable to any version of
the general plan since the City’s General Plan includes the land use plan for development within the City. No
revision to the Draft EIR is required.
“However, this type of growth is already anticipated in the City’s General Plan, and as identified on Figure 4.0- 1, Cumulative Projects Location Map, is already being
proposed. Therefore, implementation of residential and
nonresidential 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 General Plan.” (DEIR page 5-6)
For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 and 2040 General Plans (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions).
“Accordingly, the Project’s potential influence on other nearby properties to redevelop at greater intensities
This text is not specific to any version of the City’s
general plan and would be applicable to any version of
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Comment Response
and/or different uses than the City’s General Plan and
zoning ordinance allow is speculative.” (DEIR page 5-6) the general plan since the City’s General Plan includes the land use plan for development within the City. No
revision to the Draft EIR is required.
“As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less
Residential Alternative would comply with City
requirements and would not conflict with General Plan
policies related to transportation and circulation,
including the construction of adjacent roadways an d
access improvements necessary to serve the Project, and the construction of improvements to encourage
pedestrian and bicycle travel, and transit use” (DEIR
page 6-19)
For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 and 2040 General Plans (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions).
“As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less
Commercial Alternative would comply with City
requirements and would not conflict with General Plan
policies related to transportation and circulation,
including construction of adjacent roadways and acc ess improvements necessary to serve the Project, and
construction of improvements to encourage pedestrian
and bicycle travel, and transit use.” (DEIR page 6-28)
For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 and 2040 General Plans (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions)
“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 General Plan or MVMC requirements that regulate
scenic quality, and no impact related to degrading scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway.” (DEIR page
6-31)
For clarification, the text is hereby revised to indicate 2006 and 2040 General Plans (refer to Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarification and Revisions).

E-8 This comment incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR is written with an expectation that the 2040 General Plan will be readopted by the City, and also incorrectly refers to the Project site as encompassing 1,200 acres. Draft EIR Section 3.1, Project Background, clearly outlines that the City is currently going through the process to reconsider the 2040 General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning, and Climate Action Plan consistent with the Court’s decision and does not suggest or otherwise assume that the 2040 General Plan will be readopted. The Draft EIR acknowledges the 2040 General Plan as the City issued a Notice of Preparation of a Revised Environmental Impact Report for MoVal 2040: The Moreno Valley Comprehensive General Plan Update, Municipal Code and Zoning (including Zoning Atlas) Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, and to ensure that the Project’s consistency with the 2040 General Plan is evaluated should it be readopted before the Project is considered for approval by the City Council.

Further, Draft EIR Section 3.1, Project Background, outlines strategic planning activities that the City has conducted since 2016 that envision the implementation of a “town center” in the City. These strategic planning activities lead to the City selecting the Project Applicant for development of a mixed-use master-planned project at the Project site. The Project Applicant and the City negotiated a purchase agreement for vacant city parcels which comprise the Project site to create the proposed TCMV Specif ic Plan. Based on this past history, and the City’s reconsideration of the 2040 General Plan, for purposes of analysis it is reasonable to Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

evaluate the Project with respect to not only the proposed 2040 General Plan but also the existing 2006 General Plan. Further, the proposed TCMV Specific Plan has been written such that it is not dependent on adoption of the 2040 General Plan. The Draft EIR adequately addresses the physical environmental impacts of the Project under the 2006 General Plan and the proposed 2040 General Plan.

Refer to response to comment E-1, which addresses the incorrect information provided in the comment regarding the Project site encompassing 1,200 acres. As identified, the referenced 1,200-acre area is the approximate area designated as “Downtown Center” in the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. The Project site encompasses approximately 69.6 gross acres and represents only a small portion (approximately 5.8%) of the identified Downtown Center area.

The Project does not, and is not required to, implement all of the anticipated components of the Downtown Center area as envisioned by the City in the previous 2040 General Plan. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-9 This comment incorrectly states that the Project site encompasses 1,200 acres and should be the location of the “Central Park” anticipated to be located in the Downtown Center area in the 2040 General Plan. This comment also suggests consideration of an alternative to the Project involving the development of a Central Park and only 300 units at the Project site. As identified in response to comment E-1, the Central Park anticipated to be located in the Downtown Center is not envisioned at the Project site. Rather, the Project site is located along Nason Street, which is expected to be developed with higher density residential , commercial and civic uses. An alternative to the Project involving the development of a Central Park and only 300 units would not meet the Project Objectives and would not be consistent with the City’s vision for this portion of the Downtown Center area. CEQA does not require the consideration of alternatives that do not feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of a project. The refore, no further evaluation of the suggested alternative is required. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-10 This comment indicates that the Final EIR should identify where safe crossings for school children would be provided. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.16, Transportation, the Project site is located south of the Moreno Valley Unified School District Early Learning Academy (located north of Cottonwood Avenue) and west of Moreno Elementary School (located east of Nason Street). The Project’s road way improvements would be designed to ensure safe access to these schools. This includes the installation of traffic signal s (and associated crosswalks) at the intersection of Street A/Alessandro Boulevard and at the intersection of Nason Street /Driveway 1/Larkmead Court, a modified traffic signal at Nason Street and Bay Avenue, and intersection improvements at other intersections adjacent to the Project site. There is an existing Class II bikeway and sidewalk along Nason Street adjacent to the Project site, and a planned Class II bikeway and sidewalk along Alessandro Boulevard, which would be constructed as par t of the Project. A Class III bikeway and sidewalk are planned along Cottonwood Avenue, which would also be constructed as part of the Project.

The proposed on-site circulation system would provide direct connections to these bikeways and sidewalks to encourage and facilitate bicycle and pedestrian travel within the area. Further, the Project would include sidewalks on site that would provide connections to site -adjacent Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

roadways and nearby bus stops. The proposed circulation system would ensure safe travel to the nearby schools. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-11 This comment requests information on the Project’s consistency with 2040 General Plan policies addressing Complete Streets and the implementation of a layered circulation network and provides a link to the Smart Growth America website, which includes information about Complete Streets. As described in the 2040 General Plan Circulation Element, which cites the National Complete Street Coalition, a program of Smart Growth America, the precise definition of a Complete Street can vary depending on the context and primary roadway users, but there are some common elements found in successful Complete Streets policies. These policies consider the needs of all users of the street in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation networks. Draft EIR Table 4.16-4 included in Section 4.16, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, provides a detailed analysis of the Project’s consistency with goals and policies outlined in the 2040 General Plan, including Policies C.2- 1 and C.2-2, which address Complete Streets and the implementation of a layered circulation network. As discussed in the Draft EIR, while these policies are intended to guide City actions and are not particularly applicable to individual development projects, the Project would not conflict with these policies. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project would involve the construction of public roadways within the Project site (extension of Bay Avenue and construction of a north-south road between Cot tonwood Avenue and Alessandro Boulevard), and completion of roadway improvements for site adjacent roadways.

The roadway improvements would be implemented in accordance with City standards for the respective General Plan roadway classifications as outlined in the Circulation Element and Circulation Diagram and would provide connectivity in the area for vehicular and non- vehicular modes of travel. The Project would not conflict with the City’s policies related to Complete Streets as presented in the 2040 General Plan. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-12 This comment requests information on the location of the transit center anticipated by the proposed 2040 General Plan in the Downtown Center. As discussed in the policy consistency analysis provided in Draft EIR Section 4.16, Transportation (Table 4.16-4), the Project site is not the anticipated location of a Transit Center/Mobility Hub within the Downtown Center; that facility is expected to be located on another site near the hospital uses to the south. Further, as described in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, there are bus stops on Nason Street (at Cottonwood Avenue and Alessandro Boulevard) as well as a stop on Alessandro Boulevard (toward the southwestern corner of the Specific Plan area). Based on coordination with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) conducted by the City and the Project Applicant during preparation of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, potential new bus routes and bus stops may be implemented within the Specific Plan area with the specific locations to be determined in coordination with RTA during the processing of site development plans. Bus stops would incorporate features to encourage transit use such as lighting, shading, ample seating spaces, and landscaping, and would be reviewed and approved by RTA and the City. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-13 This comment incorrectly states that the buildings need to be LEED certified and that the suggested sustainable features need to be incorporated into the Project. Additionally, this Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

comment references and provides a link to a ULI document produced in 2007 titled “Developing Successful Town Centers ,” which presents the results of a ULI workshop, including a definition of town centers and ten principles for creating them . This document highlights various developments throughout the United States , including Victoria Gardens in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, that was developed by the proposed TCMV Specific Plan Project Applicant.

The City of Moreno Valley does not have any requirements for the construction of LEED - certified buildings , for the implementation of specific sustainable features beyond those required by applicable regulations, or to implement specific recommendations from the 2007 ULI document regarding sidewalks referenced in the comment . Therefore, the suggested sustainable features are not required.

Notwithstanding, the proposed TCMV Spe cific Plan provides the framework for the development of the Project site, and as identified in the proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan, the Project is envisioned as a mixed-use community with a collection of complementary and diverse uses, designed to create a vibrant regional destination and ce ntral gathering place. As a walkable community there would be interconnected plazas, urban niches, landscaped open spaces, and walkable corridors that would enha nce the quality of life and visual appeal of the Town Center at Moreno Valley as a desirable district to “live, work and play.” The proposed development envisioned by and allowed pursuant to the proposed TCMV Specific Plan does not conflict with principles outlined in the 2007 ULI document for developing a successful town center. Additionally, t he Project does incorporate numerous sustainable features identified below, which include features suggested by the commenter:
• The Project would provide required interior and exterior facilities necessary to facilitate recycling as required by the existing regulations, which are further outlined in EIR Section 4.18, Utilities and Services Systems, and specifically subsection 4.18.2, Regulatory Setting.
• As described in the Draft EIR Section 3.4.3.F , Utility Infrastructure Improvements, the final type and size of water quality best management practices (BMPs) would be developed in the required final water management plans (WQMPs) for future projects implementing the TCMV Specific Plan; however, BMPs that would allow for infiltration that would be implemented could include, but would not be limited to: infiltration trenches, infiltration basins, permeable pavement, and bioretention facilities. • The landscape plans would incorporate climate -appropriate, water-wise landscaping features that are identified in the County of Riverside Guide to California Friendly Landscaping (MVMC Section 9.17.030). As identified in the proposed TCMV Specific Plan Section 5.11.4, landscaping would be used within large, paved areas to reduce heat island effect. While MVMC Section 9.17.030 allows the planting of palm trees, shade trees and shade structures would be used in gathering spaces and in parking lots (to reduce the amount of heat absorbed by paved parking surfaces). • While the Project does not envision vertical mixed use in the commercial area, as identified on the proposed TCMV Specific Plan conceptual land use plan provided in Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Draft EIR Section 3.6, it creates a horizontal mixed -use environment by having residential uses within close proximity to the commercial uses. • The proposed TCMV Specific Plan would adhere to the Moreno Valley Landscape and Water Efficiency Requirements (MVMC Chapter 9.17) as well as CALGreen requirements related to water conservation. Water-efficient plumbing fixtures would be installed in buildings and water-conserving irrigation as well as climate -appropriate landscaping would be utilized.
• Draft EIR MM 4.8-1 included in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and revised in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR to include additional measures, requires the use of on-site renewable energy sources such as solar, to reduce electrical demand. The non- residential voluntary requirements outline d in Division A5.211, Renewable Energy, of Appendix A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, of the 2022 California Green Building Code would be mandatory for the Project.
• As described in proposed TCMV Specific Plan Section 1.3.2, Green Building- Sustainable Development, and Draft EIR Section 3.4.3.B, Circulation and Parking, t he Project would accommodate the use of alternative means of transportation. This includes the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
• As described in Draft EIR Section 3.4.3.B, Circulation and Parking, sidewalks would be constructed along site-adjacent roadways where they do not currently exist, and the on- site pedestrian circulation system would provide direct connections to these sidewalks to encourage and facilitate pedestrian travel within the area. Consistent with the information presented in this comment about designing sidewalks, as excerpted from the 2007 ULI document, the sidewalks would be activated due to their location within the proposed commercial, open space and residential area, and the connectivity provided throughout the site. Sidewalks would be occupied throughout the day and evening. As described in TCMV Specific Plan Chapter 5.0, TCMV SP Design Guidelines, and Draft EIR Section

3.4.3.D, Design Guidelines, t he thoroughfares, streets, and walkways would include a planting design that reinforces the community’s character and creates a strong neighborhood identity utilizing such design features as theme trees and places of respite.

Additionally, maintenance would be ensured through the requirements outlined in Chapter 6, Implementation and Administration, of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan .

Where appropriate, sidewalks and pedestrian pathways would be lit for visibility during low-light hours.
• As described in proposed TCMV Specific Plan Section 1.3.2, Green Building- Sustainable Development, construction activities would involve the use of recycled building materials and local sources of building materials, to the extent feasible. • As described in proposed TCMV Specific Plan Section 1.3.2, Green Building- Sustainable Development, and Draft EIR Section 4.6, Energy, the Project would include required electric vehicle (EV) parking stalls and conduits for EV charging stations.

No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-14 The comment requests information about the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the Project and the need for police and fire protection facilities. The applicability of CC&Rs Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

for the future development is not pertinent to and does not affect the environmental analysis for the Project provided in the Draft E IR. With respect to police and fire protection facilities, Draft EIR Section 4.15, Public Services and Recreation, addresses the increased demand for public services. As identified, the City has determined that the Project would not require the construction of new altered police or fire protection facilities; therefore, no physical environmental impacts would result. Additionally, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the provisions of MVMC Title 3 related to DIF payments for fire and police facilities, which would be used for the purpose of acquiring, designing, constructing, improving, providing, and maintaining, fire and police services facilities, and would ensure the contribution of the Project’s fair share of the cost of these facilities. As explained in the Draft EIR, impacts related to police and fire protection would be less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-15 This comment identifies that Alessandro Boulevard is a City-designated truck route, that diesel trucks will travel along this roadway, and the air quality and noise impacts from diesel trucks along this truck route to future residents and occupants at the Project site should be evaluated in the Final EIR. Pursuant to the Supreme Court decision regarding the assessment of the environment’s impacts on projects (California Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 62 Cal. 4th 369, 378 [2015]), it is not the purview of the CEQA process to evaluate the impact of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project. Therefore, the requested analysis is not required.

E-16 This comment indicates that the EIR alternatives should include an “environmentally/sustainability superior model” and suggests specific features that should be included. As identified in Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states: “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project...”

The Project ’s significant and unavoidable air quality and GHG emissions impacts during operation are primarily the result of the emissions resulting from mobile sources (vehicles).

Neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions. There are no alternatives, beyond alternatives that reduce vehicular trips, that would reduce or avoid the Project’s significant impacts related to operational air quality and GHG emissions. Therefore, as required by CEQA, and as described in EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, the alternatives evaluated in the EIR focused on alternatives that serve to reduce vehicular trips and associated emissions , thereby reducing or avoiding the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts . Th e analysis include s the CEQA -required No Project alternative , a Reduced Development/Less Residential Alternative, Reduced Development/Less Commercial Alternative, and Reduced Development/Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative.

This represents a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the Project objectives. Contrary to the comment’s suggestion, an “environmentally/sustainability superior model” is not required by CEQA. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, the Draft EIR’s alternatives analysis identified an environmentally superior alternative. The Reduced Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Development – Less Residential Alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative compared to the Project and the other development alternatives.

The Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts that are a result of the Project’s design or sustainability features ; therefore, anal ysis of an additional environmentally/sustainability superior alternative and incorporation of the sustainable features suggested by the comment is not required.

E-17 This comment, with one exception, presents photographs and verbatim text excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan describing the vision for the “Downtown Center” (starting on page 2-17). It should be noted that the previous 2040 General Plan page 2-17, 2nd sentence, reads: Design guidelines for development at the core of the Downtown Center seek to take advantage of the relatively flat terrain and promote higher building heights to help build visual connections from other locations withi n the community and enhance the prominence of the Downtown Center as an important destination. The commenter incorrectly replaced the word guidelines with “standards.” As discussed above in Response E -1, the Project implements a relatively small component of the overall Downtown Center area . The Project would not conflict with and would serve to implement this vision as stated in the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-18 This comment restates Policy LCC.2-1 excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan regarding creation of a Downtown Center. The Project’s consistency with this policy is addressed in Draft EIR Table 4.1-2 . This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-19 This comment restates Policy LCC.2-2 excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan regarding the preparation of area plans demonstrating consistency with principles included in the 2040 General Plan. As identified in MVMC Section 9.13.010, specific plans are a tool for the systematic implementation of the General Plan. The Projects’ consistency with this Policy is addressed in Draft EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, which identifies that this policy and associated Downtown Center Development Principles related to Land Use and Urban Design are met through implementation of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan. Further, the proposed TCMV Specific Plan includes land use and development standards, and design guidelines that ensure compliance with General Plan policies. A conceptual land use plan for the Specific Plan area is provided in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description.

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

E-20 This comment restates Policy LCC.2-3 excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan regarding the creation of a central core with mixed uses within the Downtown Center.

This policy is applicable to the City’s overall planning efforts for the Downtown Center area, of which the Project is only a part. Notwithstanding, the Project is consistent with this policy to the extent that it allows for the creation of a high intensity mixed-use development near the intersection of Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard. The proposed TCMV Specific Plan would allow for the development of commercial, residential and open space uses, which would Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

be activated during the day and evening. The Riverside University Health System Medical and Surgical Center (RUMC) is located approximately 0.25 mile south of the Project site and the Project would facilitate connectivity to this use through the construction of roadway, bikeway and/or sidewalk improvements along Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard. The Project would not conflict with this policy. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-21 This comment restates Policy LCC.2-4 excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan related to attracting higher -wage employers to the Downtown Center. This policy is applicable to the City’s overall planning efforts for the Downtown Center area, of which the Project is only a part. The proposed TCMV Specific Plan would allow for the development of various types of non-residential uses within the designated commercial area. The Project would not conflict with this policy. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-22 This comment consists of three pictures excerpted from the 2040 General Plan Land Use and Community Character section. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-23 This comment restates Policy LCC.2-6 excerpted from the previously adopted General Plan 2040 related to creation of a Central Park and suggests the Central Park should be included within the Project site incorrectly identified as 1,200 acres. As identified in response to comment E -1, the Project site represents a relatively small part of the overall 1,200- acre Downtown Center area. The Central Park, anticipated to be located in the Downtown Center, is not envisioned at the Project site. Rather, the Project site is located along Nason Street, which is expected to be developed with higher density residential, commercial , and civic uses. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-24 This comment restates Policy LCC.2-8 excerpted from the previously adopted General Plan 2040 related to the transformation of Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard announcing arrival into Downtown Moreno Valley. The Project’s consistency with this policy is addressed in Draft EIR Table 4.1-2. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-25 This comment restates Policy LCC.2-10 excerpted from the previously adopted General Plan 2040 related to encouraging bicycling and walking as well as electric and autonomous vehicles.

The Project’s consistency with this policy is addressed in Draft EIR Table 4.1-2. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-26 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center de velopment principles excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan related to preservation of views of hills to the southeast and incorrectly asserts that this issue was not addressed in the Draft EIR. The analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and specifically Threshold “a” evaluates the Project’s impacts on scenic vistas. As identified, the public roadways surrounding the Project site are not identified as being within a View Corridor. Additionally, the Project site is not Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

visible from identified view corridors; the nearest view corridors are approximately 0.5- mile southwest of the Project site (generally from Moreno Beach Road), and approximately 0.9- mile northeast of the Project site (generally from Eucalyptus Avenue). Although not identified as view corridors in the City’s current 2006 General Plan or proposed 2040 General Plan, the views available from existing roadways that extend north-south (Nason Street), and east -west (Alessandro Boulevard and Cottonwood Avenue) adjacent to the Project site would largely be retained. The proposed development would obstruct distant views currently available across the vacant site; however, the east -west extension of Bay Avenue through the site, and implementation of a new north-south roadway connecting Cottonwood Avenue and Alessandro Boulevard would provide additional access to mountain views for the public traveling through the site. Further, the proposed public open space/park areas would be located along the proposed east-west and n orth-south roadways, which would further expand the view sheds from the vantage points.

Further, the Project site has been previously graded and does not retain any natural topography.

The Project site is relatively flat. Due to the relatively flat topography of the Project site and surrounding areas, views of the site from distant vantage points are limited.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with this development principle. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-27 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to circulation (the extension of Brodiaea ) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. Brodiaea Avenue is an east -west street located approximately 0.25- mile south of the Project site. This development principle is not applicable to the Project. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-28 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to circulation (create a layered network of roadways) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. This principle is intended to guide City actions and is accomplished through the implementation of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, which identifies the location and classification of various roadways to be developed within the City. As discussed in Section

4.16, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the proposed TCMV Specific Plan has been developed to implement, or facilitate future implementation where applicable, of this development principle. The Project would involve the construction of public roadways within the Project site (extension of Bay Avenue and construction of a north-south road between Cottonwood Avenue and Alessandro Boulevard), and completion of roa dway improvements for site adjacent roadways. The roadway improvements would be implemented in accordance with City standards for the respective General Plan roadway classifications as outlined in the Circulation Element and Circulation Diagram and would provide connectivity in the area for vehicular and non-vehicular modes of travel. As such, and as further identified in Draft EIR Section 4.16, Transportation, the Project would not conflict with this development principle.

This 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

E-29 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to circulation (related to creating smaller urban blocks) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. The Project is designed to promote walkability and access to the non- residential uses and adjacent neighborhoods utilizing sidewalks, linear park access and designated paths of travel for pedestrians . TCMV Specific Plan Figure 17, Non-Vehicular Circulation (included as Draft EIR Figure 3-7, Project Access/Circulation) provides proposed access locations to facilitate walkability and pedestrian access within the development. As identified in Draft EIR Section 4.16, Transportation, t he Project would not conflict with this development principle. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-30 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to circulation (provision of a transit center) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan.

As identified in response to comment E-12, the Project site is not the anticipated location of a Transit Center/Mobility Hub within the Downtown Center; that facility is expected to be located near the hospital uses to the south. There are existing bus stops near the Project site and the Project would facilitate access to these facilities. Based on coordination with the RTA conducted by the City and the Project Applicant during preparation of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, potential new bus routes and bus stops may be implemented within the Specific Plan area with the s pecific locations to be determined in coordination with RTA during the processing of site development plans. Bus stops would incorporate features to encourage transit use such as lighting, shading, ample seating spaces, and landscaping, and would be review ed and approved by RTA and the City. As identified in Draft EIR Section 4.16, Transportation, the Project would not conflict with this development principle . This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-31 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to circulation (street network characteristics) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. This development principle is intended to guide City actions and is accomplished through the implementation of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, which identifies the location and classification of various roadways to be developed within the City. Refer to the response to comment E-28 above, which addresses the circulation network. As identified in Draft EIR Section 4.16, Transportation, the Project would not conflict with this development principle. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-32 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to circulation (electric and autonomous vehicles) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. The Project would include electric vehicle (EV) parking stalls and conduits for EV charging stations. Additionally, as identified in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, residents would have the ability to access proposed commercial and retail by foot, bicycle or neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV). As identified in Draft EIR Section 4.16, Transportation, the Project would not conflict with this development principle . This 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

E-33 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to circulation (connection between destinations within the Downtown Center) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. The Project site is not adjacent to the RUMC, Aquabella, or Kaiser Hospital Campus, which are located south of the Project site. However, the RUMC is located approximately 0.25 mile south of the Project site and the Project would facilitate connectivity to this use through the construction of roadway, bikeway and/or sidewalk improvements along Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard. The Project would not conflict with this development principle. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-34 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to circulation (design interconnecting streets to break up the superblocks) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. The streets adjacent to the Specific Plan area would be built to City standards. Alessandro Boulevard and Nason Street are both designated as Divided Arterials whereas Cottonwood Avenue is designated a Minor Arterial. Each of these streets would include a landscaped parkway adjac ent to the si dewalks. A traffic signal exists at the intersection of Nason Street and Bay Avenue, and two other signals would be constructed, one adjacent to the commercial Planning Area on Nason Street and the other at the intersection of Alessandro Boulevard and the proposed A Street. To further break up block lengths there would be entries to the Planning Areas that are taken from these backbone streets. Streets that are internal to the Planning Areas would have smaller block lengths due to the envisioned buildings (e.g. detached homes, duplex, townhomes) and these Planning Areas would also have landscaping throughout and pedestrian walkways. Other than the commercial and park Planning Areas, the proposed TCMV Specific Plan Planning Areas are envisioned for residential uses. As a result, streets would be narrower than the backbone streets and would contain breaks in block lengths due to driveways, parking spaces, and intersections. As identified in Draft EIR Section 4.16, Transportation, the Project would not conflict with this development principle. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-35 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to circulation (connect the trail network) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. This development principle is not applicable to the Project as the identified roadways are not located adjacent to the Project site. Additionally, the Project would not preclude the City’s ability to implement this policy. The Project would not conflict with this development principle. This comment does not raise any specifi c issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-36 This comment suggests that the Project would not provide the referenced circulation elements for the Downtown Center , would make them more difficult to achieve , and requests that the Final EIR explain how the Project with 1,200 acres would accomplish these circulation elements. As previously identified in response to comment E-1, the Project site represents only a small portion (approximately 5.8%) of the identified 1,200-acre Downtown Center area. The Project does not, and is not required to, impleme nt all of the anticipated components of the Downtown Center area as envisioned by the City in the previous 2040 General Plan. Refer to the responses above, which discuss the 2040 General Plan policies and development principles Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

and demonstrate that the Project does not conflict with these policies and development principles. No revisions to the Draft EIR analysis are required.

E-37 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to parks and open space (provide linear Central Park) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. Refer to the response to comment E -1 above, which explains that the Central Park anticipated to be located in the Downtown Center is not envisioned at the Project site.

Rather, the Project site is located along Nason Street, which is expected to be developed with higher density residential, commercial and civic uses. The Project would not conflict with this development principle. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-38 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to parks and open space (connect the RUMC and the Nason/Alessandro Town Center development ) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. This development principle is intended to guide City actions associated with implementation of development within the Downtown Center area. The Project would assist the City in providing this connectivity with the implementation of pedestrian facilities within the TCMV Specifi c Plan area and specifically within the proposed commercial area at the corner of Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard. Additionally, pursuant to the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, public art would be included as part of the development within the Specific Plan area. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, t he Project would not conflict with this development principle. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-39 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to parks and open space (create a network of public outdoor spaces) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. As described in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project includes approximately 4.9 acres of open space area, including an approximately 3.5 - acre area to be centrally located and open to the public, and an approximately 1.4-acre linear park. The open space areas would provide passive a nd recreational opportunities for the community. The location of parks near the commercial/civic uses would add an enhanced visitor and resident experience to the community as people could conveniently spend time in both the commercial and the park spaces. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the Project would not conflict with this development principle. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-40 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to parks and open space (public outdoor spaces in commercial and employment areas) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. The proposed TCMV Specific Plan Commercial Design Guidelines (Section 5.11) encourage gathering spaces and plazas. Communal gathering spaces are encouraged to promote a vibrant and interactive environment for residents, employees and visitors alike. Common use areas may include (but are not limited to): plazas, outdoor eating areas, building entry forecourts and courtyards. These places provide opportunities for activities such as outdoor eating, casual meetings and small group gatherings.

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

Plazas are encouraged as much as possible to emphasize a pedestrian-friendly environment by creating locations within the commercial development that allow for people to gather. Plaza and open space areas are encouraged to include amenities that stimulate their use, including seating, shade, landscaping, artwork, and play areas. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the Project would not conflict with this development principle. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-41 This comment restates one of the Downtown Center development principles related to parks and open space (parks and open space along bicycle and pedestrian routes) excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan. The proposed open space areas/parks discussed in response to comment E -39 above would be located along the new public streets that extend north-south and east -west (Bay Avenue) through the Project site, which also accommodate sidewalk and bicycle facilities. Further, as described in Dr aft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, there are existing and proposed sidewalk and bicycle facilities along existing roadways surrounding the Project site that would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to the open space areas. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the Project would not conflict with this development principle. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-42 This comment consists of a picture excerpted from the previously adopted 2040 General Plan Land Use and Community Character section. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

E-43 This comment indicates that the Specific Plan and Final EIR for the Town Center at Moreno Valley should be part of the larger project envisioned and not just a standalone -project.

Although not stated, it is assumed that the commenter is referring to the Downtown Center envisioned in the previous ly adopted 2040 General Plan. The comment further indicates that the connectivity between the Project and the lands to the south must be planned with the Project. As previously identified in response to comment E-1, the Project site represents only a small portion (approximately 5.8%) of the identified 1,200-acre Downtown Center area. The Project does not, and is not required to, implement all of the anticipated components of the Downtown Center area as envisioned by the City in the previous 2040 General Plan. Rather, the previous 2040 General Plan acknowledges that individual projects will be processed by the City to implement the vision for the Downtown Center, with e ach implementing project required to demonst rate consistency with the development principles outlined for the Downtown Center. As discussed in response to comment s E-19 through E -41 above , the Project does not conflict with the applicable development principles.

E-44 The comments requests notification of document s and meetings related to this P roject. The commenter is on the Project notification list and will be informed of documents and meetings related to the Project, as requested.

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

Comment Letter F
From: George Hague <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 9:18 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Additional Sierra Club comments on the Moreno Valley Town Center Draft EIR
Good evening Ms Elliot, April 10, 2025 In my rush to turn in Sierra Club comments in on the Moreno Valley Town Center (MVTC) Draft EIR in a timely manner I forgot to include the couple of thoughts below my name. I hope you will include them with my others.

Thank you,
George Hague
Good evening/morning Ms Elliot,
Please accept these couple of additional thoughts on the Moreno Valley Town Center (MVTC) Draft EIR.

The Sierra Club is quite concerned that the MVTC doesn’t appear to have apartment units designated for low and/or very low income residents. While sometimes a studio or a single bedroom will do, there are families with more than one child that need a home for their family. Some of them need a two or three bedroom unit. Moreno Valley needs to require developers with large housing projects to include housing for individuals/families that are designated for low or very low income.

As a retired teacher who had students from low and very low income families as well as homeless students even year, I can tell the MVTC developer that most of these students and their families are very e good people — no better and no worse than those who are able to pay for more expensive units.

The city needs to require low and very low income units scattered throughout their project instead of designating one building for such. This should be a city-wide policy.

The MVTC should also designate at least 3% to 5% of the units for those with disabilities. These could include veterans and members of our growing senior population. If our city doesn’t plan for those with disabilities that in many cases have served us and our families, where are they suppose to go to find a place to live? Some of the units could even be slightly modified to make it easier for them to function with their daily acivitdes.

F-1
F-2
F-3
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

The Sierra Club will be looking for the Final EIR to address some of the real needs mentioned above.

Please keep the Sierra Club and me notified of alll meetings and documents related to this document.

Sincerely,

George Hague
Sierra Club
Moreno Valley/Box Springs Group
Conservation Co-Chair

1325 P .O. Box 1325
Moreno Valley, CA 92556

F-4
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER F:

Sierra Club, Moreno Valley/Box Springs Group (Email)
F-1 This comment provides introductory remarks and does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

F-2 This comment incorrectly suggests that the Project does not include low and/or very low income residential units and suggests that as a citywide policy low and very low units should be spread through projects instead of designating one building for these uses . The comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Notwithstanding, the Project would accommodate affordable housing as required by the agreement between the City of Moreno Valley and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), executed on July 15, 2024. A s described in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, and as discussed in Section 3.5.1 of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, the “Residential” land use component of the Project is required to include an approximately 3-acre parcel (the “Affordable Housing Site”) for the development of affordable housing units. The total number of affordable housing units woul d be equal to the greater of 100 affordable housing units or 15% of the total number of residential units developed in the TCMV Specific Plan area, including the “Affordable Housing Site .” The developer of the Affordable Housing Site would be required to record a covenant or restriction against the Affordable Housing Site that would provide that the affordable housing units developed on the Affordable Housing Site would be sold or rented at affordable housing cost, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5, or affordable rent, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053, to lower income households, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. The covenant or restriction would require that rental units remain affordable to, and occupied by, lower income households for a period of at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing. The initial occupants of all ownership units on the Affordable Housing Site would be lower income households, and the ownership units would be subject to an equity s haring agreement consistent with Government Code Section 65915, Subdivision (c)(2). The provision of low and very low income units elsewhere within the TCMV Specific Plan area is not a requirement of the City or the agreement between the City and the HCD; however, the proposed TCMV Specific Plan does not include any provision that would preclude the development of low and very low income in other areas besides the Affordable Housing Site.

F-3 This comment suggests that the Project should designate at least 3% to 5% of the units for those with disabilities. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Notwithstanding, it should be noted that there is no requirement to designate units specifically for disabled individuals ; however, the residential units would be developed in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

F-4 The comment provides closing remarks and requests notification of documents and meetings related to this Project. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. The commenter is on the Project notification list and will be informed of documents and meetings related to the Project, as requested.

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

Comment Letter G

P: (626) 314-3821
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]

Mitchell M. Tsai
Law Firm
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
April 10, 2025
Emily Elliott, AICP, Contract Planner
City of Moreno Valley
Community Development Department
Planning Division
14177 Frederick Street
P.O. Box 88005
Moreno Valley, CA 92553

Em: [email protected]

RE: Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Project – Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022040417)
Dear Planning Division,
On behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (“ Western States Carpenters” or “WSRCC”), our firm is submitting these comments in connection with the City of Moreno Valley’s (“ City”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“ DEIR”) for the Town Center Project (“Project”).

According to the DEIR, the Project Site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard; south of Cottonwood Avenue, west of Nason Street, and north of Alessandro Boulevard, and comprises Assessor Parcel Numbers 487-470-030 and 487-470-031 “Project Site”). The Project proposes construction of a mixed-use development consisting of residential (including affordable housing units), commercial, civic, and open spaces. The Project will require approval of the following: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change from Public Facilities to TCMV Specific Plan, TCMV Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report. (DEIR, pp. 3-1–3-7.)
The Western States Carpenters is a labor union representing over 90,000 union carpenters in 12 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well -ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development G-1
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

projects. Individual members of the Western States Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

WSRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project.

Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.

WSRCC incorporates by reference all comments related to the Project or its CEQA review, including the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Environmental Impact Report. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, WSRCC requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law ”) (Gov. Code, §§ 65000 –65010). California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL
WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY’S ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT
The City should require the Project to be built by contractors who participate in a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California and make a commitment to hiring a local workforce.

Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:

G-2
G-1
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost —and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs -housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions.2 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced

1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10.

G-2
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.3
Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve V MT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents. 4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues.

Cervero and Duncan note that:

In nearly built -out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment -ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (“ AB2011”). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.

3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.

G-2
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.

II. THE CITY SHOULD IMPOSE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE PROJECT’S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT
COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND OTHER INFECTIOUS

DISEASES
Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High -risk activity for COVID -19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-19.5 The Western States Carpenters recommend that the City adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. The Western States Carpenters requests that the City require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.

In particular, based upon the Western States Carpenters’ experience with safe construction site work practices, the Western States Carpenters recommends that the City require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site:

Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.

5 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT

CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.

G-3
G-2
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6 -foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.

Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non -contact devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.

G-3
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.

Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all -hands meetings and all -hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.6 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID -19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The City should require that all construction workers undergo COVID -19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.

The Western States Carpenters has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ ICRA”) training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and control infection risks by implementing protocols to

6 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU_ CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf.

G-3
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

protect themselves and all others during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.7
ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities. ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary infections in patients at hospital facilities.

The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA protocols.

III. THE CITY SHOULD EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN

NEGOTIATING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO OBTAIN

ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS, ENVIRONMENTAL

MITIGATION, AND PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
Development agreements are a tool for municipalities to capture and receive community benefits while granting project proponents certainty for project entitlements.8 The City should exercise its lawful authority to enter into a Development Agreement with the Project applicant to secure additional community benefits (including local hire and apprenticeship requirements to spur local economic development) and additional environmental mitigation for the impacted community as well as project revisions that ameliorate potential environmental impacts consistent with this comment letter.

IV. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA is a California statute designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15002, subd. (a)(1).9 At its core, its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental

7 For details concerning the Western States Carpenters’ ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/.
8 Hanson Hom, Vivian Kahn, and Matt Taecker (2017) Best Practices for Implementing a Community Benefits Program California Planning Roundtable, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/infill/community_benefits_final_07152017.docx.pdf 9 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. Pub. Res. Code, § 21083. The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217.

G-5
G-3
(CONT .)
G-4
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government[.]’” Citizens of Goleta Valley v.

Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (internal citation omitted).

To achieve this purpose, CEQA mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for projects so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80. The EIR requirement “is the heart of CEQA.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(a).

CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2).

A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that a proposed project “may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subds. (f)(1)-(2), 15063; No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 75; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-112. If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A)-(B).

Essentially, should a lead agency be presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064(f)(1)-(2); see No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 75 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Substantial evidence includes “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this G-5
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).

The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810.

The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450). The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. Id. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Id.

A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA.

This presumption is reflected in what is known as the “fair argument” standard under which an EIR must be prepared whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602; Friends of “B” St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.3d 988, 1002.

Further, it is the duty of the lead agency, not the public, to conduct the proper environmental studies. “The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.” Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 311. “Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” Ibid; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382 (lack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument which may be made based on the limited facts in the record).

Thus, refusal to complete recommended studies lowers the already low threshold to establish a fair argument. The court may not exercise its independent judgment on the G-5
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

omitted material by determining whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been affected had the law been followed. Environmental Protection Information Center v. Cal. Dept. of Forestry (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 486 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The remedy for this deficiency would be for the trial court to issue a writ of mandate. Ibid.

While the courts review an EIR using an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. Berkeley Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted). A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. Ibid. Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the First District Court of Appeal has previously stated, prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. Berkeley Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted).

Both the review for failure to follow CEQA’s procedures and the fair argument test are questions of law, thus, the de novo standard of review applies. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.

Whether the agency’s record contains substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is treated as a question of law. Consolidated Irrigation Dist., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 207; Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the Environmental Quality Act (2017, 2d ed.) at § 6.76.

Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an EIR must be recirculated whenever there is disclosure of significant new information. Significant new information includes: (1) disclosure of a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new proposed mitigation measure; (2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; and (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed which would clearly lessen the significant G-6
G-5
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

environmental impacts of the project which the project proponents decline to adopt.

Id.

Additionally, an EIR must be recirculated when it is so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment is precluded. Id. [citing Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043].

Here, as discussed below, the DEIR fails to substantiate all of its conclusions to allow meaningful public review and comment, provide adequate mitigation measures, and fully assess all pertinent environmental factors. Accordingly, this comment letter discloses significant new information, necessitating revision and recirculation of the DEIR.

V. THE DEIR IS INADEQUATE UNDER CEQA AND SHOULD BE

REVISED AND RECIRCULATED
A. The DEIR Fails to Support Various Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts with Substantial Evidence
CEQA requires that an EIR identify and discuss the significant effects of a Project, and how those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2; PRC §§ 21100(b)(1), 21002.1(a). If a project has a significant effect on the environment, an agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2) (A–B). Such findings must be supported by substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines § 15091(b).

When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed in the DEIR but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the DEIR’s analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by substantial evidence, the DEIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence.

See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1109. While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining significance and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or thresholds of significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence.

CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts G-7
G-6
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

(2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.

In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.

Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1, the court set aside an EIR for a statewide crop disease control plan because it did not include an evaluation of the risks to the environment and human health from the proposed program but simply presumed that no adverse impacts would occur from use of pesticides in accordance with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. See also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project).

Here, for the reasons discussed in detail below, the DEIR fails to comply with the foregoing requirements.

11.. AAiirr QQuuaalliittyy,, iinncclluuddiinngg GGrreeeennhhoouussee GGaass EEmmiissssiioonnss aanndd DDiieesseell UUssee
While the DEIR acknowledges the Project’s potentially significant impacts on Air Quality, it fails to provide sufficient evidence or supporting analysis for the public to adequately discern and evaluate those impacts. For instance, while the DEIR acknowledges that the Project “could result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations because operational-source emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds,” 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). Without fully understanding the Project’s potential impacts on air quality, it may be practically impossible to determine the adequacy of the Project’s proposed mitigation measures regarding air quality impacts.

G-7
(CONT .)
G-8
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

Regarding Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions specifically, the DEIR only cursorily acknowledges and evaluates these impacts instead of providing detailed analysis and evidence as required by the CEQA Guidelines. For instance, the DEIR does not provide a comprehensive analysis of potential GHG emissions. Instead, the DEIR merely acknowledges that “the Project would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr,” but does not provide a thorough breakdown of how that projection is calculated. (DEIR, p. S-26).

CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4 allow a lead agency to determine the significance of a project’s GHG impact via a qualitative analysis (e.g., extent to which a project complies with regulations or requirements of state/regional/local GHG plans), and/or a quantitative analysis (e.g., using model or methodology to estimate project emissions and compare it to a numeric threshold). So too, CEQA Guidelines allow lead agencies to select what model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions so long as the selection is supported with substantial evidence, and the lead agency “should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(c).

Here, the DEIR appears to invoke both qualitative and quantitative analyses.

However, the DEIR does not rely on any quantitative analysis to determine compliance with any numerical thresholds and instead relies on the Project’s purported consistency with various land use plans and regulatory schemes, in making a determination that the Project’s GHG impacts are less than significant.

CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b) allow a lead agency to consider a project’s consistency with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) make clear qualified GHG reduction plans or CAP should include the following features:
(1) Inventory: Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities (e.g., projects) within a defined geographic area (e.g., lead agency jurisdiction); (2) Establish GHG Reduction Goal : Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;
G-9
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

(3) Analyze Project Types: Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area;
(4) Craft Performance Based Mitigation Measures : Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
(5) Monitoring: Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP progress toward achieving said level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels;
Collectively, the above-listed features tie qualitative measures to quantitative results, which in turn become binding via proper monitoring and enforcement by the jurisdiction—all resulting in real GHG reductions for the jurisdiction as a whole, and the substantial evidence that the incremental contribution of an individual project is not cumulatively considerable.

Second, it is not enough for an environmental document to conclude there are no significant GHG emissions impacts based upon a determination of consistency with a GHG Reduction Plan, without also making a determination based upon substantial evidence of the project’s actual cumulative contributions to GHG emissions. In other words, a determination of consistency is only a starting point.10 Compliance or non- compliance is merely one factor to be considered. The lead agency must explain how reliance on any particular plan or regulation addresses a potential impact.

Here, however, the DEIR fails to demonstrate that the GHG Reduction Plan includes the above-listed requirements to be considered a qualified CAP or GHG Reduction Plan for the City. As such, the DEIR leaves an analytical gap showing that compliance with said plans can be used for a project-level significance determination for the Project. The DEIR also fails to explain how compliance with the GHG Reduction Plan leads to a less than significant impact.11

10 Cal. Nat. Res. Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, OAL Notice File No. Z-2018-0116-12 (Nov. 2018), at p. 95; see also Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 1170, 1207 (“”[A]n inconsistency between a project and other land use controls does not in itself mandate a finding of significance. [Citations.]
11 Natural Resources Agency (Nov. 2018) Final Statement of Reasons For Regulatory Action:

Amendments To The State CEQA Guidelines (“2018 Final Statement of Reason”), p. 19 (adding G-9
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

Lastly, the DEIR does not contain sufficient analysis regarding air quality impacts stemming from the use of ddiieesseell ttrruucckkss and other ddiieesseell--ooppeerraatteedd vveehhiicclleess aanndd eeqquuiippmmeenntt during construction and operation. Instead, it provides only estimations and projections of potential diesel use without much further analysis on resulting environmental impacts. While the DEIR acknowledges the Project’s “consumption of approximately 187,803 gallons of diesel fuel,” it does not go much further in analyzing any environmental impacts flowing therefrom. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10; App. E, Table 4-5). Instead, the DEIR suggests that “compliance with anti-idling and emission regulations would result in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy,” but does not provide additional analysis to support its claim. (DEIR, p.

reference to section 15183.5 to section 15064.4(b)(3) because it was “needed to clarify that lead agencies may rely on plans prepared pursuant to section 15183.5 in evaluating a project’s greenhouse gas emissions[,] … [which] is consistent with the Agency’s Final Statement of Reasons for the addition of section 15064.4, which states that ‘proposed section 15064.4 is intended to be read in conjunction with . . . proposed section 15183.5. Those sections each indicate that local and regional plans may be developed to reduce GHG emissions.’”),
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_Final_ Statement_of%20Reasons_111218.pdf; see also Natural Resources Agency (Dec. 2009) Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action (“2009 Final Statement of Reason”), p. 27 (“Those sections each indicate that local and regional plans may be developed to reduce GHG emissions. If such plans reduce community-wide emissions to a level that is less than significant, a later project that complies with the requirements in such a plan may be found
to have a less than significant impact.”),
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf.; 2009 Final Statement of Reason, pp. 14-17 (To qualify, the plan “must … include binding requirements to address a cumulative problem[;] … such plans contain specific requirements with respect to resources that are within the agency‘s jurisdiction to avoid or substantially lessen the agency‘s contributions to GHG emissions … consistency with plans that are purely aspirational (i.e., those that include only unenforceable goals without mandatory reduction measures), and provide no assurance that emissions within the area governed by the plan will actually address the cumulative problem[;] … by requiring that lead agencies draw a link between the project and the specific provisions of a binding plan or regulation, section 15064(h)(3) would ensure that cumulative effects of the project are actually addressed by the plan or regulation in question.”) 35 SCAG (Dec. 2015) 2016 RTP/SCS Program EIR (“PEIR”), p. 3.8-12 –

3.8-13 (“SB 375 provides that the SCS developed as part of the RTP does not regulate the use of land or dictate local land use policies, and further expressly provides that a city’s or county’s land use policies and regulations, including its general plan, are not required to be consistent with the SCS. Rather, SB 375 is intended to provide a regional policy foundation that local government may build upon, if they so choose.” Emphasis added), http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/ peir/draft/2016dPEIR_3_8_GreenhouseGases.pdf.

G-10
G-9
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

4.6-10). The DEIR should be revised in accordance with CEQA Guidelines to adequately identify and address any potential impacts stemming from diesel use.

B. The DEIR’s Mitigation Measures Are Insufficient
A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a).

If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(A); and find that ‘specific overriding economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.” PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(B). “A gloomy forecast of environmental degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the impacts and restore ecological equilibrium.” Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039.

CEQA mitigation measures proposed and adopted are required to describe what actions will be taken to reduce or avoid an environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing “[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.”].) While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an exception to the rule against deferrals, such exception is narrowly proscribed to situations where it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project's environmental review.

According to CEQA Guidelines, “[w]hen an EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(g)(2).

G-11
G-10
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

Here, the EIR’s mitigation measures for the Project are inadequate as described below.

11.. TThhee DDEEIIRR’’ss MMiittiiggaattiioonn MMeeaassuurreess AArree IImmpprrooppeerrllyy DDeeffeerrrreedd LLoonngg TTeerrmm ffoorr VVaarriioouuss IImmppaacctt CCaatteeggoorriieess CEQA forbids deferred mitigation. Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). CEQA allows deferral of details of a mitigation measure only “when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’s environmental review.” (Id.) CEQA further requires: “that the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard…” Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). Deferring formulation of a Project’s actual mitigation measures to some undefined time after the Project’s approval is improper and cannot be used as a substitute for proper mitigation under CEQA. Impermissible deferral can occur when an EIR calls for mitigation measures to be created based on future studies or describes mitigation measures in general terms but the agency fails to commit itself to specific performance standards. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281 [city improperly deferred mitigation to butterfly habitat by failing to provide standards or guidelines for its management].) Here, the EIR improperly defers critical details of the Project’s mitigation measures for various environmental impacts. Specifically, various mitigation measures are deferred until after the City’s approval of the Project. For instance, the DEIR’s proposed mitigation measure for air quality impacts requires that “prior to the issuing of each building permit,” but after Project approval, the project applicant “provide plans and specifications to the City that demonstrate electrical service is provided to each of the areas in the vicinity…” (DEIR, p. S-10). Similarly, as a potential mitigation measure to address impacts to biological resources, the DEIR would require that “prior to the issuance of grading permits,” but after Project approval, “the Property Owner/Developer shall provide the City with proof of retention of a qualified biologist to implement this mitigation measure.” (DEIR, p. S-13). Similarly, the DEIR suggests mitigating any impacts to cultural resources by requiring that the project applicant retain a “professional archaeologist,” after project approval, but “prior to issuance of a grading permit.” (DEIR, p. S-19). Notably, the DEIR does not sufficiently analyze the impacts that said paleontologist would eventually be required to evaluate pursuant to this mitigation measure. Further, the DEIR also G-12
G-11
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

proposes a similar mitigation measure for impacts regarding geology and soils because it requires the Project application to retain “a qualified Paleontologist to observe grading activities,” after project approval, but “prior to issuance of grading permits and/or action that would permit Project site disturbance.” (DEIR, p. S-24). Lastly, the project proposes mitigating any significant impacts from GHG emissions by requiring that the applicant “shall design and build future non-residential to meet” certain requirements, but notably after Project approval. (DEIR, p. S-26) (emphasis added).

The postponement of these mitigation measures, and their corresponding analyses, denies the public and the City’s decisionmakers the opportunity to assess the adequacy of analyses to be conducted, and the Project’s overall impact on various environmental media. Indeed, because of this deferment, coupled with the lack of clarity in the DEIR regarding environmental impacts, the City’s decisionmakers may be denied the opportunity to fully consider the scope of the Project’s impacts to these environmental media and whether such impacts have been adequately mitigated, while the general public has also been denied the opportunity to assess and comment upon the associated impacts and the adequacy of the mitigation plans.

Thus, the City has failed to meet CEQA’s preconditions and requirements concerning mitigation, as the DEIR has failed to show why the Project’s mitigation measures, and a comprehensive analysis of the Project’s anticipated environmental impacts, cannot be completed or achieved at this time prior to adoption of the EIR. The deferment of this study and analysis also improperly constrains the DEIR’s assessment of the impacts that the measure will have individually or cumulatively, and the specific performance criteria the Applicant will have to meet with regard to the measures.

Accordingly, the proposed mitigation measures are improperly deferred because they defer the formulation of components of the mitigation to a later time and further does not explain how the measures will clearly reduce the Project’s environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.

22.. TThhee DDEEIIRR FFaaiillss ttoo CCoonnssiiddeerr aanndd DDeeppllooyy AAllll FFeeaassiibbllee MMiittiiggaattiioonn MMeeaassuurreess
A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any G-13 G-12
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a).

If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081.

Mitigation measures, under CEQA proposed and adopted, are required to describe what actions will be taken to reduce or avoid an environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing “[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.”].) While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an exception to the rule against deferrals, such exception is narrowly proscribed to situations where it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project's environmental review.

According to CEQA Guidelines, “[w]hen an EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(g)(2).

However, an impact can only be labeled as significant-and-unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered and the EIR lacks substantial evidence to support a finding that no other feasible mitigation existed to mitigate the Project’s significant impacts.

33.. TThhee DDEEIIRR IImmpprrooppeerrllyy MMiisscchhaarraacctteerriizzeess MMiittiiggaattiioonn MMeeaassuurreess aass ““PPrroojjeecctt DDeessiiggnn FFeeaattuurreess”” The DEIR improperly labels mitigation measures as “Project Design Features” or “PDFs,” which the DEIR purports will minimize any potentially significant environmental impacts.

Relying on the PDFs, the DEIR concludes in many instances that the Project’s impacts are less than significant and that no mitigation is required.

However, it is established that “’[a]voidance, minimization and / or mitigation measure’ . . . are not ‘part of the project.’ . . . compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue . . . disregards the requirements of CEQA.” (Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656.) G-14
G-13
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

When “an agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance determination, and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no significant effects will occur, that agency must treat those measures as though there were adopted following a finding of significance.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 652 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1) and Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1).]) By labeling mitigation measures as project design features, the City violates CEQA by failing to disclose “the analytic route that the agency took from the evidence to its findings.” (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093; Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1035 [quoting Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.])
The DEIR’s use of “Project Design Features” further violates CEQA because such measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures that are fully enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to ensure that the measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects to the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines § 15091(d).) Therefore, using Project Design Features in lieu of mitigation measures violates CEQA.

The DEIR is laden with mitigation measures that are improperly characterized as PDFs. The DEIR should be revised to adequately address and analyze impacts from any proposed mitigation measures.

44.. SSiimmiillaarrllyy,, tthhee PPrroojjeecctt IImmpprrooppeerrllyy RReelliieess oonn MMooddeell oorr OOppttiioonnaall RRuulleess tthhaatt aarree NNoott LLeeggaallllyy EEnnffoorrcceeaabbllee oorr BBiinnddiinngg RRaatthheerr TThhaann MMaannddaattoorryy MMiittiiggaattiioonn MMeeaassuurreess CEQA Guidelines generally require that mitigation measures for significant impacts be mandatory or legally enforceable on a project applicant rather than permissive or voluntary. However, in several instances, the DEIR merely invokes model or optional rules that the project applicant may comply with to address potentially significant environmental impacts. For example, regarding mitigation of GHG emissions, the DEIR proposes incorporating “measures to reduce overall use of portable water within the building by 12%... as outlined [in] Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.” Yet, these Measures are likely voluntary by the Project applicant whereas mitigation measures are typically G-15
G-14
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

mandatory. (DEIR, p. 4.8-20). Thus, the DEIR avoids requiring strict compliance with mandatory mitigation measures by instead requiring voluntary compliance with optional or model rules, potentially contravening the CEQA Guidelines.

55.. DDEEIIRR RReelliieess oonn SSppeeccuullaattiivvee SSeeggmmeennttaattiioonn ooff CCoonnssttrruuccttiioonn PPhhaasseess tthhaatt aarree NNoott MMaannddaattoorryy oorr LLeeggaallllyy EEnnffoorrcceeaabbllee Additionally, the DEIR relies on, and assumes that, the Project will be implemented via sequential construction phases, even though these phases are not mandatory or legally enforceable. For instance, it is conceivable that an earlier construction phase may be delayed due to unforeseen reasons, and therefore delay or impact subsequent phases. In that case, the DEIR’s analysis of impacts and other project aspects would be brought into question because the construction phases it currently anticipates may not materialize as expected. As a potential resolution, the City should adopt a project schedule or description that is binding on the project applicant, specifically as to the timing and completion of each construction phase.

C. TThhee DDEEIIRR FFaaiillss ttoo AAddeeqquuaatteellyy EEvvaalluuaattee tthhee PPrroojjeecctt’’ss CCuummuullaattiivvee IImmppaaccttss..

A DEIR must discuss cumulative impacts when they are significant and the project's incremental contribution is "cumulatively considerable." CEQA Guidelines §15130(a).

A project's incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable if the incremental effects of the project are significant "when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." 14 Cal Code Regs §15065(a)(3).

An EIR must discuss a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.” 14 C.C.R. §15130(a).

This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental effects “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” 14 C.C.R. §15065(a)(3)(emphasis added); Banning Ranch Conservancy v City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 CA4th 1209, 1228.

See also 14 C.C.R. §15355(b).

The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR implement the provisions of Pub. Res.

Code §21083(b)(2), which specifies that the Guidelines must include criteria requiring G-17
G-15
(CONT .)
G-16
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

public agencies to find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if its possible effects “are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.” The purpose of the cumulative impacts analysis is to avoid considering projects in a vacuum, because failure to consider cumulative harm may risk environmental disaster.

Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 408 (citing Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway (2d Cir 1975) 524 F2d 79). Without this analysis, piecemeal approval of several projects with related impacts could lead to severe environmental harm. Golden Door Props., LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 527; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 720; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed’n v County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 306. An adequate analysis of cumulative impacts is particularly important when another related project might significantly worsen the project’s adverse environmental impacts. Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 CA4th 859.

CEQA mandates that a project’s impacts be evaluated in a holistic context, including impacts from other nearby projects. While the DEIR currently acknowledges other “related projects,” it contains little to no analysis on their independent impacts, and therefore little to no analysis on any potential cumulative impacts as required by CEQA. Thus, the DEIR contains insufficient evidence regarding the Project’s cumulative impacts, especially in light of other nearby projects. Without an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts as required by CEQA, the public’s ability to understand and meaningfully address such impacts is significantly undermined. The DEIR should be revised to adequately address the Project’s cumulative impacts, with careful regard and analysis of impacts stemming from other nearby projects.

Despite the wide scope of significant impacts presented by the Project both individually and cumulatively, the DEIR contains no reference to or consideration whatsoever of nearby past development projects (as required by 14 C.C.R. §15065(a)(3)) that have already been completed. Further, the DEIR may omit a number of previously completed large-scale projects within the 6-mile radius of the Project, and therefore their associated environmental impacts.

These significant omissions taint and effectively undermine the validity of much of the cumulative impacts analysis set forth in the DEIR. Indeed, the failure to consider these previously-completed, significant, large-scale, industrial development projects in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project calls into question the DEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis in various impact categories. The DEIR must now be revised with G-17
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

respect to each of the foregoing impact categories (and potentially others) to incorporate any significant past projects within the 6-mile cumulative projects radius in its cumulative impacts analysis. Absent such revision, the DEIR in its current form violates CEQA and cannot permissibly be certified by the City.

D. TThhee PPrroojjeecctt iiss IInnccoonnssiisstteenntt aanndd iinn CCoonnfflliicctt wwiitthh LLaanndd UUssee PPllaannss ffoorr tthhee PPrroojjeecctt SSiittee,, iinncclluuddiinngg tthhee GGeenneerraall PPllaann,, HHoouussiinngg EElleemmeenntt,, eettcc..

Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.

General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law.” Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213. It is well established that development projects may not be approved if they interfere with, or frustrate, the general plan’s policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also, Lesher, 52 Cal.3d at 544. Thus, CEQA requires EIRs to analyze the consistency of a project with the general plan. CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d); see also, Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County Bd. of Sup'rs (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336. Because an EIR must analyze inconsistencies with the general plan, deficiencies in the plan may affect the legal adequacy of the EIR. If the general plan does not meet state standards, an EIR analysis based on the plan may also be defective.

CEQA also mandates “good faith effort in full disclosure.” Guidelines § 15204. An agency is not acting in good faith when “it gives conflicting signals to decision makers and the public about the nature and scope of the activity being proposed.” San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 655–656.

Here, despite the importance of ensuring that the Project is consistent with the General Plan, as noted above, the DEIR fails to support its consistency finding with substantial evidence as required. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384 [requiring agency findings be supported by substantial evidence, i.e. “enough relevant information and G-18
G-17
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion”]).

Specifically, although the DEIR acknowledges that the Project seeks to modify various land use plans relating to the Project site, the DEIR overall fails to analyze eligibility for these proposed modifications and instead offers only conclusory statements.

These blanket statements are inadequate because the Project cannot rely upon approval of its requested changes to conclude that the Project is consistent with the General and Specific Plans given that approval of the changes has not yet occurred and is speculative at this stage. Simply put, there is a logical disconnect in the finding that future amendments establish that the Project is consistent with the existing plans absent some sort of analysis or explanation as to why the future change is consistent and warranted. In the words of the Court, “The Planning and Zoning Law does not contemplate that general plans will be amended to conform to zoning ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog. The general plan is the charter to which the ordinance must conform.” Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 389.

Thus, the DEIR’s land use consistency analysis is not supported by substantial evidence and is based on the flawed assumption that general plan consistency can be achieved by amending the General Plan itself. The DEIR must be revised to provide sufficient analysis and good faith disclosures about the General Plan consistencies as well as mitigate the impacts of the acknowledged land use inconsistencies before any Project approvals occurred.

E. TThhee DDEEIIRR IImmpprrooppeerrllyy RReelliieess oonn FFuuttuurree CCoommpplliiaannccee wwiitthh RReegguullaattoorryy SSttaannddaarrddss ttoo SSuuppppoorrtt iittss FFiinnddiinnggss RReeggaarrddiinngg LLaacckk ooff SSiiggnniiffiiccaanntt IImmppaaccttss
In many instances, the DEIR relies on downstream and speculative compliance with various regulatory rules and standards to support its conclusory determinations, including as to significant impacts. However, “[c]ompliance with the law is not enough to support a finding of no significant impact under . . . CEQA.” (Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agriculture (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1, 15 – 17 [finding that a lead agency “abused its discretion by relying on DPR's regulatory G-19
G-18
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

scheme as a substitute for performing its own evaluation of the environmental impacts of using pesticides.”].).

As the Court noted in East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 301, compliance with a regulatory scheme “in and of itself does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement, where it may be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects.” (Internal quotations omitted.) A project's effects can be significant even if they are not greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan or other regulatory law. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1416; see also Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 732 (finding that a full environmental impact report is required “if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may have significant unmitigated noise impacts, even if other evidence shows the Project will not generate noise in excess of the County's noise ordinance and general plan.”) A public agency cannot apply a threshold of significance or regulatory standard “in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 342.)
An agency must “explain how the particular requirements of that environmental standard reduce project impacts, including cumulative impacts, to a level that is less than significant, and why the environmental standard is relevant to the analysis of a project that is less than significant.” CEQA Guidelines § 15067.7.

Furthermore, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.

Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1, the court set aside an EIR for a statewide crop disease control plan because it did not include an evaluation of the risks to the environment and human health from the proposed program but simply presumed that no adverse impacts would occur from use of pesticides in accordance with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. See also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project).

G-19
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

City of Moreno Valley - Town Center Project
April 10, 2025

The City should require that the DEIR be revised to avoid over relying on purported compliance with regulatory requirements to achieve necessary mitigation.

VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing concerns, the City should require revision and recirculation of the DEIR for the Project pursuant to CEQA. Absent doing so, the DEIR in its current form may violate CEQA in multiple respects.

If the City should have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely,

____________________________
Omar Corona
Attorneys for Western States Regional
Council of Carpenters

Attachments:

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C).

G-19
(CONT .)
G-20
G-21
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

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

1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 8, 2021

Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101

Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.
‘”‡””‹’•ƒ†
”‡‡Š‘—•‡
ƒ•ƒŽ
—Žƒ–‹‘•
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3

1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.

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

2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:

Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise. ‡ˆƒ—Ž–‘”‡””‹’ƒ”ƒ‡–‡”•ƒ†‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‘
ƒŽ
‹”‡‡“—‹”‡‡–•
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the

4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.

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

3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90

9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86.

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

4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location. ”ƒ
–‹
ƒŽ’’Ž‹
ƒ–‹‘‘ˆƒ‘
ƒŽ
‹”‡‡“—‹”‡‡–ƒ†••‘
‹ƒ–‡†
’ƒ
– 
To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).

Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location.

14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85.

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

5 ‹•
Žƒ‹‡”
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

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

Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco

10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras

16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado

16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa

16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino

16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay

16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern

16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Air District San Diego

16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo

13 13
Air District Santa Barbara

8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County

16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado- 16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer- 16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside- 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-

19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano- 15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

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, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

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.

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
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
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

2.0 Emissions Summary
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: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

2.1 Overall 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 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003

0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 2023 0.6148 3.3649 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 5 1,627.529
5 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004

0.0325 6.4700e-
003

0.0390 8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003

0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

2.1 Overall 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 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003

0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 2023 0.6148 3.3648 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 1 1,627.529
1 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004

0.0325 6.4700e-
003

0.0390 8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003

0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 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 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley

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 tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15
19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual G-21
(CONT .)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Moreno Valley