Project/No Development Alternative. Selection of this Alternative would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact associated with GHG emissions.
I. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Because no development would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new hazards would be introduced to the Project site. Routine weed abatement activities would continue to occur on the Project site to remove dry/dead vegetation that has the potential to pose a fire hazard, as required by the City . This Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
J. Hydrology and Water Quality
No changes to existing hydrology and drainage conditions would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative. No stormwater drainage improvements would be constructed on the Project site and rainfall would be discharged from the Project site as sheet flow, as occurs under existing conditions. Under this Alternative, the stormwater leaving the Project site would not be treated to minimize waterborne pollutants and would continue to contain sediment and other potential pollutants, as occurs under existing conditions . However, the No Project/No Development Alternative would generate fewer water pollutants due to the absence of development on site. In addition, because the Project site would remain undeveloped under the No Project/No Development Alternative, th is Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts to groundwater supplies, groundwater recharge, and sustainable management of the groundwater basin. The No Project/No Development Alternative and the Project would result in less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts.
K. Land Use and Planning
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not divide an established community and would not result in any new development that would indirectly result in environmental impacts due to a conflict with an existing land use plan. Accordingly, selection of the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no impacts to land use and planning; however, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant.
L. Mineral Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Project site in its existing condition. The Project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Therefore, under both the No Project/No Development Alternative and the Project, there would be no impacts to mineral resources.
M. Noise
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any grading or construction activities.
Therefore, noise and vibration effects associated with these construction activities would not occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative. However, the construction-related noise impacts ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
from the Project would be less than significant. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new sources of noise would be introduced on the Project site . Additionally, because the Project site would not be developed , no new vehicular trips would be generated and the No Project/No Development Alternative would not contribute to an incremental increase in area -wide traffic noise levels. Accordingly, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to noise.
N. Population and Housing
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Project site would remain undeveloped and would not increase the population or employment in the City . Accordingly, this Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to population and housing.
O. Public Services and Recreation
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Project site would remain undeveloped and would not increase the demand for public services or recreation facilities. Accordingly, this Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to the increased demand for public services and recreation and would avoid the Project ’s less than significant impacts associated with construction of the on-site parks.
P. Transportation
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not change the existing circulation conditions because no new development would occur at the Project site and circulation improvements proposed with the Project would not be implemented (including roadway, bi cycle, pedestrian and transit improvements). No long -term (operational) vehicular trips would be generated under the No Project/No Development Alternative. The Project would have less than significant impacts related to consistency with plans and programs addressing circulation, vehicle mile s traveled (VMT), potential hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use , and emergency access. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to transportation.
Q. Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Project site in its existing condition, which includes periodic ground disturbances related to weed abatement activities and other routine, on-site maintenance activities . No grading would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative and there would be no potential impacts to subsurface tribal cultural resources that may exist. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid new disturbances and would avoid the potential for Project construction activities to damage buried tribal cultural resources, although Project impacts are less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
R. Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not place any new demands on local and regional utilities and service systems because no new development would occur. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new utilities would be constructed, and no physical impacts would result.
Accordingly, this Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to utilities and service systems.
S. Wildfire
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Project site in its existing condition, which includes periodic ground disturbances related to weed abatement activities and other routine, on-site maintenance activities. Under existing conditions, the Project site is not within or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Therefore, under both the No Project/No Development Alternative and the Project, wildfire impacts would not occur.
T. Conclusion
Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts beyond those that have historically occurred on the Project site. All significant effects of the Project would be avoided by the selection of the No Project/ No Development Alternative with exception of long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts, which would be increased under this Alternative.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would fail to meet all of the Project’s objectives.
6.3.3 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT – LESS RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative considers a development scenario consistent with the proposed TCMV Specific Plan where the Project site would be developed with fewer residential units as compared to the Project evaluated in this EIR , but the same amount of commercial/civic and open space (park) uses would be developed. Under this Alternative, the Project site would be developed with 300 residential dwelling units, compared to 800 residential units with the potential development scenario for the Project evaluated in this EIR. The location of the proposed residential land uses would remain the same as shown on Figure 3-5, Conceptual Land Use Plan, (in the eastern and northeastern portions of the Project site. The re would be 4.9 acres of open space/park uses a nd 229,459 sf of non-residential uses, consistent with the Project. Specifically, the non - residential commercial/civic uses would include: 105,890 sf of general retail uses; 15,000 sf of business professional office uses; a 58,409 sf (estimated 106-room) hotel; 30,000 sf of civic uses; and 20,160 sf of eating establishment/high turnover restaurant. The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to evaluate a development scenario that would reduce the anticipated development intensity and associated vehicle trips and air quality emissions but still be consistent with the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, which allows for residential, commercial/civic, and open space (park) uses.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
Because the number of residential units would be reduced by approximately 40% under this Alternative (300 units compared to 800 units with the Project), there would be an approximately 36% reduction in trip generation (approximately 7,676 daily trips compared to 12,010 daily trips with the Project) and mobile source air emissions. The trip generation for the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative is shown below in Table 6 -1, Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative Trip Generation.
Table 6-1 Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached Residential 300 DU 55 155 210 178 104 282 2,830 Park 4.9 AC 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Internal Capture -34 -4 -38 -64 -106 -170 -1,708
Residential Subtotal 21 151 172 114 -2 112 1,126
Hotel 106 Rooms 27 21 48 32 31 63 848
Internal Capture -6 -1 -7 -13 -16 -29 -392
Hotel Subtotal 21 20 41 19 15 34 456
General Office 15.000 TSF 24 5 29 5 23 28 192
City Library 30.000 TSF 21 9 30 118 127 245 2,162
Internal Capture -13 -10 -23 -35 -14 -49 -424
Office Subtotal 32 4 36 88 136 224 1,930
High Turnover (Sit-Down)
Restaurant 16.660 TSF 88 72 160 92 59 151 1,786
Fast-Food Restaurants w/ Drive-
Thru Window 3.500 TSF 80 77 157 60 55 115 1,636
Internal Capture -21 -54 -75 -79 -76 -155 -1,996
Sit-Down Pass-by Reduction
(43% PM/Daily)
0 0 0 -14 -14 -28 -468
Fast-Food Pass-by Reduction
(50% AM; 55% PM/Daily)
-12 -12 -24 -3 -3 -6 -186
Restaurant Subtotal 135 83 218 56 21 77 772
Commercial Retail 60.890 TSF 65 40 105 155 161 316 4,112 Supermarket 45.000 TSF 76 53 129 202 201 403 4,224
Internal Capture -15 -20 -35 -138 -117 -255 -3,320
Pass-by Reduction (40% PM/Daily) 0 0 0 -43 -43 -86 -1,048 Pass-by Reduction (24% PM/Daily) 0 0 0 -33 -33 -66 -576 Commercial Retail Subtotal 126 73 199 143 169 312 3,392 Alternative Buildout Total 335 331 666 420 339 759 7,676 1 DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet; AC = acres Note: Internal capture is per the NCHRP 684.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
A. Aesthetics
Under the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative, the proposed development would adhere to the development standards and design guidelines presented in the proposed TCMV Specific Plan. Although there would be a reduction of residential uses, the visual character of the development at the Project site would be similar to the Project. As with the Project, this Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to impact to a scenic vista, and conflict with goals or policies outlined in the 2006 or proposed 2024 General Plan or Moreno Valley Municipal Code (MVMC) requirements that regulate scenic quality, and no impact related to degrading scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Furthermore, both the Project and this Alternative would include mitigation to reduce impacts related to construction lighting to a less than significant level. Overall, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative’s effect on aesthetics would be similar to the Project.
B. Agriculture & Forestry Resources
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would involve the same physical impact areas as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to on-site Farmland of Local Importance as the Project, and would hav e similar, less than significant impacts related to agriculture resources. No impact to forestry resources would result with implementation of this Alternative and the Project.
C. Air Quality
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would be consistent with the growth projections in the City’s 2040 General Plan, which the City is in the process of readopting.
The City’s proposed 2040 General Plan is the basis for the 2022 AQMP; therefore, th is alternative would not conflict with the growth assum ptions in the AQMP for the City. However, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would result in VOC and NOX emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds, resulting in a significant impact even with mitigation. This could contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State O 3 standards in the SoCAB. As such, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would be considered to have the potential to conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP, thereby resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project, and the construction assumptions with respect to the intensity of construction would be similar. Therefore, local and regional construction emissions and associated impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the Project. The relationship of proposed uses under this Alternative would be the same as with the Project, and potential impacts to sensitive receptors during construction and operation would be less than significant with the Project and this Alternative.
As previously identified, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would have an approximately 40% reduction in residential units compared to the Project (300 units compared to 800 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
units with the Project). Thus, total operational emissions (which include area, energy, and mobile sources) including NOx, VOC, and CO emissions would be lower than the Project. Vehicular trips represent the primary source of operational emissions resulting from the Project (refer to Table 4.3-10, Summary of Operational Acti vity Emissions, in EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality). With the reduction in residential units under this Alternative , there would be an approximately 36% reduction in trip generation (approximately 7,676 daily trips compared to 12,010 daily trips with the Project). Therefore, for purposes of this analysis it is assumed that mobile source air pollutant emissions would also be reduced by approximately 36%. With this reduction, the CO emissions from the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds.
However, operational regional emissions generated with the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for NOx and VOC as with the Project. As with the Project, even with implementation of mitigation measures identified in EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, the amount of emissions reduction would not reduce emissions to below the established threshold of significance. Long -term operational emissions of NOx and VOC, which are O3 precursors, would be cumulatively considerable , resulting in a significant impact. Therefore, although the amount of emissions would be reduced, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would not eliminate the Project’s significant, unavoidable operational and cumulative air quality impacts resulting from operational emissions.
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and Project would involve development of the same types of uses allowed by the proposed TCMV Specific Plan and would have less than significant impacts related to the other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
D. Biological Resources
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project and would have no impacts to riparian habitat or wetlands, and less than significant impacts related to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. This Alternative would result in the same biological resources impacts related to nesting birds and burrowing owl as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section
4.4, Biological Resources, the impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with this Alternative and the Project.
E. Cultural Resources
There are no historic or known archeological resources located at the Project site. Therefore, no impact to historic or known archeological resources would occur with implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative or the Project. This Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, this Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to cultural resources. ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
F. Energy
Implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would result in similar energy demand during construction and operation of the residential and nonresidential uses as the Project due to the same physical impact area , and type of uses to be developed. However, energy demand for construction and operation of the residential uses would be reduced due to the reduction in the number of units. Therefore, this Alternative would have reduced energy impacts than the Project ; however, the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant.
G. Geology and Soils
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project and would result in the same potential impacts related to geology and soils and seismic hazards as the Project. With adherence to applicable building codes and incorporation of the recommendations from the site-specific geotechnical studies, the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial safety risks associated with geologic hazards. Further, because the physical impact area would be the same as the Project, this Alternative would also have the potential to impact subsurface paleontological resources, and the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Therefore, with incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section
4.7, Geology and Soils, and adherence to applicable regulations, geology and soils impacts would be less than significant with implementation of this Alternative and the Project.
H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would involve similar construction activities, and the development of the same type of uses as the Project. Therefore, the sources of GHG emissions would be the same, although there would be an overall reduction in GHG emissions due to the reduction in residential uses, and notably a 36% reduction in vehicular trips and associated GHG emissions from mobile sources. However, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact for which there is no feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
I. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Neither implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative nor the Project would result in a significant impact related to hazards or hazardous materials. Based on the location and condition of the Project site and types of uses proposed, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and the Project would have no impact related to location on a hazardous materials site or wildland fire, and a less than significant impact related to hazardous emissions within
0.25 mile of a school. Land uses that would occur on site under this Alternative would have a similar potential to handle and store hazardous materials as the Project resulting in a less than significant impact with mandatory regulatory compliance , and similar less than significant impact s related to ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
hazards associated with the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port (MARB/IP) Airport, and emergency response/evacuation.
J. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would involve development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the Project. Therefore, this A lternative would result in similar impacts related to hydrology and water quality as the Project. Similar to the Project, development under this Alternative would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and alter existing drainage patterns due to the increase in the amount of impervious surfaces. As with the Project, application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts to hydrology and storm drain infrastructure are less than significant. An on-site storm drain system would be constructed to detain flows such that they are released from the site at near pre- development levels and would not result in impacts to storm drain facilities or flooding. As with the Project, with adherence to regulatory requirements, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to hydrology and flooding.
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would not involve excavation at depths that would encounter groundwater and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would result in surface runoff after Project implementation. Surface runoff from a developed condition (with either this Alternative or the Project) would have a different composition in comparison to the existing condition, which is undeveloped. This runoff is likely to include a similar amount and type of pollutants commonly found in urban runoff. The Project and this Alternative would be required to comply with applicable regulations related to water quality, including, but not limited to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, which would minimize potential short -term, construction-related and long-term, operational water quality impacts. With the adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to water quality during construction and operation.
K. Land Use and Planning
The Project site is currently undeveloped and is bordered by existing roadways or development . As with the Project, development of the Project site under the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would not divide an established community.
The proposed TCMV Specific Plan would serve as the regulatory document for future development at the Project site. As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would involve implementation of a mixed-use development consisting of residential, commercial/civic, and ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
park uses. Under this Alternative, the Project site would be developed in compliance with the relevant development standards and Design Guidelines outlined in the proposed TCMV Specific Plan a nd would not conflict with the City’s 2006 or proposed 2040 General Plan policies or the MVMC. As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would also not conflict with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2024). Land use and planning impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and the Project.
L. Mineral Resources
The Project site does not contain mineral resources of regional or statewide importance and is not designated as a mineral recovery site. The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would have the same phys ical impact area as the Project, and as with the Project would have no impact to mineral resources.
M. Noise
Because construction activities and on-site operational activities would be similar, implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would result in similar less than significant noise impacts during construction and operation as the Project.
As identified previously, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would generate fewer trips than the Project (approximately 7,676 daily trips compared to 12,010 daily trips with the Project), which would reduce the overall off-site traffic noise impacts resulting from development.
Therefore, off-site traffic noise impact would be less than significant with the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and the Project.
As with the Project, on-site uses under the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would not be subjected to excessive noise levels from MARB/IP Airport operations resulting in a less than significant impact.
N. Population and Housing
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would involve the same amount of commercial/civic uses as the Project and would generate the same number of estimated new employment opportunities (421 jobs). However, with the reduction in residential units under this Alternative, there would also be a reduction in population generation (estimated to be 1,155 residents compared to 3,080 residents with the Project). Therefore, as with the Proj ect, t he Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would not induce substantial unplanned growth resulting in a less than significant impact. Because the Project site is undeveloped, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and the Project would not displace existing people or housing.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
O. Public Services and Recreation
With the reduction in residential units under the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative, there would be an overall reduction in the demand for publ ic services and recreational facilities as compared to the Project. Both the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and the Project would result in a less than significant impact to public services and recreation.
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would involve the same amount of on-site park area (4.9 acres) as the Project, and the physical impacts associated with the construction of park uses would be the same as the Project. Impacts associated with the construction of park facilities would be less than significant with the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and the Project.
P. Transportation
With the reduction in residential uses and associated reduction in population, t he Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would generate less VMT compared to the Project (12,839 VMT under this Alternative compared to 17,034 VMT for the Project evaluated in this EIR). However, the VMT per capita would increase to 11.1 (as compared to 5.5 under the Project evaluated in this EIR). Notwithstanding this increase, based on the Town Center at Moreno Valley Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Alternatives Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads and included in EIR Technical Appendix L (Urban Crossroads, 2024b), the VMT per capita would not exceed the City’s significance thresholds (15.9 VMT per capita). Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would have a less than significant impact related to VMT.
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. The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and the Project would not conflict with applicable programs, plans, ordinances , or policies addressing the circulation system; would not create hazards through design; and would not result in inadequate emergency access. As with the Project, transportation impacts under this Alternative would be less than significant.
Q. Tribal Cultural Resources
There are no known tribal cultural resources located at the Project site. Therefore, no impact to known tribal cultural resources would occur with implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative or the Project. This Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources , the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to tribal cultural resources.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
R. Utilities and Service Systems
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would increase the water demand, wastewater generation, and electric demand at the Project site compared to existing conditions where the site is undeveloped. Additionally, as discussed above under Hydrology and Water Quality, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would involve development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the Project and would generate a similar amount of stormwater runoff. Although the total number of residential units would be reduced, the overall utility infrastructure needed to serve the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would be the same as the Project and would be located within the same construction impact area. Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to the installation of utility infrastructure.
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would have a reduced water demand than the Project due to the reduction in residential units. Therefore, the conclusions of the Project -specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) would be applicable to this A lternative, and the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) would have sufficient water to serve the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative. Similarly, with a reduction in wastewater generation, there would be adequate capacity in EMWD ’s wastewater treatment facilities to treat wastewater generated. The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and Project would have less than significant impacts related to water supply and wastewater treatment.
As with the Project, construction and operation of the proposed residential and commercial/civic uses under the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would comply with applicable local and state regulations related to solid waste management and diversion of solid waste from landfills.
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and Project would have less than significant impacts related to solid waste.
S. Wildfire
The Project site is not within or near an SRA or VHF HSZ. Therefore, under both the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative and the Project, wildfire impacts would not occur.
T. Conclusion
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would reduce, but not avoid, the Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality and GHG emissions impacts. The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would reduce the Project’s less than significant impacts to energy, noise, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems . The total VMT per capita would increase under this Alternative; however, the impact would remain less than significant. All other impacts from the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would be similar to the Project.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would meet Project Objectives 2 and 5 less effectively than the Project due to the reduction in residential uses. The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would meet all of the Project’s other objectives.
6.3.4 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT – LESS COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative considers a development scenario consistent with the proposed TCMV Specific Plan where the Project site would be developed with less commercial/civic uses as compared to the Project evaluated in this EIR, but the same amount of residential and open space (park) uses. Under this Alternative, 150,000 sf of non-residential land uses would be developed within the commercial/civic land use area, which represents a reduction in building area of approximately 35% compared to the 229,459 sf of non-residential uses evaluated as part of the Project in this EIR. The location of the proposed non-residential land use s would remain the same as shown on Figure 3-5, Conceptual Land Use Plan, (in the southeastern portion of the Project site.) There would be 4.9 acres of open space/park uses and up to 800 residential dwelling units consistent with the Project. Specifically, the non-residential commercial/civic uses would include: 63,900 sf of general retail uses; 9,000 sf of business professional office uses; a 35,000-sf hotel (estimated 64-room); 30,000 sf of civic uses; and 12,100 sf of eating establishment/high turnover restaurant (including a 2,600-sf drive-thru restaurant). The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative was selected by the City to evaluate a development scenario that would reduce the anticipated development intensity and associated vehicle trips and air quality emissions but still be consistent with the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, with residential, commercial/civic, and open space (park) uses.
With the approximately 35% reduction in non-residential building area under this Alternative (150,000 sf compared to 229,459 sf with the Project), there would be a n associated 9% reduction in trip generation (approximately 10,980 daily trips compared to 12,010 daily trips with the Project) and mobile source air emissions. The trip generation for the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative is show below in Table 6-2, Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative Trip Generation.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
Table 6-2 Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached Residential 800 DU 146 414 560 474 278 752 7,544 Park 4.9 AC 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Internal Capture -25 -7 -32 -48 -72 -120 -1,204
Residential Subtotal 121 407 528 426 206 632 6,344
Hotel 64 Rooms 16 13 29 19 19 38 512
Internal Capture -4 -1 -5 -8 -10 -18 -244
Hotel Subtotal 12 12 24 11 9 20 268
General Office 9.000 TSF 19 3 22 4 19 23 144
City Library 30.000 TSF 21 9 30 118 127 245 2,162
Internal Capture -11 -10 -21 -22 -20 -42 -362
Office Subtotal 29 2 31 100 126 226 1,944
High Turnover (Sit-Down)
Restaurant 10.000 TSF 53 43 96 55 35 90 1,072
Fast-Food Restaurants w/ Drive-
Thru Window 2.100 TSF 48 46 94 36 33 69 982
Internal Capture -18 -36 -54 -47 -46 -93 -1,202
Sit-Down Pass-by Reduction
(43% PM/Daily)
0 0 0 -8 -8 -16 -282
Fast-Food Pass-by Reduction
(50% AM; 55% PM/Daily)
-5 -5 -10 -2 -2 -4 -110
Restaurant Subtotal 78 48 126 34 12 46 460
Commercial Retail 36.900 TSF 40 24 64 94 98 192 2,492
Supermarket 27.000 TSF 46 32 78 121 121 242 2,534
Internal Capture -12 -16 -28 -93 -70 -163 -2,116
Pass-by Reduction (40% PM/Daily) 0 0 0 -21 -21 -42 -616 Pass-by Reduction (24% PM/Daily) 0 0 0 -17 -17 -34 -330 Commercial Retail Subtotal 74 40 114 84 111 195 1,964 Alternative Buildout Total 314 509 823 655 464 1,119 10,980 1 DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet; AC = acres Note: Internal capture is per the NCHRP 684.
B. Aesthetics
Under the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative, the proposed development would adhere to the development standards and design guidelines presented in the proposed TCMV Specific Plan. Although there would be a reduction in the amount of commercial development, the visual character of the development at the Project site would be similar to the Project. As with the Project, this Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to impacts to a scenic vista and related to a conflict with goals or policies outlined in the existing 2006 or proposed 2040 General Plan or MVMC requirements that regulate scenic quality, and no impact related to degrading scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway . Furthermore, both the Project and this Alternative would include mitigation to reduce impacts related to construction lighting to a less than significant level. Overall, ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative’s effect on aesthetics would be similar to the Project.
C. Agriculture & Forestry Resources
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would involve the same physical impact areas as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to on-site Farmland of Local Importance as the Project, and would have similar, less than significant impacts related to agriculture resources. No impact to forestry resources would result with implementation of this Alternative and the Project.
D. Air Quality
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would be consistent with the City’s growth projections, which do not conflict with the growth assumptions in the AQMP for the City. However, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and the Project would result in VOC, NO X, and CO emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds, resulting in a significant impact even with mitigation. The exceedance of VOC and NO
X emissions, which are O3 precursors, could contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State O3 standards in the SoCAB. As such, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would be considered to have the potential to conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP, thereby resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project, and the construction assumptions with respect to the intensity of construction would be similar. Therefore, local and regional construction emissions and associated impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the Project. The relationship of proposed uses under this Alternative would be the same as with the Project, and potential impacts to sensitive receptors during construction and operation would be less than significant with the Project and this Alternative.
As previously identified, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would have an approximately 35% reduction in commercial building area compared to the Project (150,000 sf compared to 229,459 sf with the Project). Thus, total operational emissions (which include area, energy, and mobile sources) including NOx, VOC, and CO emissions would be lower than the Project.
Vehicular trips represent the primary source of operational emissions resulting from the Project (refer to Table 4.3-10, Summary of Operational Activity Emissions, in EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality ). With the reduction in commercial development under this Alternative, there would be an approximately 9% reduction in trip generation (approximately 10,980 daily trips compared to 12,010 daily trips with the Project). Therefore, for purposes of this analysis , it is assumed that mobile source air pollutant emissions would also be reduced by approximately 9%. However, as with the Project, operational regional emissions generated with the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for NO
X, VOC, and CO, e ven with
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
implementation of mitigation measures identified in EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality . Long- term operational emissions of NOx and VOC, which are O3 precursors, would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant impact. Therefore, although the amount of emissions would be reduced, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would not eliminate the Project’s significant, unavoidable operational and cumulative air quality impacts resulting from operational emissions.
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and Project would involve development of the same types of uses allowed by the proposed TCMV Specific Plan and would have less than significant impacts related to the other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
E. Biological Resources
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project and would have no impacts to riparian habitat or wetlands, and less than significant impacts related to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. This Alternative would result in the same biological resources impacts related to nesting birds and burrowing owl as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section
4.4, Biological Resources, the impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with this Alternative and the Project.
F. Cultural Resources
There are no historic or known archeological resources located at the Project site. Therefore, no impact to historic or known archeological resources would occur with implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative or the Project. This Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, this Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to cultural resources.
G. Energy
Implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would result in similar energy demand during construction and operation of the residential and park uses as the Project due to the same physical impact area, and type of uses to be developed. However, energy demand for construction and operation of the commercial uses would be reduced due to the reduction in commercial square footage. Therefore, this Alternative would have reduced energy impacts than the Project; however, the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant.
H. Geology and Soils
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project and would result in the same potential impacts related to geology and soils and seismic ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
hazards as the Project. With adherence to applicable building codes and incorporation of the recommendations from the site-specific geotechnical studies, the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial safety risks associated with geologic hazards. Further, because the physical impact area would be the same as the Project, this Alternative would also have the potential to impact subsurface paleontological resources, and the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Therefore, with incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, and adherence to applicable regulations, geology and soils impacts would be less than significant with implementation of this Alternative and the Project.
I. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would involve similar construction activities, and the development of the same type of uses as the Project. Therefore, the sources of GHG emissions would be the same, although there would be an overall reduction in GHG emissions due to the reduction in commercial development, and a 9% reduction in vehicular trips and associated GHG emissions from mobile source GHG emissions. However, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO 2e per year
threshold resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact for which there is no feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
J. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Neither implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative nor the Project would result in a significant impact related to hazards or hazardous materials. Based on the location and condition of the Project site and types of uses proposed, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and the Project would have no impact related to location on a hazardous materials site or wildland fire, and a less than significant impact related to hazardous emissions within
0.25 mile of a school. Land uses that would occur on site under this Alternative would have a similar potential to handle and store hazardous materials as the Project resulting in a less than significant impact, and similar less than significant impacts related to hazards associated with the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port (MARB/IP) Airport, and emergency response/evacuation.
K. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would involve development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in similar impacts related to hydrology and water quality as the Project. Similar to the Project, development under this Alternative would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and alter existing drainage patterns due to the increase in the amount of impervious surfaces. As with the Project, application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts to hydrology and storm drain infrastructure are less than significant. An on-site storm drain system would be constructed to detain flows such that they are released from the site at near pre- development levels and would not result in impacts to storm drain facilities or flooding. As with the Project, with adherence to regulatory requirements, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to hydrology and flooding.
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would not involve excavation at depths that would encounter groundwater and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would result in surface runoff after Project implementation. Surface runoff from a developed condition (with either this Alternative or the Project) would have a different composition in comparison to the existing condition, which is undeveloped. This runoff is likely to include a similar amount and type of pollutants commonly found in urban runoff. The Project and this Alternative would be required to comply with applicable regulations related to water quality, including, but not limited to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, which would minimize potential short -term, construction-related and long-t erm, operational water quality impacts. With the adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to water quality during construction and operation.
L. Land Use and Planning
The Project site is currently undeveloped and is bordered by existing roadways and development . As with the Project, development of the Project site under the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would not divide an established community.
The proposed TCMV Specific Plan would serve as the regulatory document for future development at the Project site. As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would implement a mixed-use development consisting of residential, commercial/civic, and park uses. Under this Alternative, the Project site would be developed in compliance with the relevant development standards and Design Guidelines outlined in the proposed TCMV Specific Plan and would not conflict with the City’s 2006 or proposed 2040 General Plan policies or the MVMC. As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would also not conflict with SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024. Land use and planning impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and the Project.
M. Mineral Resources
The Project site does not contain mineral resources of regional or statewide importance and is not designated as a mineral recovery site. The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project, and as with the Project would have no impact to mineral resources.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
N. Noise
Because construction activities and on-site operational activities would be similar, implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would result in similar less than significant noise impacts during construction and operation as the Project.
As identified previously, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would generate fewer trips than the Project (approximately 10,980 daily trips compared to 12,010 daily trips with the Project), which would reduce the overall off-site traffic noise impacts resulting from development.
Therefore, off-site traffic noise impact would be less than significant with the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and the Project.
As with the Project, on-site uses under the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would not be subjected to excessive noise levels from MARB/IP Airport operations, resulting in a less than significant impact.
O. Population and Housing
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would involve the same amount of residential uses as the Project and would generate the same population (3,080 residents). However, with the reduction in commercial square footage under this Alternative, there would also be a reduction in employment opportunities (estimate d to be 278 jobs compared to 421 jobs with the Project).
Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would not induce substantial unplanned growth resulting in a less than significant impact. Because the Project site is undeveloped, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and the Project would not displace existing people or housing.
P. Public Services and Recreation
Although there would be a reduction in commercial development under the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative, the amount of residential development would be the same as the Project (up to 800 units), and the estimated increase in population would be the same. With the same estimated increase in population, the increased demand in public services and recreational facilities would also be similar to the Project , sin ce the increase in demand is typically associated with an increase in residential development and the associated increase in population. Both the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and the Project would result in a less than significant impact to public services and recreation.
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would involve the same amount of on-site park area (4.9 acres) as the Project, and the physical impacts associated with construction of park uses would be the same as the Project. Impacts associated with construction of park facilities would be less than significant with the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and the Project.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
Q. Transportation
With the reduction in commercial uses, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would generate less VMT compared to the Project (15,620 VMT under this Alternative compared to 17,034 VMT for the Project evaluated in this EIR.) Additionally, the VMT per capita would decrease to 5.1 (as compared to 5.5 under the Project evaluated in this EIR). Accordingly, the VMT per capita would not exceed the City’s significance thresholds (15.9 VMT per capita) (Urban Crossroads, 2024b).
Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would have a less than significant impact related to VMT.
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. The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and the Project would not conflict with applicable programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing the circulation system; would not create hazards through design; and would not result in inadequate emergency access. As with the Project, transportation impacts under this Alternative would be less than significant.
R. Tribal Cultural Resources
There are no known tribal cultural resources located at the Project site. Therefore, no impact to known tribal cultural resources would occur with implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative or the Project. This Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources as the Project. With incorporation of the identified m itigation measures in EIR Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to tribal cultural resources.
S. Utilities and Service Systems
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would increase the water demand, wastewater generation, and electric demand at the Project site compared to existing conditions where the site is undeveloped. Additionally, as discussed above under Hydrology and Water Quality, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would involve the development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the Project and would generate a similar amount of stormwater runoff. Although the total amount of commercial development would be reduced, the utility infrastructure needed to serve the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would be the same as the Project and would be located within the same construction impact area. Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to the installation of utility infrastructure.
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would have a reduced water demand than the Project due to the reduction in commercial square footage. Therefore, the conclusions of the ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
Project-specific WSA would be applicable to this Alternative, and the EMWD would have sufficient water to serve the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative. Similarly, with a reduction in wastewater generation, there would be adequate capacity in EMWD’s wastewater treatment facilities to treat wastewater generated. The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and Project would have less than significant impacts related to water supply and wastewater treatment.
As with the Project, construction and operation of the proposed residential and commercial/civic uses under the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would comply with applicable local and state regulations related to solid waste management and diversion of solid waste from landfills.
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and Project would have less than significant impacts related to solid waste.
T. Wildfire
The Project site is not within or near an SRA or VHF HSZ. Therefore, under both the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative and the Project, wildfire impacts would not occur.
U. Conclusion
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would reduce, but not avoid, the Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality and GHG emissions impacts. The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would reduce the Project’s less than significant impacts to energy, noise, and utilities, and service systems. The total VMT per capita would decrease under this Alternative and the impact would remain less than significant. All other impacts from the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would be similar to the Project.
The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would meet Project Objectives 3, 4, 5, and 6 less effectively than the Project due to the reduction in commercial uses. The Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would meet all of the Project’s other objectives.
6.3.5 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT – LESS RESIDENTIAL AND LESS COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative considers a development scenario consistent with the proposed TCMV Specific Plan where the Project site would be developed with less residential and less commercial/civic uses as compared to the Project evaluated in this EIR, but the same amount of open space (park) uses. Under this Alternative, the Project site would be developed with 700 residential dwelling units (compared to 800 units anticipated for the Project in this EIR); 175,000 sf of non-residential uses (compared to 229,459 sf of non-residential development square footage anticipated for the Project in this EIR); and 4.9 acres of open space, consistent with the Project. The location s of the proposed residential and non-residential land uses would remain the same as shown on Figure 3-5, Conceptual Land Use Plan . Specifically, the non- residential commercial/civic uses would include: 77,150 sf of general retail uses; 10,800 sf of business professional office uses; a 42,480-sf hotel (estimated 77-room); 30,000 sf of civic uses; and 14,570 sf of eating establishment/high turnover restaurant. The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to evaluate a development scenario ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
that would reduce the anticipated development intensity and associated vehicle trips and air quality emissions but still be consistent with the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, with residential, commercial/civic, and open space (park) uses.
Because the amount of residential and non-residential uses would be reduced by approximately 12% and 24%, respectively, under this Alternative (700 units compared to 800 units and 175,000 sf compared to 229,459 sf with the Project), there would be an approximately 14% reduction in trip generation (approximately 10,389 daily trips compared to 12,010 daily trips with the Project) and mobile source air emissions. The trip generation for the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative is shown below in Table 6-3, Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative Trip Generation.
Table 6-3 Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative Trip Generation
Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached Residential 700 DU 127 363 490 415 243 658 6,602 Park 4.9 AC 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Internal Capture -29 -7 -36 -55 -86 -141 -1,416
Residential Subtotal 98 356 454 360 157 517 5,190
Hotel 77 Rooms 20 16 36 23 22 45 616
Internal Capture -4 -1 -5 -10 -13 -23 -316
Hotel Subtotal 16 15 31 13 9 22 300
General Office 10.800 TSF 22 4 26 4 22 26 168
City Library 30.000 TSF 21 9 30 118 127 245 2,162
Internal Capture -12 -10 -22 -26 -17 -43 -370
Office Subtotal 31 3 34 96 132 228 1,960
High Turnover (Sit-Down)
Restaurant 11.970 TSF 63 52 115 66 42 108 1,283
Fast-Food Restaurants w/ Drive-
Thru Window 2.600 TSF 59 57 116 45 41 86 1,216
Internal Capture -19 -42 -61 -57 -56 -113 -1,456
Sit-Down Pass-by Reduction
(43% PM/Daily)
0 0 0 -10 -10 -19 -334
Fast-Food Pass-by Reduction
(50% AM; 55% PM/Daily)
-8 -8 -16 -3 -3 -6 -148
Restaurant Subtotal 95 59 154 41 14 56 561
Commercial Retail 45.150 TSF 48 30 78 115 120 235 3,050 Supermarket 32.000 TSF 54 38 92 143 143 286 3,004
Internal Capture -14 -18 -32 -109 -85 -194 -2,518
Pass-by Reduction (40% PM/Daily) 0 0 0 -26 -26 -52 -768 Pass-by Reduction (24% PM/Daily) 0 0 0 -20 -20 -40 -390 Commercial Retail Subtotal 88 50 138 103 132 235 2,378 Alternative Buildout Total 328 483 811 613 444 1,058 10,389 1 DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet; AC = acres Note: Internal capture is per the NCHRP 684.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
A. Aesthetics
Under Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative , the proposed development would adhere to the development standards and design guidelines presented in the proposed TCMV Specific Plan. Although there would be a reduction of residential and non-residential uses, the visual character of the development at the Project site would be similar to the Project. As with the Project, this Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to impact s on a scenic vista, and conflict with goals or policies outlined in the General Plan or MVMC requirements th at regulate scenic quality, and no impact related to degrading scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Furthermore, both the Project and this Alternative would include mitigation to reduce impacts related to construction lighting to a less than significant level. Overall, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative’s effect on aesthetics would be similar to the Project.
B. Agriculture & Forestry Resources
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would involve the same physical impact areas as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to on -site Farmland of Local Importance as the Project, and would have similar, less than significant impacts related to agriculture resources. No impact to forestry resources would result with implementation of this Alternative and the Project.
C. Air Quality
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would be consistent with the City’s growth projections, which do not conflict with the growth assumptions in the AQMP for the City. However, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would result in VOC, NO X, and CO emissions that
exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds, resulting in a significant impact even with mitigation. The exceedance of VOC and NO
X emissions, which are O3 precursors, could contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State O3 standards in the SoCAB. As such, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative would be considered to have the potential to conflict with of the SCAQMD AQMP, thereby resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project, and the construction assumptions with respect to the intensity of construction would be similar. Therefore, local and regional construction emissions and associated impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the Project. The relationship of proposed uses under this Alternative would be the same as with the Project, and potential impacts to sensitive receptors during construction and operation would be less than significant with the Project and this Alternative.
As previously identified, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would have an approximately 12% reduction in residential uses (700 units compared to ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
800 units with the Project), and approximately 24% reduction in commercial building area (approximately 175,000 sf compared to 229,459 sf with the Project). Thus, total operational emissions (which include area, energy, and mobile sources) including NOx, VOC, and CO emissions would be lower than the Project. Vehicular trips represent the primary source of operational emissions resulting from the Project (refer to Table 4.3-10, Summary of Operational Activity Emissions , in EIR Section
4.3, Air Quality). With the reduction in residential and commercial development under this Alternative, there would be a 14% reduction in trip generation (approximately 10,389 daily trips compared to 12,010 daily trips with the Project). Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that mobile source air pollutant emissions would also be reduced by approximately 14%. However, as with the Project, operational regional emissions generated with the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for NO X,
VOC, and CO, even with implementation of mitigation measures identified in EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality. Long- term operational emissions of NOx and VOC, which are O 3 precursors, would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant impact. Therefore, although the amount of emissions would be reduced, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would not eliminate the Project’s significant, unavoidable operational and cumulative air quality impacts resulting from operational emissions.
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and Project would involve development of the same types of uses allowed by the proposed TCMV Specific Plan and would have less than significant impacts related to the other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
D. Biological Resources
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project and would have no impacts to riparian habitat or wetlands, and less than significant impacts related to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. This Alternative would result in the same biological resources impacts related to nesting birds and burrowing owl as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with this Alternative and the Project.
E. Cultural Resources
There are no historic or known archeological resources located at the Project site. Therefore, no impact to historic or known archeological resources would occur with implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative or the Project. This Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, this Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to cultural resources.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
F. Energy
Implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would result in similar energy demand during construction as the Project due to the same physical impact area, and type of uses to be developed. However, energy demand for operation of the residential and non-residential uses would be reduced due to the reduction in the number of units and square footage, respectively. Therefore, this Alternative would have reduced energy impacts than the Project; however, the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant.
G. Geology and Soils
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project and would result in the same potential impacts related to geology and soils and seismic hazards as the Project. With adherence to applicable building codes and incorporation of the recommendations from the site -specific geotechnical studies, the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial safety risks associated with geologic hazards. Further, because the physical impact area would be the same as the Project, this Alternative would also have the potential to impact subsurface paleontological resources, and the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Therefore, with incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, and adherence to applicable regulations, geology and soils impacts would be less than significant with implementation of this Alternative and the Project.
H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would involve similar construction activities, and the development of the same type of uses as the Project. Therefore, the sources of GHG emissions would be the same, although there would be an overall reduction in GHG emissions due to the reduction in commercial development, and a 14% reduction in vehicular trips and associated GHG emissions from mobile source GHG emissions. However, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO
2e per year threshold resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact for which there is no feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
I. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Neither implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative nor the Project would result in a significant impact related to hazards or hazardous materials. Based on the location and condition of the Project site and types of uses proposed, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and the Project would have no impact related to location on a hazardous materials site or wildland fire, and a less than significant impact related to hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of a school. Land uses that would occur on site under this Alternative would have a similar potential to handle and store hazardous materials as the Project resulting in a less than significant impact, and similar less than significant ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
impacts related to hazards associated with the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port (MARB/IP) Airport, and emergency response/evacuation.
J. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would involve development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in similar impacts related to hydrology and water quality as the Project.
Similar to the Project, development under this Alternative would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and alter existing drainage patterns due to the increase in the amount of impervious surfaces.
As with the Project, application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts to hydrology and storm drain infrastructure are less than significant. An on-site storm drain system would be constructed to detain flows such that they are released from the site at near pre -development levels and would not result in impacts to storm drain facilities or flooding. As with the Project, with adherence to regulatory r equirements, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to hydrology and flooding.
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would not involve excavation at depths that would encounter groundwater and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would result in surface runoff after Project implementation. Surface runoff from a developed condition (with either this Alternative or the Project) would have a different composition in comparison to the existing condition, which is undeveloped. This runoff is likely to include a similar amount and type of pollutants commonly found in urban runoff. The Project and this Alternative would be required to comply with applicable regulations related to water quality, including, but not limited to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, which would minimize potential short -term, constructi on-related and long-term, operational water quality impacts. With the adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to water quality during construction and operation.
K. Land Use and Planning
The Project site is currently undeveloped and is bordered by existing roadways and development . As with the Project, the development of the Project site under the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would not divide an established community.
The proposed TCMV Specific Plan would serve as the regulatory document for future development at the Project site. As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would involve implementation of a mixed-use development consisting of ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
residential, commercial/civic, and park uses. Under this Alternative, the Project site would be developed in compliance with the relevant development standards and Design Guidelines outlined in the proposed TCMV Specific Plan and would not conflict with the City’s 2006 or proposed 2040 General Plan policies or the MVMC. As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would also not conflict with SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024. Land use and planning impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and the Project.
L. Mineral Resources
The Project site does not contain mineral resources of regional or statewide importance and is not designated as a mineral recovery site. The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project, and as with the Project would have no impact to mineral resources.
M. Noise
Because construction activities and on-site operational activities would be similar, implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would result in similar less than significant noise impacts during construction and operation as the Project.
As identified previously, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would generate fewer trips than the Project (approximately 10,389 daily trips compared to 12,010 daily trips with the Project), which would reduce the overall off-site traffic noise impacts resulting from development. Therefore, off-site traffic noise impact would be less than significant with the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and the Project.
As with the Project, on- site uses under the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would not be subjected to excessive noise levels from MARB/IP Airport operations resulting in a less than significant impact.
N. Population and Housing
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would involve the same amount civic uses as the Project. However, with the reduction in residential units under this Alternative, there would also be a reduction in population generation (estimated to be 2,695 residents compared to 3,080 with the Project). Additionally, with the reduction in commercial square footage under this Alternative there would also be a reduction in employment opportunities (estimated to be 322 jobs compared to 421 with the Project). Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would not induce substantial unplanned growth resulting in a less than significant impact. Because the Project site is undeveloped, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and the Project would not displace existing people or housing.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
O. Public Services and Recreation
With the reduction in residential units and non -residential square footage under the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative, there would be an overall reduction in the demand for public services and recreational facilities as compared to the Project. Both the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and the Project would result in a less than significant impact to public services and recreation.
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would involve the same amount of on-site park area (4.9 acres) as the Project, and the physical impacts associated with construction of park uses would be the same as the Project. Impacts associated with construction of park facilities would be less than significant with the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and the Project.
P. Transportation
With the reduction in residential and commercial uses, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would generate less VMT compared to the Project (16,393 VMT under this Alternative compared to 17,034 VMT for the Project). However, the VMT per capita would increase to 6.1 (as compared to 5.5 under the Project evaluated in this EIR) . Notwithstanding this increase, t he VMT per capita would not exceed the City’s significance thresholds (15.9 VMT per capita). Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would have a less than significant impact related to VMT.
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and 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. The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and the Project would not conflict with applicable programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing the circulation system; would not create hazards through design; and would not result in inadequate emergency access. As with the Project, transportation impacts under this Alternative would be less than significant.
Q. Tribal Cultural Resources
There are no known tribal cultural resources located at the Project site. Therefore, no impact to known tribal cultural resources would occur with implementation of the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative or the Project. This Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section 4.17. Tribal Cultural Resources, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to tribal cultural resources.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
R. Utilities and Service Systems
As with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would increase the water demand, wastewater generation, and electric demand at the Project site compared to existing conditions where the site is undeveloped. Additionally, as discussed above under Hydrology and Water Quality, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would involve development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the Project and would generate a similar amount of stormwater runoff. Although the total number of residential units and amount of commercial development would be reduced, the utility infrastructure needed to serve the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would be the same as the Project and would be located within the same construction impact area. Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to the installation of utility infrastructure.
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would have a reduced water demand than the Project due to the reduction in residential units and commercial development.
Therefore, the conclusions of the Project -specific WSA would be applicable to this Alternative, and EMWD would have sufficient water to serve the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative. Similarly, with a reduction in wastewater generation, there would be adequate capacity in EMWD’s wastewater treatment facilities to treat wastewater generated. The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and Project would have less than significant impacts related to water supply and wastewater treatment.
As with the Project, construction and operation of the proposed residential and commercial/civic uses under the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would comply with applicable local and state regulations related to solid waste management and diversion of solid waste from landfills. The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and Project would have less than significant impacts related to solid waste.
S. Wildfire
The Project site is not within or near an SRA or VHF HSZ. Therefore, under both the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative and the Project, wildfire impacts would not occur.
T. Conclusion
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would reduce – but not avoid – the Project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would reduce the Project’s less than significant impacts to energy, noise, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems. The total VMT per capita would increase under this Alternative; however, the impact would remain less than ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
significant. All other impacts from the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Commercial Alternative would be similar to the Project.
The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Commercial Alternative would meet Project Objectives 2 , 3, 4, 5and 6 less effectively than the Project due to the reduction in residential and commercial uses. The Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would meet all of the Project’s other objectives.
6.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior alternative as defined by CEQA should minimize adverse impacts to the project site and its surrounding environment.
As discussed above, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid or reduce all of the Project’s significant and less than significant environmental impacts and, therefore, can be considered environmentally superior to the Project . While this Alternative would avoid the significant effects of the Project, none of the Project objectives would be met. If a “no project” alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][2]). As discussed in Section 6.1.1, detailed a nalysis of the No Project/Development Pursuant to the Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative has not be en provided for development of the entire site with public facilities pursuant to the current General plan land use designation and zoning. The City’s proposed General Plan land use designation and zoning Downtown Center (DC) District is addressed through the analysis of the Project and the development alternatives evaluated, as each of these would implement a mixed-use development.
As shown in Table 6 -4, Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental Impacts , the remaining alternatives, which all represent “reduced development” would have the same conclusions with respect to whether there is an increased, reduced, or similar impact as the Project. However, as presented in the analysis above, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative compared to the Project and the other development alternatives. The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would generate fewer vehicular trips than the Project and the other development alternatives. There would be an approximately 36% reduction in trip generation compared to the Project, while the Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative, and the Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative would reduce vehicular trips by 9% and 14%, respectively. With the reduction in trips , there would be an overall reduction in mobile source emissions (air quality and GHG), and traffic - related noise. The Project’s exceedance of the SCAQMD regional threshold for CO emission s would be avoided, but the Project’s significant and unavoidable NO X and VOC emissions, which are O 3
precursors, would not be avoided, and this Alternative would also be considered to have the potential to conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP. The VMT per capita under the Reduced Development – Less ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
Residential Alternative would be higher than with the Project and the other development alternatives but the impact would still be less than significant.
As shown in Table 6-5, Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Project Objectives, the Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would meet the Project objectives, but not to the same extent as the Project for two of the objectives due to the reduced amount of residential development.
The Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative would meet the Project’s objectives to a lesser degree, and it would reduce, but not avoid the Project ’s significant and unavoidable air quality and GHG emissions impacts.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
Table 6-4 Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental Impacts Environmental Topic Project Significance of Impacts After Mitigation No Project/ No
Development
Alternative
Reduced
Development –
Less Residential
Alternative
Reduced
Development –
Less Commercial
Alternative
Reduced
Development –
Less Residential
and Less
Commercial
Alternative
Aesthetics Less than Significant Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Agriculture and Forestry Resources Less than Significant Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Air Quality
AQMP Consistency: Significant and Unavoidable Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Construction: Less than Significant Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Operation: Significant and Unavoidable Impact Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Biological Resources Less than Significant Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Cultural Resources Less than Significant Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Energy Less than Significant Impact Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Geology and Soils Less than Significant Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Impact Increased Similar Similar Similar Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Mineral Resources No Impact Similar Similar Similar Similar Noise Less than Significant Impact Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Population and Housing Less than Significant Impact Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Public Services and Recreation Less than Significant Impact Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Transportation Less than Significant Impact Reduced Increased Increased Increased Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant Impact Reduced Similar Similar Similar Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Impact Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Wildfire No Impact Similar Similar Similar Similar
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Moreno Valley
Table 6-5 Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Project Objectives Project Objectives
No Project/
Development
Pursuant to the
Existing General
Plan and Zoning
Alternative
No Project/No
Development
Alternative
Reduced
Development –
Less Residential
Alternative
Reduced
Development –
Less Commercial
Alternative
Reduced
Development –
Less Residential
and Less
Commercial
Alternative
Objective 1: Establish the zoning criteria to guide the orderly development of the Project site with a mixed-use neighborhood composed of residential, open space, and commercial uses.
No No Yes Yes Yes
Objective 2: Maximize housing opportunities to further achievement of local housing goals and provide a variety of housing types to meet the needs of various market segments and lifestyle considerations.
No No
Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Yes
Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Objective 3: Create local employment opportunities.
Yes No Yes
Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Objective 4: Expand economic development in the City by establishing new commercial/civic uses on vacant land in a developing area. No No Yes Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Objective 5: Decrease automobile dependency by locating new housing, parks, and commercial/civic uses within walking distance of other business, entertainment, residential, cultural, and civic uses.
No No
Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Objective 6: Provide a diverse combination of new shopping and dining opportunities for City residents and visitors. No No Yes Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Yes, but less
effectively than the
Project
Objective 7: Develop an attractive and active community centerpiece for the City. No No Yes Yes Yes
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Moreno Valley
7.0 REFERENCES
7.1 PERSONS CONTRIBUTING TO EIR PREPARATION
7.1.1 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division Staff
Sean Kelleher, Assistant City Manager
MNS Engineers, Inc., City Consultant
Renee Gleason, Senior Environmental Planner
Roma Stromberg, Principal CEQA Analyst
Devina Horvath, Senior Environmental Planner
Emily Elliott, AICP, Contract Planner
7.1.2 T&B PLANNING, INC.
Tina Andersen, Principal/Project Manager
B.A., Social Ecology
Tracy Chu, Assistant Project Manager
Masters of Urban Planning; B.A. Economics
Emilie Colwell, Project Manager
Masters of Urban Planning; B.A. Environmental Studies
Kristen Goddard, AICP, Senior Planner
M.S. Environmental Science and Policy; B.S. Biology; B.S. Environmental and Marine Science
Christhida Mrosla, Environmental Analyst
B.A., Environmental Science
7.2 DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO THIS EIR
The following reports, studies, and supporting documentation were used in preparing this EIR and are bound separately as Technical Appendices. A copy of the Technical Appendices is available for review at the City of Moreno Valley Community Development Department, Planning Division at 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92553.
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) for Moreno Valley Town Center and Written Comments on the NOP.
Appendix B: Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2025. Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Moreno Valley. February 11, 2025.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Moreno Valley
Appendix C: VCS Environmental, 2025. Biological Technical Report for Town Center at Moreno Valley Project. January 2025.
Appendix D: VCS Environmental, 2025. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, Town Center at Moreno Valley Project, City of Moreno Valley, California. November 2024.
Appendix E: Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2025. Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Energy Analysis, City of Moreno Valley. January 10, 2025.
Appendix F: Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2025. Geotechnical Exploration Town Center at Moreno Valley Northwest Corner of Alessandro Blvd and Nason Street, Moreno Valley California. January 17, 2025.
Appendix G: Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2025. Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Moreno Valley. January 10, 2025.
Appendix H: Leighton and Associates, Inc. 2025. Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment NW Corner of Alessandro Boulevard and Nason Street, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. January 17, 2025.
Appendix I: Cannon Corporation, 2022. Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan. September 30, 2022.
Appendix J: Cannon Corporation, 2025. Drainage Report, Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map 38421, Moreno Valley, California. January 29, 2025.
Appendix K: Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2025. Town Center at Moreno Valley Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, City of Moreno Valley. February 10, 2025.
Appendix L: Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2024. Town Center at Moreno Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. December 9, 2024.
Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2024. Town Center at Moreno Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Alternatives Analysis. December 10, 2024.
Appendix M: Eastern Municipal Water District, 2022. Water Supply Assessment Report, Town Center at Moreno Valley. June 15, 2022.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Moreno Valley
7.3 DOCUMENTS, WEBSITES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Cited As: Citation:
CAL FIRE, 2023 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. September 29, 2023.
Available on-line at: https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a4 2b242b29d89597ab693d008. Accessed: January 29, 2025.
CalEPA, 2022 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2022. Disadvantaged Communities Map. May 2022. Available on-line at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535. Accessed: March 11, 2024.
CalEPA, 2024 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2024. Cortese List Data Resources. Available on-line at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed: March 12, 2024.
CalRecycle, 2024a California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2024.
Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary (2007-Current). Available on-line at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/Jurisdictio nDiversionPost2006. Accessed: March 13, 2024.
CalRecycle, 2024b California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2024.
Jurisdiction Waste Diversion Program Summary. Available on-line at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/Jurisdictio nSummary. Accessed: March 13, 2024.
CalRecycle, 2024c California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2024.
Solid Waste Information System Database. Available on-line at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed:
March 13, 2024.
Caltrans, 2022 California Department of Transportation, 2022. State Scenic Highway System Map. Available on-line at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465 dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed: August 1, 2022.
Cannon, 2022 Cannon Corporation, 2022. Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Tentative Tract Map 38421, Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan. September 30, 2023.
Cannon, 2025 Cannon Corporation, 2025. Drainage Report, Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map 38421, Moreno Valley, California. January 29, 2025.
CDC, 2020a California Department of Conservation, 2020. California Important Farmland Finder. Available on-line at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed: April 15, 2022.
CDC, 2020b California Department of Conservation, 2020. California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Important Farmland Categories.
Available on-line at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland- Categories.aspx. Accessed: April 15, 2022.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Moreno Valley
Cited As: Citation:
CDC, 2025 California Department of Conservation, 2025. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available on-line at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/. Accessed:
January 5, 2025.
CDFW, 2020 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2020. California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permits. Available on-line at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA/Permitting. Accessed: March 29, 2022.
CDFW, 2022 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2022. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). March 26, 2022. Available on-line at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP. Accessed: March 29, 2022.
CEC, 2021 California Energy Commission, 2021. CEC Approves 2022 CALGreen Building Standards Code — to Improve Buildings and Advance State’s Climate Goals. October 22, 2021. Available on-line at:
http://calenergycommission.blogspot.com/2021/10/cec-approves-2022- calgreen-
building.html#:~:text=The%202022%20CALGreen%20update%20simpl ifies,heating%2C%20to%20encourage%20building%20electrification.
Accessed: July 13, 2022.
City of Moreno Valley,
2006a
City of Moreno Valley, 2006. City of Moreno Valley General Plan. July 11, 2006. Available on-line at: https://www.moreno-
valley.ca.us/city_hall/general-plan/06gpfinal/gp/gp-tot.pdf.
City of Moreno Valley,
2006b
City of Moreno Valley, 2006. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Moreno Valley General Plan (SCH No. 200091075), certified July 11, 2006. Available on-line at: https://www.moreno- valley.ca.us/city_hall/general-plan/06gpfinal/ieir/eir-tot.pdf City of Moreno Valley,
2021a
City of Moreno Valley, 2021. Final Environmental Impact Report for the MoVal 2040: Moreno Valley Comprehensive Plan Update, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan. May 20, 2021. Available on-line:
https://www.moval.org/cdd/documents/general-plan-update/final- docs/Moval%202040_Final%20EIR_with%20RTCs.pdf.
City of Moreno Valley,
2021b
City of Moreno Valley, 2021. City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2040.
June 15, 2021. Available on-line at:
http://www.moval.org/city_hall/general-plan2040/MV-GeneralPlan- complete.pdf.
City of Moreno Valley,
2021c
City of Moreno Valley, 2021. Municipal Code. Available on-line at:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code.
City of Moreno Valley,
2021d
City of Moreno Valley, 2021. City of Moreno Valley Housing Element 2021-2029. June 15, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://moval.gov/city_hall/general-plan2040/HousingElement.pdf. ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Moreno Valley
Cited As: Citation:
City of Moreno Valley,
2022a
City of Moreno Valley, 2022. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. December 2022. Available on-line at:
https://moval.gov/departments/fire/pdf/LHMP/MorenoValley- LHMP.pdf. Accessed: January 29, 2025.
City of Moreno Valley,
2022b
City of Moreno Valley, 2022. Fire Station Locations. March 31, 2022.
Available on-line at: http://www.moreno-
valley.ca.us/city_hall/departments/fire/fire-locs.shtml. Accessed: April 2, 2022.
City of Moreno Valley,
2022c
City of Moreno Valley, 2022. Office of Emergency Management and Volunteer Services. March 31, 2022. Available on-line at:
http://www.moreno-valley.ca.us/city_hall/departments/fire/fire-emerg- mng.shtml. Accessed: April 2, 2022.
City of Moreno Valley,
2022d
City of Moreno Valley, 2022. Zone Policing. March 31, 2022. Available on-line at: http://www.moreno-
valley.ca.us/resident_services/police/index-zone.shtml.
City of Moreno Valley,
2023
City of Moreno Valley, 2023. City of Moreno Valley Trails Map. June 6, 2023. Available on-line at: https://moval.gov/parks-comm- svc/pdfs/trails/masterplan-trailsmap.pdf. Accessed: November 30, 2024.
City of Moreno Valley,
2024
City of Moreno Valley, 2024. City of Moreno Valley Zoning. September 27, 2024. Available on-line at: https://moval.gov/cdd/pdfs/2040GP- Update/Zoning.pdf.
DOF, 2024 State of California Department of Finance, 2024. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024. May 2024. Available on-line at:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population- and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/.
EDD, 2024 Employment Development Department, 2024. Labor Force Data.
Available on-line at: https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/interactive- labor-market-data-tools.html. Accessed: February 19, 2024.
EMWD, 2021a Eastern Municipal Water District, 2021. Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. September 2021. Available on-line at: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/71.
EMWD, 2021b Eastern Municipal Water District, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July 1, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/urbanwatermanagementplan_0.pdf?1625160721. Accessed:
September 15, 2022.
EMWD, 2021c Eastern Municipal Water District, 2021. Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Available on-line at:
https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/mvrwrffactsheet.pdf?1620227235. Accessed: September 15, 2022.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Moreno Valley
Cited As: Citation:
EMWD, 2022a Eastern Municipal Water District, 2022. Water Supply Assessment Report, Town Center at Moreno Valley. June 15, 2022.
EMWD, 2022b Eastern Municipal Water District, 2022. About MVU-Moreno Valley Electric Utility Service Area. June 27, 2022. Available on-line at:
https://www.moval.org/mvu/about-mvu.html. Accessed: March 21, 2024.
EPA, 2022 Environmental Protection Agency, 2022. National Menu of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Stormwater. September 14, 2022.
Available on-line at: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best- management-practices-bmps-stormwater#constr. Accessed: October 3, 2022.
FEMA, 2008 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008. FEMA FIRM No. 06065C0765G. August 28, 2008. Available on-line at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed: March 5, 2024.
Infante, A., 2024 Infante, A., 2024. Moreno Valley Unified School District Enrollment 2023-2024 and Student Capacities. Interviewed by K. Goddard (T&B Planning). March 12, 2024.
Leighton, 2024 Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2024. Geotechnical Addendum #1 Town Center at Moreno Valley Northwest Corner of Alessandro Boulevard and Nason Street, Moreno Valley California. March 6, 2024.
Leighton, 2025a Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2025. Geotechnical Exploration Town Center at Moreno Valley Northwest Corner of Alessandro Blvd and Nason Street, Moreno Valley California. January 17, 2025.
Leighton, 2025b Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2025. Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment NW Corner of Alessandro Boulevard and Nason Street, City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California.
January 17, 2025.
MVFD, 2011 Moreno Valley Fire Department, 2011. Moreno Valley Fire Department Strategic Plan 2012-2022. December 2011. Available on-line at:
https://www.moval.org/city_hall/departments/fire/pdfs/fireStrat- plan0612.pdf. Accessed: April 2, 2022.
MVUSD, 2024 Moreno Valley Unified School District, 2024. About our School.
December 1, 2024. Available on-line at:
https://earlylearningacademy.mvusd.net/about/about-our-school.
OPR, 2017 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017. State of California 2017 General Plan Guidelines. Available on-line at:
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf. Accessed: June 9, 2022.
RCFC&WCD, 2015 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2015.
Moreno Master Drainage Plan, Zone Four. April 2015. Available at:
http://content.rcflood.org/Downloads/Master%20Drainage%20Plans/Up dated/Zone%204/Reports/MorenoMDP_report.pdf. Accessed: March 5, 2024.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Moreno Valley
Cited As: Citation:
Riverside County
ALUC, 2014a
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 2014a. March Air Reserve Base / Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Vol. 1). Available on-line at:
https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/migrated/Portals-13- PDFGeneral-plan-2014-17---Vol.-1-March-Air-Reserve-Base-Final.pdf.
Accessed: January 29, 2025.
Riverside County
ALUC, 2014b
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 2014b. March Air Reserve Base / Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Vol. 2). Available on-line at:
https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/migrated/Portals-13- PDFGeneral-plan-2014-42---Vol.-2-March-Air-Reserve-Base-Final.pdf.
Accessed: January 29, 2025.
Riverside County, 2020 Riverside County, 2020. Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan. August 4, 2020. Available on-line at:
https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/2020/ap/RCBAP_080420
20.pdf. Accessed: March 28, 2022.
RWQCB, 2019 Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. June 2019. Available on-line at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_ plan/. Accessed: March 12, 2024.
SAWPA, 2019 Santa Ana River Watershed Project Authority, 2019. One Water One Watershed Plan. January 2019. Available on-line at:
https://www.ocwd.com/media/7970/wic07aone-water-one-watershed- plan-update.pdf. Accessed: October 3, 2022
SCAG, 2019 Southern California Association of Governments, 2019. Local Profile of the City of Moreno Valley. May 2019. Available on-line at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/morenovalley_localprofile.pdf?1606013528. Accessed:
April 4, 2022.
SCAG, 2024a Southern California Association of Governments, 2024. About Us.
Available on-line at: https://scag.ca.gov/about-us. Accessed: March 12, 2024.
SCAG, 2024b Southern California Association of Governments, 2024. Connect SoCal:
A Plan for Navigating to a Brighter Future. April 4, 2024. Available on- line at: https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal. Accessed: December 8, 2024.
SCAG, 2024c Southern California Association of Governments, 2024. Connect SoCal 2024 Demographics & Growth Forecast. April 4, 2024. Available on- line at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-tr- demographics-growth-forecast-final-040424.pdf?1712261839. Accessed:
March 21, 2024.
SoCalGas, 2022 Southern California Gas Company, 2022. Company Profile. June 27, 2022. Available on-line at: https://www.socalgas.com/about- us/company-profile. Accessed: September 15, 2022.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Moreno Valley
Cited As: Citation:
Urban Crossroads,
2024a
Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2024. Town Center at Moreno Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. December 9, 2024.
Urban Crossroads,
2024b
Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2024. Town Center at Moreno Valley Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Alternatives Analysis. December 10, 2024.
Urban Crossroads,
2025a
Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2025. Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Moreno Valley. February 11, 2025.
Urban Crossroads,
2025b
Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2025. Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Energy Analysis, City of Moreno Valley. January 10, 2025.
Urban Crossroads,
2025c
Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2025. Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Moreno Valley. January 10, 2025.
Urban Crossroads,
2025d
Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2025. Town Center at Moreno Valley Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, City of Moreno Valley. February 10, 2025.
Urban Crossroads,
2025e
Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2025. Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan (PEN21-0334 and PEN22-0077) Traffic Analysis, City of Moreno Valley. February 2025.
USCB, 2012 United States Census Bureau, 2012. 2010 Census Urbanized Area Reference Map: Riverside – San Bernardino, CA. May 22, 2012.
Available on-line at:
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua753 40_riverside--san_bernardino_ca/DC10UA75340.pdf. Accessed: August 1, 2022.
USCB, 2020 United States Census Bureau, 2020. Quickfacts, Riverside County, California. April 1, 2020. Available on-line at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/riversidecountycalifornia/P OP010220#POP010220. Accessed: April 15, 2022.
USDA, 2022 United States Department of Agriculture, 2022. Land Capability Class, by State, 1997. April 2, 2022. Available on-line at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/? cid=nrcs143_014040. Accessed: April 15, 2022.
USFWS, 2017 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017. ESA Basics: 40 Years of Conserving Endangered Species. February 2017. Available on-line at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species- act-basics.pdf. Accessed: March 29, 2022.
VCS, 2024 VCS Environmental, 2025. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, Town Center at Moreno Valley Project, City of Moreno Valley, California. November 2024.
VCS, 2025 VCS Environmental, 2025. Biological Technical Report for Town Center at Moreno Valley Project. January 2025.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-