7.0_TCMV SP_Draft EIR.pdf — Moreno Valley City Council, June 3, 2025 (part 1 of 6)

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

City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
February 2025
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2022040417

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

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

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

Project Applicant
Lewis Acquisition Company, LLC
1156 North Mountain Avenue
Chino, CA 91786

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

February 2025
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page i
S.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................... S-1 S.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... S-1 S.2 Project Overview ...................................................................................................... S-2 S.2.1 Location and Setting ...................................................................................... S-2 S.2.2 Project Summary ........................................................................................... S-2 S.2.3 Project Objectives ......................................................................................... S-3 S.3 EIR Process ............................................................................................................... S-4 S.4 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ...................................................... S-4 S.5 Alternatives ............................................................................................................... S-5 S.5.1 No Project/Development Pursuant to the Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative ......................................................................................... S-5 S.5.2 No Project/No Development Alternative ....................................................... S-5 S.5.3 Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative .................................. S-6 S.5.4 Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative ................................. S-6 S.5.5 Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative ..................................................................................................... S-6 S.6 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Conclusions ................................. S-6 S.6.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant ............................................................... S-6 S.6.2 Impacts of the Proposed Project ................................................................... S-7

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

1.1 Type of EIR ................................................................................................................ 1-2

1.2 List of Project Approvals ........................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Statement of Legal Authority ..................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ............................................................................ 1-4

1.5 Scope of the EIR ........................................................................................................ 1-5

1.5.1 EIR Scope ...................................................................................................... 1-5

1.5.2 EIR Format and Content ............................................................................... 1-9

1.6 Incorporation by Reference ...................................................................................... 1-11

2.0 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Regional Setting and Location ................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Local Setting and Location ........................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................................................. 2-1 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page ii

2.4 Planning Context ........................................................................................................ 2-3

2.4.1 City of Moreno Valley General Plan ............................................................. 2-3

2.4.2 Zoning ............................................................................................................ 2-4

2.4.3 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy .......................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4.4 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)............................................................................................... 2-5

2.5 Existing Physical Site Conditions .............................................................................. 2-5

2.5.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................ 2-5

2.5.2 Aesthetics and Topographic Features ........................................................... 2-6

2.5.3 Air Quality and Climate Conditions .............................................................. 2-6

2.5.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................... 2-6

2.5.5 Geology ......................................................................................................... 2-7

2.5.6 Hydrology ...................................................................................................... 2-8

2.5.7 Noise Sources ................................................................................................ 2-8

2.5.8 Transportation ............................................................................................... 2-8

2.5.9 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................... 2-9

2.5.10 Vegetation Communities .............................................................................. 2-10

2.5.11 Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 2-10

2.5.12 Rare and Unique Resources ........................................................................ 2-10

3.0 Project Description ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Project Background .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Project Location ......................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Statement of Objectives ............................................................................................. 3-2

3.4 Project Components ................................................................................................... 3-6

3.4.1 General Plan Amendment .............................................................................. 3-6

3.4.2 Change of Zone.............................................................................................. 3-7

3.4.3 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan ............................................. 3-10

3.4.4 Tentative Tract Map (TTM No. 38421) ....................................................... 3-31

3.5 Project Construction Characteristics ........................................................................ 3-31

3.6 Project Operational Characteristics .......................................................................... 3-35

3.7 Summary of Requested Actions ............................................................................... 3-37

4.0 Environmental Analysis ...................................................................................... 4-1 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page iii

4.0.1 Summary of EIR Scope .................................................................................. 4-1

4.0.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ............................................................ 4-1

4.0.3 Analysis Format............................................................................................. 4-5

4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................ 4.1-1

4.1.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.1-10

4.1.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.1-11

4.1.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.1-11

4.1.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.1-22

4.1.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.1-24

4.1.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 4.1-24

4.1.8 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation .................................................. 4.1-24

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................ 4.2-1

4.2.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................... 4.2-2

4.2.3 Basis for Determining Significance ............................................................ 4.2-5

4.2.4 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.2-5

4.2.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ....................................................................... 4.2-7

4.2.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ................................................. 4.2-7

4.2.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................... 4.2-8

4.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 4.3-1

4.3.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.3-14

4.3.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.3-19

4.3.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.3-20

4.3.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.3-36

4.3.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.3-38

4.3.7 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 4.3-38

4.3.8 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation .................................................. 4.3-40

4.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 4.4-1

4.4.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................... 4.4-8

4.4.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.4-11

4.4.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.4-12 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page iv

4.4.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.4-18

4.4.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.4-19

4.4.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 4.4-20

4.4.8 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation .................................................. 4.4-22

4.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 4.5-1

4.5.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................... 4.5-6

4.5.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.5-10

4.5.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.5-10

4.5.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.5-12

4.5.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.5-13

4.5.7 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 4.5-13

4.5.8 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation .................................................. 4.5-15

4.6 Energy ..................................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................... 4.6-2

4.6.3 Basis for Determining Significance ............................................................ 4.6-8

4.6.4 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.6-9

4.6.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.6-16

4.6.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.6-16

4.6.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 4.6-17

4.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................... 4.7-4

4.7.3 Basis for Determining Significance ............................................................ 4.7-8

4.7.4 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.7-9

4.7.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.7-13

4.7.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.7-14

4.7.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 4.7-15

4.7.8 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation .................................................. 4.7-16

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................... 4.8-5

4.8.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.8-13 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page v

4.8.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.8-16

4.8.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.8-19

4.8.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.8-20

4.8.7 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 4.8-20

4.8.8 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation .................................................. 4.8-22

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................... 4.9-5

4.9.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.9-11

4.9.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.9-12

4.9.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.9-16

4.9.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.9-17

4.9.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 4.9-18

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 4.10-1

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.10-4

4.10.3 Basis for Determining Significance ........................................................ 4.10-10

4.10.4 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................... 4.10-10

4.10.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... 4.10-17

4.10.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................. 4.10-18

4.10.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................... 4.10-19

4.11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 4.11-1

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.11-2

4.11.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.11-9

4.11.4 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................... 4.11-10

4.11.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... 4.11-27

4.11.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................. 4.11-27

4.11.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................... 4.11-27

4.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 4.12-1

4.12.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 4.12-1

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.12-1

4.12.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.12-2

4.12.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.12-2 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page vi

4.12.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.12-3

4.12.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.12-3

4.12.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 4.12-3

4.13 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.13.1 Noise and Vibration Fundamentals and Terminology ............................. 4.13-1

4.13.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 4.13-3

4.13.3 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.13-5

4.13.4 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.13-8

4.13.5 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................... 4.13-10

4.13.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... 4.13-27

4.13.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................. 4.13-28

4.13.8 Conditions of Approval........................................................................... 4.13-29

4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 4.14-1

4.14.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 4.14-1

4.14.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.14-2

4.14.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.14-4

4.14.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.14-5

4.14.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.14-7

4.14.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.14-7

4.14.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 4.14-7

4.15 Public Services and Recreation ............................................................................. 4.15-1

4.15.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 4.15-1

4.15.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.15-5

4.15.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.15-8

4.15.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.15-9

4.15.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... 4.15-13

4.15.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................. 4.15-16

4.15.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................... 4.15-16

4.16 Transportation ....................................................................................................... 4.16-1

4.16.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 4.16-1

4.16.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.16-7

4.16.3 Basis for Determining Significance ........................................................ 4.16-10

4.16.4 Project Vehicle Trip Generation and Distribution ................................. 4.16-10

4.16.5 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................... 4.16-16 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page vii

4.16.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... 4.16-35

4.16.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................. 4.16-36

4.16.8 Mitigation ............................................................................................... 4.16-36

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 4.17-1

4.17.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 4.17-1

4.17.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.17-4

4.17.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.17-6

4.17.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.17-7

4.17.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.17-9

4.17.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.17-9

4.17.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................... 4.17-10

4.17.8 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation ................................................ 4.17-12

4.18 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................ 4.18-1

4.18.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 4.18-1

4.18.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.18-6

4.18.3 Basis for Determining Significance ........................................................ 4.18-11

4.18.4 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................... 4.18-12

4.18.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... 4.18-18

4.18.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................. 4.18-19

4.18.7 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 4.18-20

4.19 Wildfire ................................................................................................................. 4.19-1

4.19.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. 4.19-1

4.19.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................... 4.19-1

4.19.3 Basis for Determining Significance .......................................................... 4.19-2

4.19.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.19-3

4.19.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 4.19-3

4.19.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................... 4.19-3

4.19.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 4.19-3

5.0 Other CEQA Considerations ............................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Project is Implemented .............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Caused by the Project Should it be Implemented ........................................................................ 5-2

5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project .................................................................... 5-4 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page viii

5.4 Effects Found not to be Significant During the EIR Scoping Process ....................... 5-7

6.0 Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Alternatives Under Consideration .............................................................................. 6-2

6.1.1 No Project/Development Pursuant to the Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative ......................................................................................... 6-3

6.1.2 No Project/No Development Alternative ....................................................... 6-3

6.1.3 Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative .................................. 6-3

6.1.4 Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative ................................. 6-3

6.1.5 Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative ..................................................................................................... 6-3

6.2 Alternatives Considered and Rejected ....................................................................... 6-4

6.2.1 Alternative Site within the City -Proposed Downtown Center (DC) District ........................................................................................................... 6-4

6.2.2 Reduced Development Area Alternative ........................................................ 6-6

6.3 Alternative Analysis ................................................................................................... 6-6

6.3.1 No Project/Development Pursuant To The Existing General Plan And Zoning Alternative.................................................................................. 6-7

6.3.2 No Project/No Development Alternative ....................................................... 6-7

6.3.3 Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative ................................ 6-12

6.3.4 Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative ............................... 6-21

6.3.5 Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative ................................................................................................... 6-29

6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ..................................................................... 6-38

7.0 References ......................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Persons Contributing to EIR Preparation ................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 City of Moreno Valley Community Development Department ...................... 7-1

7.1.2 T&B Planning, Inc......................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Documents Appended to this EIR .............................................................................. 7-1

7.3 Documents, Websites and Persons Consulted ........................................................... 7-3

EIR TECHNICAL APPENDICES (BOUND SEPARATELY)
City of Moreno Valley
Page ix

Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Written Comments on the NOP Appendix B Air Quality Impact Analysis
Appendix C Biological Technical Report
Appendix D Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix E Energy Analysis
Appendix F Geotechnical Exploration
Appendix G Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix H Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Appendix I Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Appendix J Drainage Report
Appendix K Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Appendix L Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Appendix M Water Supply Assessment Report

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page x
Figure 2-1 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses ..................................................... 2-2 Figure 3-1 Regional Map....................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 3-4 Figure 3-3 USGS Topographic Map ..................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4 Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Map ........................................... 3-8 Figure 3-5 Existing and Proposed Zoning Map .................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-6 Conceptual Land Use Plan ................................................................................. 3-11 Figure 3-7 Project Access/Circulation ................................................................................. 3-19 Figure 3-8 Conceptual Utility Plan ...................................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3-9 Conceptual Water Quality Exhibit ..................................................................... 3-30 Figure 3-10a Proposed Tentative Tract Map 38421 ................................................................ 3-32 Figure 3-10b Proposed Tentative Tract Map 38421 ................................................................ 3-33 Figure 3-11 Conceptual Grading Plan ................................................................................... 3-36 Figure 4.0-1 Cumulative Projects Location Map ..................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4.1-1 Site Photos – Views 1 & 2 ................................................................................ 4.1-3 Figure 4.1-2 Site Photos – Views 3 & 4 ................................................................................ 4.1-4 Figure 4.1-3 Site Photos – Views 5 & 6 ................................................................................ 4.1-6 Figure 4.1-4 Site Photos – Views 7 - 9 .................................................................................. 4.1-7 Figure 4.1-5 Site Photos – Views 10 & 11 ............................................................................ 4.1-8 Figure 4.1-6 Site Photos – Views 12 & 13 ............................................................................ 4.1-9 Figure 4.2-1 Farmland Classification .................................................................................... 4.2-3 Figure 4.3-1 Sensitive Receptor Locations ......................................................................... 4.3-13 Figure 4.4-1 Vegetation/Land Cover ..................................................................................... 4.4-2 Figure 4.9-1 S
oil Borings ...................................................................................................... 4.9-4 Figure 4.10-1 Existing Hydrology Exhibit ............................................................................ 4.10-2 Figure 4.10-2 Proposed Hydrology Exhibit ........................................................................ 4.10-15 Figure 4.13-1 Noise Measurement Locations ....................................................................... 4.13-4 Figure 4.13-2 Off-site Noise Receiver Locations ................................................................ 4.13-11 Figure 4.13-3 Construction Noise Source Locations........................................................... 4.13-13 Figure 4.13-4 Operational Noise Source Locations ............................................................ 4.13-17 Figure 4.13-5 On-Site Receiver Locations and Recommended Noise Abatement Measures ....................................................................................................... 4.13-22 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page xi
Figure 4.16-1a Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls ...................... 4.16-3 Figure 4.16-1b Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls ...................... 4.16-4 Figure 4.16-2 Existing and Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Network .................................. 4.16-5 Figure 4.16-3 Existing Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................... 4.16-6 Figure 4.16-4 Residential Trip Distribution ........................................................................ 4.16-13 Figure 4.16-5 Non-Residential Trip Distribution ................................................................ 4.16-14 Figure 4.16-6 Hotel Trip Distribution ................................................................................. 4.16-15 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES
Table Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page xii
Table S-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................... S-8 Table 1-1 Summary of NOP Comments .............................................................................. 1-6 Table 1-2 Location of CEQA Required Topics ................................................................... 1-9 Table 3-1 TCMV Specific Plan Permitted Uses ................................................................ 3-12 Table 3-2 TCMV Specific Plan Development Standards .................................................. 3-15 Table 3-3 Parking Requirements ........................................................................................ 3-23 Table 3-4 Estimated Construction Schedule ...................................................................... 3-31 Table 3-5 Construction Trip Assumptions ......................................................................... 3-31 Table 3-6 Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet .......................................................... 3-34 Table 3-7 Estimated Employment Generation ................................................................... 3-37 Table 3-8 Project Related Actions/Permits ........................................................................ 3-38 Table 4.0-1 List of Cumulative Projects ................................................................................. 4-4 Table 4.1-1 Current 2006 General Plan Consistency Analysis .......................................... 4.1-14 Table 4.1-2 City Proposed 2040 General Plan Consistency Analysis ............................... 4.1-17 Table 4.3-1 Criteria Pollutants ............................................................................................. 4.3-3 Table 4.3-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SoCAB .................................. 4.3-10 Table 4.3-3 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2021-2023 ........................... 4.3-11 Table 4.3-4 SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Regional Thresholds ........................ 4.3-20 Table 4.3-5 SCAQMD Maximum Daily Emissions Construction Localized Thresholds....................................................................................................... 4.3-20 Table 4.3-6 Summary of Construction Activity Emissions (Without Mitigation) ............. 4.3-24 Table 4.3-7 Summary of Construction Activity Emissions (With Mitigation) .................. 4.3-27 Table 4.3-8 Summary of Operational Activity Emissions ................................................. 4.3-30 Table 4.3-9 LST Construction Activity Emissions (Without Mitigation) ......................... 4.3-33 Table 4.3-10 LST Construction Activity Emissions (With Mitigation)............................... 4.3-34 Table 4.8-1 GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs ............................................ 4.8-2 Table 4.8-2 Top GHG Producing Countries and the European Union ................................ 4.8-5 Table 4.8-3 Amortized Annual Construction Emissions Summary ................................... 4.8-17 Table 4.8-4 P
roject GHG Emissions – Without Mitigation ............................................... 4.8-17 Table 4.10-1 Receiving Waters Tributary to the Project Site .............................................. 4.10-8 Table 4.11-1 2006 General Plan Consistency Analysis ..................................................... 4.11-12 Table 4.11-2 City-Proposed 2040 General Plan Consistency Analysis ............................. 4.11-17 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES
Table Number and Title Page
City of Moreno Valley
Page xiii
Table 4.11-3 SCAG Connect SoCal 2024 Consistency Analysis ...................................... 4.11-25 Table 4.13-1 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements ............................................... 4.13-3 Table 4.13-2 Significance Criteria Summary ....................................................................... 4.13-9 Table 4.13-3 Construction Noise Level Compliance ......................................................... 4.13-15 Table 4.13-4 Daytime Construction Noise Level Increases ............................................... 4.13-15 Table 4.13-5 Operational Noise Level Compliance ........................................................... 4.13-18 Table 4.13-6 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases .................................... 4.13-19 Table 4.13-7 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Level Increases .................................. 4.13-19 Table 4.13-8 Exterior Noise Levels ................................................................................... 4.13-23 Table 4.13-9 Exterior Noise Levels with Noise Attenuation ............................................. 4.13-24 Table 4.13-10 Project Construction Vibration Levels ......................................................... 4.13-26 Table 4.14-1 SCAG Projected 2019-2050 Growth Forecast................................................ 4.14-2 Table 4.14-2 City RHNA 2021-2029 ................................................................................... 4.14-4 Table 4.14-3 Comparison of Project Population, Employment, and Housing with Adopted Growth Forecasts ............................................................................. 4.14-6 Table 4.15-1 Existing Schools Enrollment and Capacity .................................................... 4.15-3 Table 4.15-2 MVUSD Student Generation Rates ................................................................ 4.15-3 Table 4.15-3 Project-Related Student Generation ............................................................. 4.15-11 Table 4.16-1 Trip Generation Rates ................................................................................... 4.16-11 Table 4.16-2 Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................ 4.16-12 Table 4.16-3 2006 General Plan Consistency Analysis – Circulation ............................... 4.16-17 Table 4.16-4 Proposed 2040 General Plan Consistency Analysis – Circulation ............... 4.16-23 Table 4.16-5 Project Generated VMT ................................................................................ 4.16-33 Table 4.18-1 Estimated Solid Waste Generation ............................................................... 4.18-17 Table 6-1 Reduced Development – Less Residential Alternative Trip Generation ........... 6-13 Table 6-2 Reduced Development – Less Commercial Alternative Trip Generation ......... 6-22 Table 6-
3 Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial Alternative Trip Generation ............................................................................... 6-30 Table 6-4 Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental Impacts ............... 6-40 Table 6-5 Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Project Objectives ....................... 6-41

■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-1
S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as codified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000, et seq. requires that before a public agency makes a decision to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform itself about the project’s potential environmental impacts, give the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment.

This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (California State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2022040417) was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Article 9, Sections 15120 -15132 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with planning, constructing, and operating the proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley (TCMV) Specific Plan Project (hereafter, the “Project”). This EIR does not recommend approval or denial of the Project; rather, this EIR is a source of factual information regarding potential imp acts to the physical environment that may result from the Project’s implementation. The Draft EIR will be available for public review for 45 days. After consideration of public comment, the City of Moreno Valley (hereafter, “City”) will consider certifying the Final EIR and adopting required findings.

The City’s preliminary analysis determined that implementation of the Project would have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts under 20 environmental topic areas

1. This determination
was based in consideration of public comment received by the City in response to this EIR’s Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and written comments received by the City in response to the NOP, are attached to this EIR as Technical Appendix A. The environmental topic areas that have the potential to be significantly affected by planning, constructing, and/or operating the Project and that are analyzed in detail herein include:

1. Aesthetics

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources

3. Air Quality

4. Biological Resources

5. Cultural Resources

6. Energy

7. Geology and Soils

8. Greenhouse Emissions

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

10. Hydrology and Water Quality

1 Public services and recreation are both addressed in EIR Section 4.15, Public Services and Recreation; therefore, the analysis for the Project is provided in 19 topical EIR sections.

11. Land Use and Planning

12. Mineral Resources

13. Noise

14. Population and Housing

15. Public Services

16. Recreation

17. Transportation

18. Tribal Cultural Resources

19. Utilities and Service Systems

20. Wildfire
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-2
Refer to EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, for a full account and analysis of the subject matters listed above. For each of the subject areas, this EIR describes: 1) the physical conditions that existed at the approximate time this EIR’s NOP was published (A pril 21, 2022); 2) discloses the type and magnitude of potential environmental impacts resulting from Project planning, construction, and operation; and 3) if warranted, recommends feasible mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts that may result from the Project. A summary of the Project’s significant environmental impacts and the mitigation measures imposed by the City to lessen or avoid these impacts is included in this Executive Summary as Table S -1, Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures . The City applies mitigation measures that it determines 1) are feasible and practical for project applicants to implement, 2) are feasible and practical for the City to monitor and enforce, 3) are legal for the City to impose, 4) have an essential nexus to the Project’s impacts, and 5) would result in a benefit to the physical environment . CEQA does not require the Lead Agency to impose mitigation measures that are duplicative of mandatory regulatory requirements.

S.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
S.2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
The Project site is in the City of Moreno Valley, which is within western Riverside County, California.

The City of Moreno Valley is situated north of the City of Perris, northwest of the City of Hemet, west of the City of Beaumont, east of the City of Riverside, and east of the unincorporated communities of Mead Valley and Woodcrest . The Project site is approximately 1.0 mile south of the Nason Street on/off ramp to State Route 60 (SR-60) and approximately 5.3 miles east of Interstate 215 (I-215). The site’s location and regional context are illustrated on Figure 3-1, Regional Map, in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description.

At the local scale, the Project site is located immediately south of Cottonwood Avenue, west of Nason Street, north of Alessandro Boulevard, and east of the current terminus of Ba y Avenue, as illustrated on Figure 3-2, Vicinity Map, in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description.

S.2.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
For purposes of this EIR, the term “Project” refers to the discretionary actions required to implement the proposed TCMV Specific Plan Project and all the activities associated with its implementation (including planning, construction, and ongoing operation). The Property Owner/Developer would develop the Project site pursuant to the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, which involves a mixed-use development consisting of residential, commercial/civic, and open spaces uses. The proposed TCMV Specific Plan is designed to provide flexibility for development within the Specific Plan area. The exact type and amount of uses that would be developed at buildout of the TCMV Specific Plan is unknown. Therefore, a reasonable potential buildout development scenario has been developed for purposes of analysis in this EIR and includes the following uses in the respective land use areas shown on Figure 3-5, Conceptual Land Use Plan:
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-3
Residential Land Use Area
• 800 residential dwelling units
Commercial/Civic Land Use Area
• 105,890 square feet (sf) of general retail
• 15,000 sf of business professional office uses
• 58,409 sf /106-room hotel
• 30,000 sf civic center
• 20,160 sf eating establishment/high turnover restaurant, including a drive-thru restaurant Open Space Land Use Area
• 4.9-acres of park area

The Project also includes associated site improvements, including vehicular and non-vehicu lar circulation, parking facilities, and transit facilities; parks and recreational facilities; landscaping and streetscape improvements; monuments, entry features , and signage; walls and fences; lighting and mechanical equipment; and utility infrastructure (on- and off-site).

The principal discretionary actions requested by the Property Owner/Developer to implement the proposed Project include a General Plan Amendment (PEN25-0007) to change the land use designation of the Project site from Public Facilities to Residential (30 du/acre maximum), Open Space, and Commercial; a Change of Zone (PEN21-0334) from Public (P) District to TCMV Specific Plan (SP 222); adoption of the TCMV Specific Plan (PEN21-0334); and Tentative Tract Map No. 38421 (PEN22-0077). Refer to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, for a detailed description of the Project.

S.2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives that have been established for the TCMV Specific Plan Project are listed below.

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.

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.

3. Create local employment opportunities.

4. Expand economic development in the City by establishing new commercial/civic uses on vacant land in a developing area.

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.

6. Provide a diverse combination of new shopping and dining opportunities for City residents and visitors.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-4

7. Develop an attractive and active community centerpiece for the City.

S.3 EIR PROCESS
The City published a NOP and filed a copy with the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) SCH to inform the general public, trustee and responsible agencies, and other interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the Project . The NOP was distributed for a 30-day public review period, which began on April 21, 2022. The City received written comments on the scope of the EIR during those 30 days, which were considered by the City during the preparation of this EIR. The City also held an EIR scoping meeting open to the interested public agencies and members of the general public on May 4, 2022; no public agencies or individuals attended the EIR Scoping Meeting.

This EIR will be circulated for review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day review period. Prior to the 45-day public review period, public notices announcing availability of the Draft EIR will be mailed to public agencies and interested organizations and individuals; an advertisement will be published in the Press Enterprise (a newspaper of general circulation in the City) ; and copies of the Draft EIR will be available for review at the locations indicated in the public notices.

After the close of the 45- day Draft EIR public comment period, the City will prepare and publish responses to written comments it received on the environmental effects of the Project. Thereafter, the Final EIR will be considered for certification by the Moreno Valley City Council. Certification of the Final EIR would be accompanied by the adoption of written findings and a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for any significant unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. In addition, pursuant to PRC Section 21081.6, because the Project will include mitigation measures, the City, as Lead Agency, must adopt a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), which describes the process to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.

The MMRP will ensure CEQA compliance during Project construction and operation.

S.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2) requires the Lead Agency (City of Moreno Valley) to identify any known issues of controversy in the Executive Summary. A fter consideration of all comments received in response to the NOP, the City has not identified any environmental issues of controversy associated with the Project. Notwithstanding, this EIR addresses all environmental issues that are known by the City and that were identified in the comment letters that the City received in response to the NOP (refer to EIR Technical Appendix A ). Items raised in written comment s to the NOP are summarized in Table 1 -1, Summary of NOP and Scoping Meeting Comments , in EIR Section 1.0, Introduction.

Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a discussion of issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-5
With respect to the Project, the key issues to be resolved include decisions by the City as Lead Agency, as to:
• Whether this environmental document adequately describes the potential environmental impacts of the Project.
• Whether the recommended mitigation measures should be modified and/or adopted. • Whether the Project benefits override those environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level.
• Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the Project besides those identified in this EIR.
• Whether there are any alternatives to the Project that would substantially lessen any of its significant impacts while achieving most of the basic Project objectives.

S.5 ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 6.0 , Alternatives, of this EIR addresses alternatives that can eliminate or reduc e the potentially significant impacts of the Project. EIR Section 6.0 provides descriptions of each alternative, a comparative analysis of the potential environmental effects of each alternative to those associated with the Project, and a discussion of each alternative’s ability to meet the Project objectives. Following is a summary description of the alternatives evaluated in this EIR. For a more detailed discussion of these alternatives and the relative impacts associated with each alternative compared to the Project, refer to EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives.

As required by CEQA, EIR Section 6.0 also identifies alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis, and the environmentally superior alternative.

S.5.1 NO PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ALTERNATIVE The existing (2006) General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Public Facilities and the existing zoning district is Public (P) District. The Project requires a General Plan Amendment and zone change to allow for implementation of the residential, commercial, civic, and open space uses proposed to be allowed by the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, which would serve as the regulatory document governing the orderly growth and development of the Project site and Tentative Tract Map No. 38421.

Therefore, this EIR addresses the “No Project/Development Pursuant to the Existing General Plan and Zoning” Alternative, which represents the No Project alternative under which the Project does not proceed and the Project site is developed pursuant to the existing 2006 General Plan and existing zoning designations, which anticipate the development of public facilities.

S.5.2 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The “No Project/No Development” Alternative considers no development on the Project site. Under this Alternative, the approximately 69.6 gross acre Project site would remain undeveloped and would be subject to routine maintenance (i.e., discing) for weed abatement. This Alternative was used to ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-6
compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site in its existing state.

S.5.3 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. In summary, under this Alternative, the Project site would be developed with 300 residential dwelling units (compared to 800 residential units anticipated for the Project in this EIR); 229,459 sf of non-residential uses, consistent with the non-residential development square footage anticipated for the Project in this EIR; and 4. 9 acres of open space, consistent with the Project.

S.5.4 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT – LESS COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE The “Reduced Development – Less Commercial” Alternative considers a development scenario where the Project site would be developed with the same number of residential units and the same amount of open space (park) uses as assumed for the Project in this EIR, but a reduced amount of commercial/civic uses. In summary, under this Alternative the Project site would be developed with 800 residential dwelling units, consistent with residential development anticipated for the Project in this EIR; 150,000 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.

S.5.5 REDUCED DEVELOPMENT – LESS RESIDENTIAL AND LESS COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE The “Reduced Development – Less Residential and Less Commercial ” Alternative considers a development scenario where the Project site would be developed with fewer residential units, less commercial/civic uses, and the same amount of open space (park) uses. In summary, under this Alternative, the Project site would be developed with 700 residential dwelling units (compared to 800 residential units anticipated for the Project in this EIR); 175,000 sf of non-residential uses (compared to 229,459 sf of non-resi dential development square footage anticipated for the Project in this EIR); and 4.9 acres of open space, consistent with the Project.

S.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND CONCLUSIONS S.6.1 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR “… contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” As discussed in EIR Section 1.0, Introduction, and as identified in the Notice of Preparation for this EIR included in Technical Appendix A , the City determined that each of the 20 topical issues identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines should ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-7
be evaluated in the Draft EIR. There were no issues for which the City found that impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis in the Draft EIR was warranted.

S.6.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Table S -1 provides a summary of the Project’s environmental impacts, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(a). Also presented are the mitigation measures recommended by the Lead Agency to further avoid adverse environmental impacts or to reduce their level of significance . After the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable environmental effects:
• Air Quality (Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP] Conflict). The Project’s operational- source emissions would exceed the regional thresholds of significance for volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. VOC and NOX are precursors for ozone (O 3); thus, Project operational activities c ould contribute a substantial volume of pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) that could delay the attainment of federal and State ozone standards. Consequently, the Project is conservatively considered to have the potential to conflict with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) AQMP. Project impacts due to a conflict with the SCAQMD AQ MP would be significant and unavoidable.
• Air Quality ( Cumulatively Considerable Increase in Criteria Pollutant During Operation). After the application of mandatory regulatory requirements and feasible mitigation measures, maximum daily emissions from Project operations would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for NOx, VOC, and CO, and cannot be effectively reduced to a level below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Because NOx and VOC are O3 precursors, this could also result in additional violations of the State and federal O 3 standards. O3 is a nonattainment pollutant. Since the majority of the operational emissions are from vehicle trips and neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality , exist that would reduce emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, the Project’s operational air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable, and the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, which is a significant and unavoidable impact.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures in EIR Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project’s operational GHG emissions would be reduced but not to a level below the established significance threshold. Since the majority of the operational emissions are from vehicle trips and neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control vehicle -source emissions, no feasible mitigation measures beyond the measures identified exist that would reduce emissions to levels that are less than significant. Therefore, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-8
Table S-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

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

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

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

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

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

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

Impacts would be less than significant.

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

Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation.

■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-9

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
the sky or onto adjacent residential
properties. Compliance with this
measure shall be verified by the City
during inspections of the construction
site.

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

4.3 AIR QUALITY
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-10

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

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

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

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

Property Owner/
Developer

Property
Owner/Developer and
Project Contractor

Property
Owner/Developer and
Commercial tenants

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

Prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit.

Prior to issuance of each
building permit.

Prior to tenant
occupancy.

Upon occupancy and
thereafter.

Significant and
Unavoidable Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-11

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

Property Owner/
Developer

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

Prior to issuance of each
building permit.

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

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

Property
Owner/Developer and
Project Contractor

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

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit.

Construction: Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated.

Operations: Significant
and Unavoidable Impact.

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

Refer to Air Quality
Threshold “a”

Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. During
construction, the Project would not expose nearby
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
No mitigation is required. NA

Less than Significant
Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-13

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

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

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

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

MM 4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
the Property Owner/Developer shall
provide the City with proof of retention
of a qualified biologist to implement
this mitigation measure. If the removal
of any trees, shrubs, or any other
potential nesting and for aging habitat
for avian species, including sensitive
species and raptor nests, is to be
conducted within the nesting season
(September 1 to February 14 for
songbirds; September 1 to January 14
for raptors), a nesting bird survey shall
be required within th ree days prior to
start of work. If active nests are
identified, the biologist will establish
appropriate buffers around the area
(typically 500 feet for raptors and
sensitive species, and 200 feet for non-
raptors/non-sensitive species). All
Property
Owner/Developer

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

Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-14

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
work within these buffers will be halted
until the nesting effort is finished (i.e.,
the juveniles are surviving independent
from the nest). The on -site biologist
will review and verify compliance with
these nesting boundaries and verify the
nesting effort has finished. Work can
resume within the buffer area when no
other active nests are found.

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

MM 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
the Property Owner/Developer shall
provide the City with proof of retention
of a qualified biologist to implement
this mitigation measure. A pre -
construction presence/absence survey
for BUOW within the Project area
where suitable habitat is present shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist
within 30 days prior to the
commencement of ground -disturbing
activities. If active BUOW burrows are
detected during the breeding season, all
work within an appropriate buffer
(typically a minimum of 300 feet) of
any active burrow will be halted. If
there is an active nest at the burrow,
work will not proceed within the buffer

Property
Owner/Developer

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

Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
until that nesting effort is finished. The
on-site biologist will review and verify
compliance with these boundaries and
will verify the nesting effort has
finished. Work can resume in the buffer
when there are no occupied/active
BUOW burrows found within the
buffer area.

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

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

Property
Owner/Developer

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

Prior to the issuance of
grading permits.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-16

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
bat roosts are found, then then the
following shall be implemented, as
appropriate:

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

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

Removal of the roost shall only
occur when bats are not present in
the roost. The mitigation plan shall
detail the methods of excluding
bats from the roost and the plans
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-17

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
for a replacement roost in the
vicinity of the project site. The plan
shall include: (1) a description of
the species targeted for mitigation;
(2) a description of the existing
roost or roost sites; (3) methods to
be used to exclude the bats if
necessary; (4) methods to be used
to secure the existing roost site to
prevent its reuse prior to removal;
(5) the location for a replacement
roost structure; (6) design details
for the construction of the
replacement roost; (7) monitoring
protocols for assessing
replacement roost use; (8) a
schedule for excluding bats,
demolishing of the existing roost,
and construction of the
replacement roost; and (9)
contingency measures to be
implemented if the replacement
roosts do not function as designed.
c. All potential roost trees shall be
removed in a manner approved by
a qualified bat biologist, which
may include presence of a
biological monitor.
d. All construction activity in the
vicinity of an active maternity roost
shall be limited to daylight hours.
e. Results of the survey shall be
submitted to the City prior to
removal of the trees. If additional
measures are required under (a)
through (d), the submittal to the
City will include those additional
measures.

Threshold b: No Impact. The Project area does not
contain any riparian habitat, critical habitat, or other No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-18

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
sensitive natural communities. Therefore, the Project
would have no impacts to these biological resources.

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold d: Potentially Significant Impact. The
Project would not interfere with the movement of fish
or impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site;
however, construction activities could result in
impacts to nesting avian species, which would be in
violation of the MBTA and CFGC and/or would result
in impacts to protected bat maternity roosts if
construction activities are to take place during nesting or maternity roosting season.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to Section 9.17.03 of the City
of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, the
removal of existing trees with four-inch
or greater trunk diameters at breast
heigh (dbh) shall be replaced at a 3:1
ratio, with a minimum 24-inch box size
tree of the same species or a minimum
36-inch box for a 1:1 replac ement, in
locations approved by the City.

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

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

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

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

MM 4.5-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,
the Developer shall retain a professional
archaeologist to conduct monitoring of
all mass grading and trenching activities.

The Project Archaeologist shall have the
authority to temporarily redirect
earthmoving activities in the event that
suspected archaeological resources are
unearthed during Project construction.

The Project Archaeologist, in
consultation with the Consulting
Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City,
shall develop a Cultural Resources
Management Plan (CRMP) in
consultation pursuant to the definition in
AB 52 to address the details, timing, and
responsibility of all archaeological and
cultural activities that will occur on the
Project site. A Consulting Tribe is
defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52
tribal consultation process for the
Project, has not opted out of the AB 52
consultation process, and has completed
AB 52 consultation with the City as
Project Developer and
Project Archaeologist

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.

Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-20

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
provided for in California Public
Resources Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1)
of AB 52. Details in the Plan shall
include:
a. Project grading and development
scheduling;
b. The Project Archeologist and the
Consulting Tribes(s) as defined
above shall attend the pre- grading
meeting with the City, the
construction manager, and any
contractors, and will conduct a
mandatory Cultural Resources
Worker Sensitivity Training for
those in attendance. The Training
will include a brief review of the
cultural sensitivity of the Project and
the surrounding area; what
resources could potentially be
identified during earthmoving
activities; the requirements of the
monitoring program; the pr otocols
that apply in the event inadvertent
discoveries of cultural resources are
identified, including who to contact
and appropriate avoidance measures
until the find(s) can be properly
evaluated; and any other appropriate
protocols. All new construction
personnel that will conduct
earthwork or grading activities that
begin work on the Project following
the initial Training must take the
Cultural Sensitivity Training prior
to beginning work and the Project
Archaeologist and Consulting
Tribe(s) shall make themselves
available to provide the training on
an as needed basis;
c. The protocols and stipulations that
the contractor, City, Consulting

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Tribe(s), and Project archaeologist
shall follow in the event of
inadvertent cultural resources
discoveries, including any newly
discovered cultural resource
deposits that shall be subject to a
cultural resources evaluation.

MM 4.5-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the Developer shall secure an
agreement with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseño Indians regarding monitoring
during ground-disturbing activities. The
Developer is also required to provide a
minimum of 30 days’ advance notice to
the tribe of all mass grading and
trenching activities. The Native
American Tribal Representative shall
have the authority to temporarily halt
and redirect earth -moving activities in
the affected area in the event that
suspected archaeological resources are
unearthed. If the Native American
Tribal Representative suspects that an
archaeological resource may have been
unearthed, the Project Archaeologist or
the Tribal Representative shall
immediately redirect grading operations
in a 100 -foot radius around the find to
allow identification and evaluation of
the suspected resource. In consultation
with the Native American Tribal
Representative, the Project
Archaeologist shall evaluate the
suspected resource and make a
determination of significan ce pursuant
to California Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2.

MM 4.5-3 In the event that Native American
cultural resources are discovered during
the course of grading (inadvertent

Project Developer

Project Developer and
Project Archaeologist

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and

Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.

If Native American
cultural resources are
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-22

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
discoveries), the following procedures
shall be carried out for final disposition
of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following
treatments, in order of preference,
shall be employed with the tribes.

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

Preservation in place means
avoiding the resources, leaving
them in the place they were
found with no development
affecting the integrity of the
resources.
ii. On-site reburial of the
discovered items as detailed in
the treatment plan required
pursuant to Mitigation Measure
(MM) 4.5 -

1. This shall include
measures and provisions to
protect the future reburial area
from any future impacts in
perpetuity. Reburial sh all not
occur until all legally required
cataloging and basic recordation
have been completed. No
recordation of sacred items is
permitted without the written
consent of all Consulting Native
American Tribal Governments
as defined in MM 4.5-1.

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

If any suspected archaeological
resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities and the
Project Archaeologist or Native
American Tribal Representative are

Project Developer and
Project Archaeologist

Building and Safety
Division

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

discovered during
grading

Prior to issuance of
grading permit and if
any suspected
archaeological resources
are discovered during
ground-disturbing
activities
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-23

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
not present, the construction
supervisor is obligated to halt work in
a 100-foot radius around the find and
call the Project Archaeologist and the
Tribal Representative to the site to
assess the significance of the find.

MM 4.5-5 If potential historic or cultural
resources are uncovered during
excavation or construction activities at
the project site, work in the affected
area must cease immediately and a
qualified person meeting the Secretary
of the Interior’s standards (36 CFR 61),
Tribal Representatives, and all site
monitors per the Mitigation Measures,
shall be consulted by the City to
evaluate the find, and as appropriate
recommend alternative measures to
avoid, minimize or mitigate negative
effects on the historic, o r prehistoric
resource. Determinations and
recommendations by the consultant
shall be immediately submitted to the
Planning Division for consideration
and implemented as deemed
appropriate by the Community
Development Director and any and all
Consulting Native American Tribes as
defined in MM 4.5-1 before any further
work commences in the affected area.

Project Developer and
Project Archaeologist

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-24

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact.

Implementation of the Project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Construction activities would be conducted in compliance with
regulations addressing erosion during construction
(e.g., NPDES permit and preparation of a SWPPP) ,
and preparation of an erosion control plan is required
to minimize water and wind erosion. Following
completion of development, implementation of a
WQMP during operation is required (via conditions of
No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-25

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
approval), which would preclude substantial long -
term erosion impacts.

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

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

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

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

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

Sediment samples should also be
recovered to determine the small-fossil
potential of the site. The Paleontologist
shall be present at the pre -grading
conference; shall establish procedures
and a schedule for paleontological
resources surveillance; and shall
establish, in cooperation with the City,
procedures for temporarily halting or
redirecting work t o permit the
sampling, identification, and evaluation
of the fossils as appropriate. These
actions, as well as final mitigation and
Property
Owner/Developer and
Project Paleontologist
City of Moreno Valley
Building and Safety
Division and Land
Development Division
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit and/or
action that would permit
site disturbance.

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
disposition of the resources, shall be
subject to the approval of the City of
Moreno Valley.

The Project Paleontologist shall
prepare a final paleontological resource
monitoring and mitigation report of
findings and significance, including
lists of all fossils recovered and
necessary maps and graphics to
accurately record their original
location(s). All recovered fossils will
be offered for curation in perpetuity to
the Western Science Center in Hemet,
the principal fossils repository in
Riverside County. A letter
documenting receipt and acceptance of
all fossil collections by the receiving
institution must be included in the final
report. The report, when submitted to
(and accepted by) the City of Moreno
Valley, shall signify satisfactory
completion of the project program to
mitigate impacts to any nonrenewable
paleontological resources.

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

MM 4.8-1 The project applicant shall design and
build future non -residential
development to meet/include the
following:
• The project will utilize on -site
renewable energy sources such as
solar, to reduce electrical demand
as per Division A5.211, Renewable
Energy, of Appendix A5,
Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures, of the 2022 California
Green Building Standards Code.
• The project will incorporate
measures to reduce the overall use
Property
Owner/Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
of potable water within the building
by 12% as per Division A5.3, Water
Efficiency and Conservation, as
outlined under Section
A5.303.2.3.1 of Appendix A5,
Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures, of the 2022 California
Green Building Standards Code.

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

MM 4.8-2 The project applicant shall design and
build future residential development to
meet/include the following:
• No wood -burning fireplaces
shall be installed in any of the
dwelling units.
• All buildings shall be electric, to
the extent feasible, meaning that
electricity is the primary source
of energy for water heating;
heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) within the
building, excluding pool
heating.
• All major appliances
provided/installed shall be
EnergyStar-certified or of
equivalent energy efficiency,
where applicable.

Property
Owner/Developer

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

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

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

Property
Owner/Developer

Refer to Air Quality
Threshold a

City of Moreno Valley
Planning Division and
Building and Safety
Division

Refer to Air Quality
Threshold a

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

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

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

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Thresholds a and b: Less than Significant Impact. The
Project site does not contain any RECs. During Project
construction and operation, mandatory compliance
with federal, State, and local regulations would ensure that the Project would not create a significant hazard
to the environment due to routine transport, use,
disposal, or upset of hazardou s substances or
materials. Additionally, due to the nature of the
Project, routinely used hazardous materials would not
No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-29

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
be of the type or occur in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment.

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

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

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

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

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

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

No mitigation is required NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold g: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
site does not contain wildlands and is not within a
VHFHSZ; the nearest VHFHSZ is approximately 0.4-
No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-30

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
mile from the Project site. The Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant wildfire
risk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

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

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact.

Implementation of the Project would not conflict with
the City’s existing 2006 General Plan or proposed
2040 General Plan, which the City is in the process of
readopting; MVMC; or SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024,
and specifically would not conflict with applicable
environmental plans, policies, and regulations adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. This impact would be less than
significant.

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

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

Threshold b: No Impact. The Project site is not within
a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the
Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan. No impact would occur.

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

4.13 NOISE
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. During
construction and operation (onsite noise sources and
off-site traffic noise) the Project would not generate
substantial temporary or permanent increase in
No mitigation is required; however, the following
COAs would be implemented.

During Construction
Less than Significant
Impact
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-32

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies. Therefore, this impact is less than
significant.

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

COA 4.13-1 Six-foot-high noise barriers shall be
constructed for the private yards of
single-family residential land use and
outdoor common areas for multi -
family residential land use represented
by the on -site receiver locations ON1,
ON2, and ON7 on EIR Figure 4.13 -5,
Onsite Receiver Locations and
Recommended Noise Abatement
Measures. The noise control barriers
shall be constructed so that the top of
each wall extends to the recommended
height above the pad elevation of the
lot it is shielding. When the road is
elevated above the pad elevation, the
barrier shall extend to the
recommended height above the highest
point between the residential home and
the road. The barrier shall provide a
weight of at least 4 pounds per square
foot of face area with no decorative
cutouts or line -of-sight openings
between shielded areas and the
roadways, or a minimum transmission
loss of 20 dBA. The barrier must
present a solid face from top to bottom.

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

COA 4.13-2 To satisfy the State of California’s 45
dBA CNEL noise insulation standards,
all residential land uses adjacent to
Cottonwood Avenue, Nason Street,
and Alessandro Boulevard shall require
a windows -
closed condition and a
means of mechanical venti lation (e.g.,
air conditioning). Upgraded windows
with minimum STC rating of 30 are
required for the single -family
residential land uses located west of
Property
Owner/Developer

Property
Owner/Developer

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

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Nason Street represented by the on-site
receiver location ON2. With the
following noise abatement measures,
the on-site interior traffic noise levels
would satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL
interior noise requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

2. All other residential lots require
doors with minimum sound
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-34

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
transmission class (STC) ratings
of 27.

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

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

Ventilation: Consistent with MVMC
Section 9.03.040(F)(3), in all residential
districts, air conditioners, heating,
cooling and ventilating equipment and
all other mechanical, lighting or
electrical devices shall be operated so
that noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA
(Ldn) at the property line. Additionally,
such equipment, including roof -
mounted installation, shall be screened
from surrounding properties and streets
and shall not be located in the required
front yard or street side yard. All
equipment shall be installed and
operated in accordance with other
applicable city ordinances.

Future Noise Studies : Final noise
studies shall be prepared for the future
noise-sensitive residential uses prior to
issuance of building permits. Each
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-35

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

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

Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
site is not within an area exposed to high levels of
noise from the MARB/IP Airport. As such, the Project
would not expose people to excessive noise levels
associated with a public airport or public use airport.

This impact is less than significant.

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

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The Project
would include the development of residential,
commercial/civic, and park uses, and associated
roadways and utility infrastructure that would be used
to accommodate the proposed development. The
estimated 800 units (3,080 residents) and 421 new
employment opportunities resulting from
No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-36

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
implementation of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan
would not directly or indirectly induce substantial
unplanned population growth. Impacts would be less
than significant.

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.

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

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

Threshold b: Less Than Significant Impact. The total
parkland demand for the Project (approximately 8.9
acres) would be accommodated by the park and
recreational facilities anticipated by the proposed
TCMV Specific Plan, and through mandatory
compliance with the MVMC Chapter 3.40 of the
MVMC, which requires the payment of park in- lieu
fees in the event a project does not provide adequate
parkland onsite. With adherence to requirements for
the provision of parkland or payment of in -lieu fees,
and payment of the required DIFs for park and
community/recreation center facilities, which ensure
that adequate park and recreational facilities are
provided to serve Project residents, the Project would
not result in the substantial physical deterioration or No mitigation is required. NA NA NA Less than Significant Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-37

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
accelerate the deterioration of existing parks or
recreational facilities and impacts would be less than
significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold a.i: No Impact. The Project site does not
contain any known tribal cultural resources listed or
No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Moreno Valley
Page S-38

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register of historical resources. Therefore, no impact would
result.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

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

No mitigation is required. NA NA NA No Impact.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Moreno Valley

Page 1 ends

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document that represents the independent judgment of the City of Moreno Valley (“City”), acting as the Lead Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“ CEQA”), and evaluates the physical environmental effects that could result from constructing and operating the proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley (TCMV) Specific Plan Project (hereafter, the “Project”). To implement the Project, the Project Applicant has requested that the City approve the TCMV Specific Plan (SP222) (Case No. PEN21-0334), and approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38421 (Case No. PEN22-0077). Additionally, as further described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the Project Applicant has requested that the City approve the required General Plan Amendment and Change of Z one as necessary based on the status of the City’s 2040 General Plan Update and associated Change of Zone and Municipal Code Update and Climate Action Plan (CAP).

On June 15, 2021, the City of Moreno Valley City Council approved and adopted the City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2040 Update (referred to herein as the “2040 General Plan”), a Change of Zone and Municipal Code Update, and a Climate Action Plan (CAP), and certified an EIR (S tate Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2020039022), as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the approvals. A lawsuit entitled Sierra Club v. The City of Moreno Valley , Riverside Superior Court Case No. CVRI2103300, challenged the validity of the 2040 General Plan, the CAP, and the EIR. In June 2024, the City Council set aside the 2021 approvals and certification based on a May 2024 ruling and judgment of the court. The City is in the process of readopting the 2040 General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning, and CAP consistent with the court’s decision and issued a Notice of Preparation of a Revised Environmental Impact Report for MoVal 2040: The Moreno Valley Comprehensive General Plan Update, Municipal Code and Zoning (including Zoning Atlas) Amendments, and Climate Action Plan on July 30, 2024. The 2040 General Plan designated a mixed -use “Downtown Center” district to serve as a focal point of the community and destination for people from around the region. The Downtown Center is located around the prominent cross-roads of Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard and encompasses approximately 1,200 acres near the center of the City. The proposed TCMV Specific Plan area is within the previously designated Downtown Center (DC) District and land use designation, per the City’s Zoning Atlas and 2040 General Plan, respectively. However, until such time that the City’s proposed 2040 General Plan, and associated Municipal Code and Zoning amendments are readopted, the prior general plan (2006 General Plan) land use and zoning designations in effect prior to the June 2021 approvals remain.

Based on the 2006 General Plan and prior zoning, the TCMV Specific Plan area currently has a general plan land use designation of Public Facilities and is zoned Public (P) District. Under the current land use and zoning designation, the Project would require a change in the general plan land use designation from Public Facilities to Open Space, Commercial and Residential (30 du/acre maximum), and a change in the zoning district from Public (P) District to TCMV Specific Plan.

When the term “Project” is used in this EIR, it shall mean all aspects of the planning, construction, and operation of uses allowed by the TCMV Specific Plan, including all discretionary and administrative ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Moreno Valley

Page 1 ends

approvals and permits required for the Project . When the term “Project Applicant” is used, it shall mean Lewis Acquisition Company, LLC, which is the entity that submitted applications for the Project as proposed and as evaluated in this EIR.

1.1 TYPE OF EIR
As discussed in Section 1.5, Scope of the EIR, the City determined that an EIR will be required for the Project. This EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.), and the City of Moreno Valley Environmental Impact Report Format and Content Guidelines . This EIR is a Program EIR per CEQA Guidelines , Section 15168, and the City, as the Lead Agency, will review and consider this EIR in its decision to approve, revise, or deny the P roject. This EIR is int ended to serve as the primary environmental document for all future entitlements associated with the implementation of the TCMV Specific Plan , including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement the P roject. Subsequent actions will be reviewed as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), the purposes of this EIR are to: (1) disclose information by informing public agency decision -makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects associated with all phases of the Project; (2) identify possible ways to minimize or avoid those significant effects; and (3) describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that would feasibly attain most of the basic Project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects.

1.2 LIST OF PROJECT APPROVALS
As further described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project would involve approvals to allow for the future development of residential, commercial/civic, and park uses at the approximately 69.6- gross-acre Project site. The Project site is located south of Cottonwood Avenue, west of Nason Street, and north of Alessandro Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. The Project Applicant has filed applications for the following discretionary actions for the City’s consideration:

• General Plan Amendment (PEN25-0007) to change the land use designation for the Project site from Public Facilities to Open Space, Commercial and Residential (30 du/acre maximum) to allow a mixed-use development with residential, commercial, park, and civic uses. • Zone Change from Public (P) District to TCMV Specific Plan (PEN21-0335) (SP 222). • Approve the TCMV Specific Plan (SP 222) (PEN 21-0334), which would serve as the regulatory document governing the orderly growth and development of the Project site. • Approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38421 (PEN 22-0077) to create parcels to accommodate the development of the uses anticipated by the Specific Plan. ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Moreno Valley

Page 1 ends

• If the City readopts the 2040 General Plan, Municipal Code, and Zoning prior to consideration of the proposed Project for approval, the proposed discretionary actions include approval of the TCMV Specific Plan (PEN21-0334) and TTM No. 38421 (PEN 22-0077), as identified above.

1.3 STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY
This EIR was prepared in accordance with all criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (California Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.).

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21067, and CEQA Guidelines Article 4 and Section 15367, the City is the Lead Agency under whose authority this EIR has been prepared. “Lead Agency” refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Serving as the Lead Agency and before taking action to approve the Project, the City has the obligation to: (1) ensure that this EIR has been completed in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; (2) review and consider the information contained in this EIR as part of its decision-making process; (3) make a statement that this EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment; (4) ensure that all significant effects on the environment are eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible; and, if necessar y (5) make written findings for each unavoidable significant environmental effect stating the reasons why mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in this EIR are not feasible and citing the specific benefits of the Project that outweigh its unavoidable adverse effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 through 15093).

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15040 through 15043, and upon completion of the CEQA review process, the City will have the legal authority under CEQA – and in conjunction with discretionary powers granted to the City by other laws – to do any of the following:
• Approve the Project;
• Require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the Project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment; • Deny the Project in order to avoid one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the Project was approved as proposed
1; or
• Approve the Project even though the Project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the City makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that: 1) there is no feasible way to lessen the effect or avoid the significant effect; and 2) expected benefits from the Project will outweigh significant environmental impacts of the Project.

1 The State Constitution grants the City of Moreno Valley broad discretionary powers to consider the City’s “general welfare” (i.e., preservation of the public peace, safety, morals, and/or health) when making decisions to approve or disapprove a project, in addition to the environmental considerations under Sections 15040 through 15043 of the CEQA Guidelines.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Moreno Valley

Page 1 ends

This EIR fulfills the CEQA environmental review requirements for the proposed actions described above and all other governmental discretionary and administrative actions related to the Project.

1.4 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
Public Resources Code Section 21104 requires that all EIRs be reviewed by responsible and trustee agencies (see also CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082 and 15086[a]). As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, “the term ‘Responsible Agency’ includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the P roject.” A “Trustee Agency” is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 as “a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California.” The following Responsible and Trustee agencies would use this EIR for Project approvals.

• Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is identified as a Responsible Agency for the Project because the EMWD Board of Directors is responsible for the approval of the Project’s Water Supply Assessment (WSA), and EMWD would issue administrative approvals for the construction of water and sewer infrastructure and connections to the water and sewer distribution and conveyance systems.
• Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) is identified as a Responsible Agency for the Project because it is the governing agency for the regional flood control system serving the Project. The RCFC&WCD would approve the storm drain plans for the off-site public regional storm drains constructed as part of the Project. • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is identified as a Trustee Agency for the Project because it is responsible for the protection of California’s water resources and water quality. The Santa Ana RWQCB is responsible for issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to ensure that during and after Project construction, on-site water flows do not result in siltation, other erosional actions, or degradation of surface or subsurface water quality.
• South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is identified as a Responsible Agency for the Project because SCAQMD is responsible for regulating air emissions from stationary sources in the region. The SCAQMD would issue permits to install and/or permits to operate new stationary equipment sources that may emit air contaminants, if needed.

There are no other known Trustee Agencies or Responsible Agencies identified for the Project that would use this EIR for Project approvals. Regardless, this EIR can be used by any Trustee Agency or Responsible Agency, whether identified in this EIR or not, as part of their decision-making processes in relation to the Project.

Page 1 ends

1.5 SCOPE OF THE EIR

1.5.1 EIR SCOPE
The City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP ) with the State Clearinghouse (SCH) of the California Office of Planning and Research. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the Lead Agency must send a copy of a NOP to the SCH and State Responsible and Trustee agencies; the SCH has responsibility for ensuring that the State Responsible and Trustee a gencies reply to the Lead Agency within the required time . The NOP was filed with the SCH and distributed to potential Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on April 21, 2022, for a 30-day public review period. The NOP was distributed for public review to solicit responses that would help the City identify the full scope and range of potential environmental concerns associated with the Project so that these issues could be fully examined in this EIR.

In addition, a publicly -noticed EIR Scoping Meeting was held on May 4, 2022. T he City hosted the EIR Scoping Meeting via an internet -based video and phone conferencing service . The EIR Scoping Meeting provided public agencies, interested parties, and members of the general public an additional opportunity to learn about the Project and the CEQA review process, and how to submit comments on the scope and range of potential environmental concerns to be addressed in this EIR. No public agencies or individuals attended the EIR Scoping Meeting.

The NOP, public review distribution list, and written comments received by the City during the NOP public review period are provided in Technical Appendix A to this EIR. A summary of environmental issues raised in response to the NOP are summarized below in Table 1-1, Summary of NOP Comments.

The purpose of Table 1-1 is to present a summary of the environmental topics that were identified by public agencies, interested parties, and members of the general public to be of primary interest. Table 1-1 does not list every comment received by the City during the NOP review period. Regardless of whether or not an environmental or CEQA -related comment is listed in Table 1 -1, all relevant comments received in response to the NOP are addressed in this EIR.

Page 1 ends

Table 1-1 Summary of NOP Comments
Commentor Date Comments Addressed in
Section(s)
State Agencies
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW)
May 17, 2022
• CDFW is the State ’s Trustee Agency for fish and
wildlife resources , and may be a Responsible
Agency for the Project.
• The Draft EIR should include a complete assessment
of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the
Project footprint, with emphasis on identifying rare,
threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species
and their associated habitats. Recommendations on
the scope of the analysis are provided.
• Address direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to
biological resources.
• Evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives ,
including a “no project” alternative.
• Identify mitigation measures and alternatives that
avoid or minimize potential impacts to biological
resources; recommendations for mitigation are
provided.
• Compliance with the California Endangered Species
Act
, Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan, Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Fish and Game Code
Section 1602 ( Lake and Streambed Alter ation
Program), is required.
• Incorporate water -wise concepts in project
landscape designs.
• Report any special status species and natural
communities detected during Project surveys to the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
• Payment of CDFW Notice of Determination filing
fees will be required.

Section 3.0
Section 4.4
Section 6.0
Appendix C

Page 1 ends

Commentor Date Comments Addressed in
Section(s)
California Native
American Heritage
Commission (NAHC)
April 27, 2022
• Outlines requirements for Native American
consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and
Senate Bill (SB) 18.
• Provides standard guidance on the scope of the
analysis of potential impacts to tribal cultural
resources.
• Recommends Native American tribal consultation
with tribes that are traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic area of the Project site. • In areas with archaeological sensitivity, monitoring
of ground-disturbing activities should be required as
part of the mitigation monitoring and reporting
program, along with provisions for actions to take if
cultural items or human remains are discovered.

Section 4.17
Regional Agencies
Southern California
Association of
Governments (SCAG)
May 12, 2022
• Local agencies have the discretion in determining a
local project’s consistency with Connect SoCal.
• Land use and transportation strategies are included
in Connect SoCal and its accom panying technical
reports, and provide context for local lead agencies.
• A formative step in projecting future population,
households, and employment through 2045 for
Connect SoCal was the generation of a forecast of
regional and county- level growth. Adopted
forecasts for Moreno Valley are provided.
• The Connect SoCal Final Program EIR provides
project-level performance standards -based
mitigation measures that may be considered for
adoption and implementation by lead, responsible,
or trustee agencies in the region, as applicable and
feasible.

Section 4.11
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
(SCAQMD)
May 17, 2022
• Provides recommendations on the scope of the air
quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and health risk
analysis for the Project, including modeling.
• Identifies that Project -related air quality impacts
should be identified and quantified against the
SCAQMD regional and localized significance
thresholds.
• If a permit from SCAQMD is required, SCAQMD
should be identified as a responsible agency.
• Identifies the requirement for feasible mitigation
measures be identified for significant impact, and
identifies suggested mitigation measures and design
considerations to reduce air quality and health risk
impacts.

Section 3.0
Section 4.1
Section 4.8
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Moreno Valley

Page 1 ends

Commentor Date Comments Addressed in
Section(s)
Local Agencies
Eastern Municipal Water
District (EMWD) May 6, 2022
Consult with EMWD to establish Project water
demands and sewer flows , define impacts on the
environment and existing EMWD facilities , and
develop a Plan of Service.

Section 4.13
Moreno Valley Unified
School District
(MVUSD)
May 20, 2022 There would be developer impact fees associated with the Project. Section 4.15
Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA) May 18, 2022 Involve RTA in the planning process as RTA has several routes that operate in the area Section 4.16
Individuals
George Hague May 23, 2022
• Address consistency of the Project with General
Plan p olicies and development principles
addressing the designated Downtown Center area.
• The Central Park should be located at the Project
site.
• Address safety for students and bicyclists traveling
to and from schools.
• Identify complete streets and how the Project
addresses alternative modes of transportation
(pedestrian, bicycle, transit).
• The Project should incorporate sustainable features.
• Incorporate sustainable features to address air
quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Address traffic noise impacts of future uses.
• Identify the environmentally superior alternative.

Section 3.0
Section 4.3
Section 4.8
Section 4.11
Section 4.13
Section 4.16
Section 6

EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis , provides a n analysis of the Project’s potential to cause adverse effects under the following topic areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire

■■
■□ ------------

I I I I I
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Moreno Valley

Page 1 ends

1.5.2 EIR FORMAT AND CONTENT
This EIR contains the information required to be included in an EIR as speci fied by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, CCR, Chapter 5). CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specified content. Table 1-2, Location of CEQA Required Topics , provides a quick reference guide for locating the CEQA-required sections within this document.

Table 1-2 Location of CEQA Required Topics
CEQA Required Topic CEQA Guidelines Section
Reference Location in this EIR
Table of Contents 15122 Table of Contents
Summary 15123 Section S.0
Environmental Setting 15125 Section 2.0
Project Description 15124 Section 3.0
Significant Environmental Effects of the Project 15126.2(a) Section 4.0 Energy Impacts 15126.2(b) & Appendix F Section 4.6
Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be
Avoided if the Project is Implemented 15126.2(c) Section 4.0 & Section 5.1
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which
Would be Caused by the Project Should it be
Implemented
15126.2(d) Section 5.2
Growth-Inducing Impact of the Project 15126.2(e) Section 5.3 Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures
Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects 15126.4 Section 4.0 & Table S-1
Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the
Project 15126.6 Section 6.0
Effects Found Not to be Significant 15128 Section 5.4
Organizations and Persons Consulted 15129 Section 7.0 & Technical Appendices
Discussion of Cumulative Impacts 15130 Section 4.0

In summary, the content and format of this EIR are as follows:
• Section S.0, Executive Summary, provides an overview of the EIR and the CEQA process and provides a brief project description, the location and regional setting of the Project site , and potential alternatives to the Project as required by CEQA . The Executive Summary also provides a summary of the Project’s impacts, mitigation measures, and conclusions in a table that forms the basis of the Project’s MMRP.
• Section 1.0, Introduction, provides introductory information about the CEQA process and the responsibilities of the City in its role as Lead Agency, a brief project description, the type and purpose of the EIR, information regarding the scope of the EIR, and an overview of the EIR’s format.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Moreno Valley

Page 1 ends

• Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, describes the environmental setting, including descriptions of the Project site’s physical conditions and surrounding context used as the baseline for analysis in the EIR.
• Section 3.0, Project Description , pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, includes a detailed project description that identifies the precise location and boundaries of the Project, a map showing the Project’s location in a regional perspective, a statement of the Project’s objectives, a general description of the Project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, and a statement describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of agencies expected to use the EIR, and a list of approvals for which the EIR will be used. The purpose of the detailed Project Description is to identify the Project’s main features and other information needed for an assessment of the Project’s environmental impacts. • Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis , provides an analysis of potential impacts that may occur with implementation of the Project. A determination concerning the significance of each impact is addressed and mitigation measures are presented when warranted. The environmental changes identified in Section 4.0 and throughout this EIR are referred to as “effects” or “impacts” interchangeably. CEQA Guidelines Section 15358 describes the terms “effects” and “impacts” as being synonymous.

In each subsection of Section 4.0, the existing conditions pertaining to the subject area being analyzed are discussed accompanied by a specific analysis of physical impacts that may be caused by implementing the Project. Impacts are evaluated on a direct, indirect, and cumulative basis. Direct impacts are those that would occur directly as a result of the Project . Indirect impacts represent secondary effects that would result from Project implementation. Cumulative effects are defined in CEQA Guidelines , Section 15355 as “…two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.”
The analyses in Section 4.0 are based in part upon technical reports that are included in this EIR. Information is also drawn from other sources of analytical materials that directly or indirectly relate to the Project and are cited in Section 7.0, References.

Where the analysis identifies a potentially significant environmental effect, feasible mitigation measures are recommended . Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must propose and describe mitigation measures to minimize the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. T he identified mitigation measures are analyzed to determine whether they would effectively reduce or avoid any significant environmental effects . In most cases, implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce an identified significant environmental effect to below a level of significance. If mitigation measures are not available or feasible to reduce an identified impact to below a level of significance, the environmental effect is identified as a significant and unavoidable adverse impact, for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Moreno Valley

Page 1 ends

• Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations , includes specific topics that are required by CEQA. These include a summary of the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental effects, a discussion of the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the Project be implemented, as well as potential growth-inducing impacts of the Project.

Section 5.0 also includes a discussion of the potential environmental effects that were found not to be significant during preparation of this EIR.
• Section 6.0, Project Alternatives, describes and evaluates alternatives to the Project that could reduce or avoid the Project’s adverse environmental effects. CEQA does not require an EIR to consider every conceivable alternative to the Project but rather to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including a “No Project” alternative, that will foster informed decision-making and public participation.
• Section 7.0, References , cites all reference sources used in preparing this EIR and lists the agencies and persons that were consulted in preparing this EIR. Section 7.0 also lists the persons who authored or participated in preparing this EIR.

1.6 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15147 states that the “information contained in an EIR shall include summarized…information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public,” and that the “[p]lacement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR shall be avoided through the inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 allows for the incorporation “by reference all or portions of another document… [and is] most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the analysis of a problem at hand.” Where this EIR incorporates a document by reference, the document is identified in the body of the EIR. Refer to EIR Section 7.0, References, for a list of documents incorporated into this EIR by reference. In most cases, documents or websites not included in the EIR’s Technical Appendices are cited by a link to the online location where the document/website can be viewed.

Notably, the City’s 2006 General Plan and 2006 General Plan EIR were relied upon or consulted in the preparation of this EIR, as applicable, and are hereby incorporated by reference:
• City of Moreno Valley General Plan, City of Moreno Valley, adopted on July 11, 2006. • Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Moreno Valley General Plan (SCH No. 200091075), certified July 11, 2006.

This EIR also relies on a number of Project-specific technical appendices that are bound separately as Technical Appendices . The Technical Appendices , along with references relied upon for the preparation of this EIR, are available for review at the City of Moreno Valley Community Development Department Planning Division, 14177 Frederick Street, Moreno Valley, California, 92552, during the City’s regular business hours or can be accessed on the City’s website at ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Moreno Valley

Page 1 ends

https://moval.gov/cdd/documents/about-projects.html. T he individual technical studies, reports, and supporting documentation that comprise the Technical Appendices are as follows:

A: N otice of Preparation and Written Comments on the NOP B: Air Quality Impact Analysis
C: Biological Technical Report
D: Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
E: Energy Analysis
F: Geotechnical Exploration
G: Greenhouse Gas Analysis
H: Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment I: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ( WQMP)
J: Drainage Report
K: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
L: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
M: Water Supply Assessment Report

Page 2 ends

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING AND LOCATION
The Project site is located in the City of Moreno Valley (City), which is located in western Riverside County, California. The City is situated north of the City of Perris, northwest of the City of Hemet and City of San Jacinto, west of the City of Beaumont, east of the City of Riverside, and northeast of the unincorporated community of Mead Valley. The Project site is located approximately 1.1-miles south of the Nason Street on/off-ramp to State Route 60 (SR-60) and approximately 5.3 miles east of Interstate 215 (I-215). The site’s location and regional context are shown on Figure 3-1, Regional Map, in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description.

The Project site is located in an urbanized area of southern California commonly referred to as the “Inland Empire.” The Inland Empire is an approximate 28, 000-square-mile region comprising Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and the eastern tip of Los Angeles County. According to U.S. Census data, the 2020 population of Riverside County was 2,418,185 (USCB 2020). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) forecast models predict that the population of Riverside County will grow to approximately 2.99 million persons by the year 2050 (SCAG 2024c).

2.2 LOCAL SETTING AND LOCATION
The Project site is located south of Cottonwood Avenue , west of Nason Street, north of Alessandro Boulevard, and east of the current terminus of Bay Avenue, as illustrated on Figure 3-2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3-3, USGS Topographic Map, in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description.

2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES
Existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project site are illustrated on Figure 2-1, Existing On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses, and are described below. • North: Cottonwood Avenue abuts the Project site to the north. South of Cottonwood Avenue, there is a vacant parcel northeast of the Project site (southwest of the Nason Street and Cottonwood Avenue intersection) and an Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) booster station northwest of the Project site (southeast corner of Cottonwood Avenue and Letterman Street) that are not part of the Project. North of Cottonwood Avenue , there are existing residential uses to the north and northeast of the Project site, and the former Moreno Elementary School site is to the northwest on the north side of Cottonwood Avenue (the nearest building is approximately 351 feet from the Project site ). The area immediately north of the Project site has an “R5 Residential” land use designation in the City of Moreno Valley General Plan (General Plan) and is zoned “Residential 5 (R5) District.” The former elementary school site, which is now occupied by the Moreno Valley Unified School District (MVUSD) Early ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- ■■ Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report
Source(s): City of Moreno Valley {2021), ESRI, NearMap Imagery {February 2024), RCTLMA {2022} 0 125 250 500

2.0 Environmental Setting
~
~
Figure 2- l
Feet Existing On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Learning Academy, has a General Plan land use designation of “Public” and is zoned “ Public (P) District.” The area to the northeast (north of Cottonwood Avenue and east of Nason Street) has a General Plan land use designation of “R2 Residential” and is zoned “ Residential Agriculture 2 (RA-2) District with a Primary Animal Keeping Overlay” (PAKO). The PAKO is intended to maintain animal keeping and the rural character of the area noted within the overlay district and designates a portion of the parcel for medium and large animal keeping. • South: Alessandro Boulevard abuts the Project site to the south. South of Alessandro Boulevard is vacant/undeveloped land and the Valley Christian Academy (the nearest building is approximately 163 feet south of the Project site). The area south of the Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of “Residential/Office” and is zoned “Office” within a Mixed Use District.
• West: Immediately west of the northern portion of the Project site are residential uses ; this area has a General Plan land use designation of “R5 Residential” and is zoned “ Residential 5 (R5) District.” The area immediately west of the southern portion of the Project site consists of vacant/undeveloped land; this area currently has a General Plan land use designation of “Residential/Office” and is zoned “Office.”
• East: Immediately east of the Project site is Nason Street . There are existing residential and religious uses, vacant/undeveloped land, and the new Moreno Elementary School (opened in 2023) east of Nason Street. The area east of the Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of “R3 Residential” and “Residential/Office” and is zoned “Residential (R3) District” and “Office.” However, if the City readopts the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Update, the areas east and south of the Project site and the area west of the southern portion of the Project site would have a General Plan land use designation of “Downtown Center” and would be zoned “Downtown Center (DC) District.”

2.4 PLANNING CONTEXT

2.4.1 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
The City’s current prevailing planning document is its 2006 General Plan (adopted July 11, 2006). As depicted on Figure 3-4, Existing and Proposed General Plan Lane Use Map, t he Project site has a General Plan land use designation of “Public Facilities.” The primary purpose of areas designated Public Facilities is to provide property for civic, cultural , and public utility uses, including, but not limited to, schools, libraries, fire stations, museums, and government offices. However, if the City readopts the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Update, the Project site would have a General Plan land use designation of Downtown Center. This designation provides for the development of a vibrant new Downtown Center at the heart of the city to serve as a focal point of the community and a destination for people from around the region. It allows for a vibrant mix of business, entertainment, residential, cultural, and civic uses to activate the Downtown Center throughout the day and into the evening. It integrates existing uses and layers compatible new land uses and public amenities together at various scales and intensities to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop within the Downtown Center.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

2.4.2 ZONING
As shown on Figure 3-5, Existing and Proposed Zoning Map, t he City’s current Zoning Map applies the “Public (P) District ” zoning to the entire Project site. The primary purpose of this district is to provide for the conduct of public and institutional activities, including providing protected designated areas for public and institutional facilities.

However, if the City readopts the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Update, the Downtown Center (DC) District zoning would be applied to the entire Project site . According to the City-proposed City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code (MVMC) Section 9.07.010.B (Downtown Center (DC) District), and consistent with the City-proposed General Plan land use designation of Downtown Center, the Downtown Center (DC) District is envisioned as the primary hub and focal point of Moreno Valley and an economic and cultural engine in the region. The district establishes standards to foster development of a vibrant downtown center at the heart of the City to serve as a focal point of the community and a destination for people from around the region. The district allows for a vibrant mix of business, entertainment, residential, cultural, and civic uses with the focus of the highest intensity of development along Nason Street. It integrates existing uses and layers compatible new land uses and public amenities together at various scales and intensities to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop within the downtown center.

2.4.3 SCAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN / SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Authority under California State law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues . Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG region encompasses six counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. SCAG develops long- range regional transportation plans , including sustainable communities strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations , and other plans for the region (SCAG 2024a).

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), referred to as “Connect SoCal ,” develops long-range regional transportation plans including a sustainable communities strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations, and other plans for the region. Connect SoCal provides objectives for meeting air pollution emissions reduction targets set forth by the California Air Resources Board (CARB); these objectives were provided in direct response to Senate Bill (SB) 375, which was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning.

Page 2 ends

2.4.4 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plan (HCP) focusing on conservation of species and their habitats in Western Riverside County. The Western Riverside County MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003, and an Implementing Agreement (IA) was executed between the USFWS, CDFW, and participating entities (including the City). Rather than focusing on one species at a time, implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP Section 10 Permit preserves native vegetation and meets the habitat needs of multiple species.

The Project site is located within the Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan of the Western Riverside County MSHCP but is not located within a Criteria Cell, Public or Quasi Public Conserved Lands, or any of the following Survey Areas: Narrow Endemic Plant Species, Criteria Area Species, Amphibians, or Mammals. The Project is not located within or near any areas currently identified as or anticipated in the future as MSHCP conservation. A portion of the Project site is within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area for the MSHCP; therefore, a habitat assessment, focused burrow survey, and focused burrowing owl surveys are required.

2.5 EXISTING PHYSICAL SITE CONDITIONS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1) recommends that the physical environmental condition that existed at the time an EIR’s NOP is released for public review normally be used as the comparative baseline for the EIR analysis. The NOP for this EIR was released for public review on April 21, 2022, and the following pages include a description of the Project site’s physical environmental condition (“existing conditions”) as of that approximate date, unless otherwise noted. More information regarding the environmental setting of the Project site is provided in the specific subsections of EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis.

2.5.1 LAND USE
Under existing conditions, the Project site is undeveloped. The majority of the Project site has not been previously developed. As discussed in Section 2.5.4 below, one structure (t he Mellor House) was present in the southeast corner of the site before 1966 (the earliest available aerial photograph). A large mound of sediment was placed in this location after 1985 and before 1997. The Mellor House was removed prior to the placement of the fill.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), the environmental setting should identify any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general, specific, or regional plans. The proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley (TCMV) Specific Plan would allow for development of the Project site with a mixed use development consisting of residential, commercial, civic, and open space (park) use. The principal discretionary actions required of the City to implement the Project are described in detail in EI R Section 3.0, Project Description . The potential environmental effects associated with the Project’s inconsistency with existing land use designations are evaluated in Section

4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

2.5.2 AESTHETICS AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
The topography of the Project site slopes gently to the south with an elevation of approximately 1,640 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the north at Cottonwood Avenue, to approximately 1,590 amsl in the south at Alessandro Boulevard. Figure 3-3, USGS Topographic Map, in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, depicts the Project site’s existing topographic conditions. There are soil stockpiles in the southeastern portion of the Project site ; the soil was generated during construction for street improvements in the City. The smaller of the two stockpiles is approximately 90 feet wide, 410 feet long, and three feet high. The larger stockpile is approximately 160 feet wide, 975 feet long, and 20 feet high at its highest point. There are no rock outcroppings or other unique topographic or aesthetic features present at the Project site; ornamental trees are located along the northern property boundary and in the southeast portion of the Project site, near the location of the previous residential structure.

Refer to EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for a more detailed discussion of the existing visual character of the Project site and surrounding area.

2.5.3 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located in the 6,745-square-mile South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, the San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and San Diego County to the south. The SCAB is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the agency charged with bringing air quality in the SCAB into conformity with federal and State air quality standards. Although the climate of the SCAB is characterized as semi -arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. More than 90% of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. Temperatures during the year range from an average minimum of 36°F in January to over 100°F maximum in the summer. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Ana(s)” each year.

At the regional level, air quality in the SCAB has improved over the past several decades; however, the SCAB is currently not in attainment of State and/or federal standards established for Ozone (O 3;
one-hour and eight-hour), particulate matter (PM10 (State standard only) and PM2.5), and Lead (only in Los Angeles County). No areas of the SCAB exceeded federal or State standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), or sulfates (SO4).

Refer to EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, and Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for a more detailed discussion of the existing air quality and climate setting in the Project area.

2.5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project site is located in an area that was historically used for agriculture purposes. One historic resource (P-33-007277; the Mellor House) is recorded within the Project site at 26960 Alessandro ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

Boulevard. Originally built in 1915 and a good example of rural architecture in the area , the Mellor House has been removed. The Project is located within traditional territory of the Cahuilla tribe , northeast of the Luiseño tribe, and due east of the Gabrielino tribe; however, this area was likely occupied or at least visited by all three tribes. No prehistoric resource sites or isolates were identified on the Project site or off- site improvement areas during a field survey conducted by a professional archaeologist and, based on archaeological records from the Eastern Information Center (E IC) at University of California, Riverside, no prehistoric artifacts have been previously recorded on the Project site or off-site improvement areas (VCS 2024).

Refer to EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources, for a more detailed discussion of the existing setting for these resources.

2.5.5 GEOLOGY
Regionally, the Project site is located in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. It is characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys that trend northwestward. More specifically, the site is situated within the Perris Block, an eroded mass of Cretaceous and older crystalline rock. The Perris Block, approximately 20 miles by 50 miles in extent, is bounded by the San Jacinto Fault Zone to the northeast, the Elsinore Fault Zone to the southwest, the Cucamonga Fault Zone to the northwest, and the Temecula Basin to the southeast. The southeast boundary of the Perris block is poorly defined. The Perris Block has had a complex tectonic history, apparently undergoing relative vertical land movements of several thousand feet in response to movement on the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones. Thin sedimentary and volcanic materials locally mantle the crystalline bedrock. Alluvial and colluvial deposits fill the lower valley areas. T he Project site is underlain by young and very old fan deposits. (Leighton 2025a)

The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest - trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. Similar to other properties throughout southern California, the Project site is located within a seismically active region and is subject to ground shaking during seismic events. However, the Project site is not situated within an “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone (Leighton 2025a).

As noted above, there are soil stockpiles in the southeastern portion of the Project site. The Project site is underlain by artificial fill, which was encountered in some borings in the upper 12 to 24 inches of the on-site soils and appears to be the result of previous site grading and agricultural activities. Native alluvial soils were observed throughout the Project site to the depths explored (51 feet below the ground surface [bgs]). These soils typically consisted of brown to reddish brown, medium dense to very dense, moist silty sand (SM) and well -graded sand with variable amounts of silt (SW -SM) and interbedded low plasticity sandy silt (ML) layers. Additionally, the Project area is mapped as fluvial fan deposits dating from the early Pleistocene to Holocene era. The presence of Pleistocene fossil localities within alluvial sediments indicates that the Project area is paleontologically sensitive.

Page 2 ends

Refer to EIR Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, for a more detailed discussion of the existing geologic setting.

2.5.6 HYDROLOGY
The Project site is located in the Santa Ana River watershed, which drains an approximately 2,650- square-mile area and is the principal surface flow water body within the region. The Santa Ana River starts in Santa Ana Canyon in the southern San Bernardino Mountains and runs southwesterly across San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties, where it discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the City of Huntington Beach. The Project site and vicinity are within the purview of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the governing water quality plan for the region, which sets forth goals and objectives for protecting water quality within the region (RWQCB 2019).

Under existing conditions, stormwater flows from the Project site to existing storm drains in the roadways surrounding the Project site. Groundwater was not encountered to the depths explored as part of the geotechnical exploration (51.5 feet bgs) (Leighton 2025a).

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06065C0765G , dated August 28, 2008, the Project site is located within FEMA Flood Zone X, in an area of minimal flood hazard. The Project site is not located in a special flood hazard area (i.e., 100-year floodplain) (FEMA 2008).

Refer to EIR Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a more detailed discussion of the existing hydrology and water quality setting.

2.5.7 NOISE SOURCES
Primary sources of noise in the Project site’s vicinity include traffic noise from vehicles traveling along roadways that abut the site (i.e., Nason Street, Alessandro Boulevard, and Cottonwood Avenue). Urban Crossroads, Inc. collected 24-hour noise measurements at nine locations in the Project vicinity on December 4, 2024, to determine the baseline for the existing noise environment. Measured daytime noise levels in the area ranged from 47.8
A-weighted decibels (dBA) e quivalent continuous
(average) sound l evel (Leq) to 71.6 dBA Leq and measured night time noise levels ranged from 41.8 dBA Leq to 65.1 dBA L eq. Refer to EIR S ection 4.13, Noise, for a more detailed discussion of the existing noise setting.

2.5.8 TRANSPORTATION
The Project site is located immediately north of Alessandro Boulevard, immediately west of Nason Street, and immediately south of Cottonwood Avenue. Existing traffic on nearby roadways consists of both passenger vehicles and trucks passing through the area and accessing nearby land uses. The primary regional vehicular travel route s serving the Project area are SR-60, which is located ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

approximately 1.1 mile north of the Project site and accessed from Nason Street, and I-215, which is located approximately 5.3 miles west of the Project site and accessed from Alessandro Boulevard.

The Project site is currently undeveloped and there is no existing trip generation or associated vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In the vicinity of the Project site, Nason Street is a designated Arterial in the 2006 General Plan Circulation Element, Alessandro Boulevard is a designated Divided Major Arterial (along the length of the TCMV Specific Plan area), and Cottonwood Avenue is a designated Minor Arterial. Under the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Update, which the City is in the process of readopting, Nason Street is a designated Divided Arterial and Bay Avenue is a designated Neighborhood Collector that runs east-west, west of the Project site. There is an existing Class II Bike Lane (on -street striped) along Nason Street, an existing Class III Bike Route along Cottonwood Avenue, and a proposed Class II Bike Lane along Alessandro Boulevard.

Public transit service in the region is provided by Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA) and commuter rail transportation (Metrolink), which is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). Currently, there are bus stops on Nason Street (at Cottonwood Avenue and Alessandro Boulevard) as well as a stop on Alessandro Boulevard (toward the southwestern corner of the Specific Plan area). The nearest Metrolink Station is located just south west of the Alessandro Boulevard/I-215 intersection (Moreno Valley/March Field Station), approximately 5.3 miles west of the Project site.

Refer to EIR Section 4.16, Transportation, for a more detailed discussion of the existing transportation setting.

2.5.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
EMWD provides water and sewer service to the Project area. Under existing conditions, water mains are installed beneath the roadways adjacent to the Project site. Sewer lines are located in Bay Avenue (east and west of the Project site) and along the Project site’s northwestern boundary. Wastewater flows generated in the City are conveyed to the Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility, which is operated by EMWD.

MoVal Electric and the Southern California Gas Company provide electric and natural gas service to the Project site, respectively, and a number of service providers provide cable and telecommunication services. Existing electric, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities are located in the roadways surrounding the Project site. Solid waste generated in the City is collected by Waste Management and is disposed at either the El Sobrante Landfill, Badlands Sanitary Landfill, or Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill.

Refer to EIR Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems, for a more detailed discussion of the existing public utility and service systems.

Page 2 ends

2.5.10 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
The Project site and off-site improvement areas do not contain special-status plant species and do not support sensitive vegetation communities. There is also no evidence of riparian/riverine resources. The Project site and off-site improvement areas do not contain special-status plant species; however, San Diego tarplant ( Deinandra paniculata) has a moderate potential to occur . The majority of the vegetation is characterized by maintained open fields comprised of disturbed annual grassland cover vegetated with a variety of non-native and early successional weedy plant species. Native species throughout this area include common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia ), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and sacred datura (Datura wrightii). Non-native species observed consisted of brome grasses (Bromus madritensis, Bromus diandrus and Bromus hordeaceus.), silver leaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium), short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). Additionally, adjacent to the northern border of the Project site, some non-native ornamental trees are present at a low cover including olive trees (Olea europea) and Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta). Herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses were mapped within the southeastern portion of the Project site. This portion of the site appears to undergo less frequent disturbance/weed abatement activities. The vegetation within this area is largely consistent with the vegetation observed in the disturbed/maintained grassland fields. One Peruvian pepper tree cluster (Schinus mole) with multiple trunks was observed within this area (VCS 2025).

Refer to EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources, for a more detailed discussion of the existing biological setting.

2.5.11 WILDLIFE
The Project site and off-site improvement areas do not contain critical habitat and are not located in an area designated as wildlife habitat with conservation value; however, the Project site and off-site improvement areas are within the general distributional range of several special status wildlife species.

One sensitive species, Cooper’s hawk ( Accipiter cooperii), was observed within the Project site, and two additional special status species were determined to have at least a “low to moderate” potential of occurring within the Project site but were not observed during the biological assessment: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus). Burrowing owl were also not identified during focused surveys conducted in August 2021 and are assumed absent from the Project site (VCS 2025).

Refer to EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources, for a more detailed discussion of the existing biological setting.

2.5.12 RARE AND UNIQUE RESOURCES
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(c), the environmental setting should place special emphasis on resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the Project. Based on the existing conditions of the Project site and surrounding area described above and discussed in ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Moreno Valley

Page 2 ends

more detail in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis , the Project site does not have any resources that are rare or unique to the region.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides the information required of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Project Description pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, including a description of the Project’s precise location and boundaries; a statement of the Project’s objectives; a description of the Project’s characteristics; a description of the intended uses of this EIR (including a list of the government agencies that are expected to use this EIR in their decision-making processes); and a list of the permits and approvals that are required to implement the Project . Project background information is also provided for informational purposes.

3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Moreno Valley (“City”) has engaged in years of strategic planning that involved the identification of locations for a “town center.” These efforts included, but are not limited to, the Nason Street Corridor Plan (October 2015), the 2016 City of Moreno Valley Strategic Plan, and the Nason Street Corridor Phase II Study Area Plan (May 2019).

The Nason Street Corridor Plan specifically addresses the City-owned property at the northwest corner of Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard as a potential location for a town center and the Nason Street Corridor Phase II Study Area Plan further evaluated the City-owned land for its potential as a town center and the best timing for its development . The City issued a Request for Proposals on November 18, 2019, to an extensive list of developers seeking proposals to develop the site as a mixed- use master-planned town center project consisting of office, residential, commercial, and public uses.

On March 20, 2020, Lewis Acquisition Company, LLC (referred to herein as “Project Applicant”) was selected as the developer and negotiated a purchase of the vacant city parcels to create the proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley (TCMV) Specific Plan (referred to herein as “Project”).

On June 15, 2021, the City of Moreno Valley City Council approved and adopted the City of Moreno Valley General Plan 2040 Update (referred to herein as the “2040 General Plan”), a Change of Zone and Municipal Code Update, and a Climate Action Plan (CAP), and certified an EIR (S tate Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2020039022), as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the approvals. A lawsuit entitled Sierra Club v. The City of Moreno Valley , Riverside Superior Court Case No. CVRI2103300, challenged the validity of the 2040 General Plan, the CAP, and the EIR. In June 2024, the City Council set aside the 2021 approvals and certification based on a May 2024 ruling and judgment of the court. The City is in the process of readopting the 2040 General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning, and CAP consistent with the Court’s direction and issued a Notice of Preparation of a Revised Environmental Impact Report for MoVal 2040: The Moreno Valley Comprehensive General Plan Update, Municipal Code and Zoning (including Zoning Atlas) Amendments, and Climate Action Plan on July 30, 2024. The 2040 General Plan designated a mixed-use “Downtown Center” district to serve as a focal point of the community and destination for people from around the region. The Downtown Center is located around the prominent cross-roads of Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard and encompasses approximately ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

1,200 acres near the center of the City. The proposed TCMV Specific Plan area is within the designated Downtown Center (DC) District and land use designation, per the City’s Zoning Atlas and 2040 General Plan, respectively.

However, until such time that the 2040 General Plan and associated Municipal Code and Zoning amendments are readopted, the prior General Plan (2006 General Plan) land use and zoning designations in effect prior to the June 2021 approvals remain. Based on the 2006 General Plan and prior zoning, the TCMV Specific Plan area currently has a general plan land use designation of Public Facilities and zoning of Public (P) District.

3.2 PROJECT LOCATION
As shown on Figure 3-1, Regional Map, the approximately 69.6-gross-acre1 TCMV Specific Plan area (also referred to herein as the “ Project site”) is located in the central portion of the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. The City of Moreno Valley is located north of the City of Perris, northwest of the City of Hemet and City of San Jacinto, west of the City of Beaumont, east of the City of Riverside, and northeast of the unincorporated community of Mead Valley.

At the local scale, the Project site is bound by Cottonwood Avenue to the north, Nason Street to the east, Alessandro Boulevard to the south, and vacant land planned for development and a residential subdivision to the west (see Figure 3-2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3-3, USGS Topographic Map). The Project site c onsists of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 487-470-030 and 487-470- 031. Refer to Section 2.3, Surrounding Land Uses, for a description of existing land uses that surround the Project site.

3.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines establishes the requirement to address project objectives in an EIR project description. In addition to addressing the underlying project purpose, the objectives are also relevant to the development of the alternatives that are considered in the EIR and in the preparation of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, if necessary, in support of the decision-making action by the City. The objectives that have been established for the TCMV Specific Plan Project are listed below.

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.

1 The gross acres include areas adjacent to and within the Project site that would be dedicated for roadway right -of- way. The Project site is 57.3 net acres (not including the roadway right-of-way). ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- ■■ Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report
--7
I
I
__ J

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
Source(s): ESRI, RCTLMA {2019}
• i ~ 0 2,5005,000
tu~
City of Moreno Valley
PERRIS

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
I
---..... " ~
LAKE
PERRIS
'\
'7. ~
I - - ___J
_J
' I
L---

Page 3 ends

3 .0 Project Description

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
Figure 3- l
Regional Map
■■ Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report
Source(s): ESRI, RCTLMA {2021}
0 1,0002,000 4,000
Feet
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

3 .0 Project Description
Ill\lKiE BER!R!IS
SiFA,T,E R!E@R!E!X<T-1 ©N
!'l)R!El\l
Figure 3-2
Vicinity Map
■■
■ □
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
Source(s): USGS (2021)
mnJ Wffltw WWW
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

3 .0 Project Description
Figure 3-3
USGS Topographic Map
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

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.

3. Create local employment opportunities.

4. Expand economic development in the City by establishing new commercial/civic uses on vacant land in a developing area.

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.

6. Provide a diverse combination of new shopping and dining opportunities for City residents and visitors.

7. Develop an attractive and active community centerpiece for the City.

3.4 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Project evaluated in this EIR includes legislative and land use/development entitlement actions. If the City does not readopt the 2040 General Plan and associated Municipal Code and Zoning amendments, prior to consideration of the proposed Project for approval, the proposed legislative actions include:

• General Plan Amendment (PEN25-0007) to change the land use designation for the Project site from Public Facilities to Residential (30 du/acre maximum), Open Space, and Commercial to allow a mixed-use development with residential, commercial, park, and civic uses. • Zone Change from Public Facilities (P) to TCMV Specific Plan (PEN21-0335) for the TCMV Specific Plan (SP 222).
• Approve the TCMV Specific Plan (SP 222) (PEN 21 -0334), which would serve as the regulatory document governing the orderly growth and development of the Project site. • Approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38421 (PEN 22-0077) to create parcels to accommodate the development of the uses anticipated by the Specific Plan.

If the City readopts the 2040 General Plan and associated Municipal Code and Zoning amendments prior to consideration of the proposed Project for approval, the proposed legislative actions include approval of the TCMV Specific Plan (PEN21-0334) and TTM No. 38421 (PEN22-0077), as identified above. These actions are described below.

3.4.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The current 2006 General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Public Facilities (P) . The primary purpose of areas designated Public Facilities is to allow for public/quasi-public uses such as civic, cultural, and public utility uses, including, but not limited to, schools, libraries, fire stations, ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

museums, and government offices. Based on the 2006 General Plan land use designation, the Project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for the Project site from Public Facilities to Residential (30 du/acre maximum), Open Space, and Commercial to allow a mixed- use development with residential, commercial, park , and civic uses within the TCMV Specific Plan area (refer to Figure 3-4, Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Map).

If the City readopts the 2040 General Plan prior to consideration of the Project for approval, a General Plan Amendment would not be required because the proposed TCMV Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s proposed Downtown Center land use designation.

3.4.2 CHANGE OF ZONE
The City’s current zoning map designates the Project site as Public (P) District. The primary purpose of this zoning district is to provide for the conduct of public and institutional activities, including providing protected designated areas for public and institutional facilities. The southern portion of the Project site is also within the designated Mixed -Use Institutional Anchor (MUI) Overlay District, which applies to areas around prominent anchor institutions, such as civic centers, medical centers, and educational campuses.

Pursuant to Moreno Valley Municipal Code (MVMC) Section 9.13, Specific Plans, the Specific Plan zoning district allows for “ flexibility in design and development requirements which will afford the opportunity to create major developments on large tracts of land which will implement the general plan and the planned industrial, planned residential and planned commercial designations shown on the general plan map, in a manner that ensures that specific plans and amendments thereto will provide a public benefit to the community beyond those that may be unilaterally imposed by the city through the traditional exaction process.”

Consistent with the provisions of the MVMC, the Project Applicant is proposing a Specific Plan to establish the zoning, development, and design standards for implementing projects within the Project site, as described in Section 3.4.3, Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project includes a proposed change of zone for the Project site to change the existing zoning designation from Public (P) District to TCMV Specific Plan ( SP 222) (refer to Figure 3 -5, Existing and Proposed Zoning).

However, the zoning designation for the Project site would be Downtown Center (DC) under the zoning code the City is in the process of readopting in connection with the 2040 General Plan. Pursuant to MVMC Section 9.07.010, Mixed Use Zones/Corridors (B-F, DC, COMU, CEMU, HO/C), “[t]he downtown center is envisioned as the primary hub and focal point of Moreno Valley and an economic and cultural engine in the region. The district establishes standards to foster development of a vibrant downtown center at the heart of the city to serve as a focal point of the community and destination for ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- ■■ Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report
Source(s): WHA (February 202S}
mnJ Wffltw WWW
City of Moreno Valley

EXISTING
RS
R/0 p
Land Use
1 Res identia l: Max. I du/ac Hillside Res ident ial
I M ixed Use Planned Resident ial
=i Res idential: Max. 2 du/ac I Res ident ial/Office
I Rura l Resident ial: Max 2.5 du/ac • Office
1 Res ident ial: Max. 3 du/ac
n Resident ial: Max. 5 du/ac
Residentia l: Max. 5 or 15 du/ac
• Res ident ial: Max. IO du/ac
• Residentia l: Max .15 du/ac
• Residentia l: Max. 20 du/ac
• Residential: Max. 30 du/ac
• Commerc ial
Business Park/Light Industr ial
• open Space
• Public Faci lities
• Floodp lain
Q., City Boundary
,o;P Sphe re of Jnfluence
HR
R2
II_
3 .0 Project Description

PROPOSED
RS p
LJ - k., RS
- =.::::I = ~~J
:;;;::= ==:::=~!.::::::======= ·-----_ -_ -_ -~ ---~ -- u
RS
RS
RS
R3
R/()
Land Use
Residential: Max. I du/ac Hillside Residential
Mixed Use • Planned Residential
Residential: Max. 2 du/ac Residential/Otlice
Rural Residential: Max 2.5 du/ac Office
- Residential: Max. 3 du/ac • Commercial
• Residentia l: Max. 5 du/ac • Business Park/Light Industria l • Residential: Max. 5 or 15 du/ac • open Space Specific Plan Land Uses • Residential: Max. JO du/ac • Public Facili ties SP-R30 • Residential: Max.15 du/ac
• Residential: Max. 20 du/ac
• Floodplain
Q" City Boundary SP-OS
• Residential: Max. 30 du/ac <P Sphere of lnflucncc SP-C Figure 3-4
Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Map

Page 3 ends

■■ Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report

EXISTING
LJ LJ
AV~ □
~
:5
R5 ~
RA2
I-
(.f)
R5
R5
D R30
I
SP 218 LM
Legend
Zon ing
- Commercial
Planned Development
Suburban Residential
r
OS
R5 p
R5
R5 0
General Land Use
"""'-' ISA Area
Mixed Use Distr ict
!"h MUI
@ MUN
&5J PUD Area
Residential Buffer
Wate rbodies
c_..=_o_pe_n s_pac_eJP_ark __ _J O City Boundary
~ AlCUZA rea
Source(s): WHA (12-13-2024}
City of Moreno Valley
R5
p
R3

SSANDRO BLVD
R5 R5
R3 R5
R5
~ RA2
Spec ific Plan Bound ary -
3 .0 Project Description

PROPOSED
~
R5
ii
R5 p
r
R5 R5
I-
Cf)
SP R3
0 SSANDRO
~ ·
I R5
30 - - R3
~
SP= Specific Plan
Figure 3-5
Existing and Proposed Zoning Map

Page 3 ends

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

people from around the region. Consistent with the General Plan Downtown Center mixed use designation, the DC zoning district allows for a vibrant mix of business, entertainment, residential, cultural, and civic uses with the focus of the highest intensity of development along Nason Street . It integrates existing uses and layers compatible new land uses and public amenities together at various scales and intensities to foster a mix of use s.” MVMC Section 9.07.010(B)(3) indicates that in order to implement the DC district General Plan policies, an area plan will be required which demonstrates consistency with the principles outlined in the Land Use and Community Character (LUCC) Element; however, for large projects, an existing or proposed specific plan may be used in lieu of an area plan.

Therefore, under the Downtown Center (DC) zoning, a Specific Plan to establish the zoning, development, and design standards for implementing projects within the Project site would also be requested by the Project Applicant, and the Project would also require a proposed change of zone for the Project site to change the zoning designation from Downtown Center to (DC) to TCMV Specific Plan (SP 222).

3.4.3 TOWN CENTER AT MORENO VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
California Government Code Sections 65450 to 65553 permit the adoption and administration of specific plans as an implementation tool for elements contained within the local general plan. Section 65451 mandates that specific plans demonstrate consistency regarding proposed regulations, guidelines and programs that are set forth in the general plan. The City of Moreno Valley encourages the use of the specific plan process on larger projects, to assure improved City functions and to better address coordination between a proposed project and surrounding development. Consistent with the provisions of the MVMC, the Project Applicant is proposing a specific plan to establish the zoning, development, and design standards for implementing projects within the Project site. The proposed TCMV Specific Plan complies with MVMC Chapter 9.13, which governs the content of specific plans and procedures for their adoption and enforcement. The proposed TCMV Specific Plan supersedes the City’s zoning for the Project site in both the designation of land and its regulations and would govern the future development of the Project site.

The development anticipated by the proposed TCMV Specific Plan and evaluated in this EIR is discussed below.

A. Land Uses and Development Standards

1. Proposed Land Uses
The proposed TCMV Specific Plan involves a mixed -use development consisting of residential (including affordable housing), commercial/civic, and open spaces uses organized as Planning Areas.

Figure 3-6, Conceptual Land Use Plan, depicts the location of proposed uses. The TCMV Specific Plan encourages a range of housing densities (up to 30 du/ac) to accommodate various typologies identified in the TCMV Specific Plan and to encourage housing choice consistent with the policy recommendations of the City’s Housing Element.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- ■■ Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report
Legend
---------
Residential (Up to 30 du/ac)
Open Space
Commerc ial/Civic
3 .0 Project Description
Source(s): WHA (February 202S} Figure 3-6
mnJ Wffltw WWW Conceptual Land Use Plan
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

The commercial/civic and open space uses would provide locally serving amenities, quality of life enhancements, and recreational opportunities. Uses permitted by the proposed TCMV Specific Plan are listed in Table 3-1, TCMV Specific Plan Permitted Uses.

Table 3-1 TCMV Specific Plan Permitted Uses
Agricultural Uses—Crops Only
Athletic Clubs, Gymnasiums and Spas4
Auditoriums
Auto Service Stations
a. Accessory uses include convenience store and car wash b. Minor repairs to include auto/boat/motorcycle/RV (excludes major repair, paint, body work) Auto Supply Stores
Bakery Shops1
Banks—Financial Institutions
Barber and Beauty Colleges4
Bars2,5
Bars, with Limited Live Entertainment2,5
Bowling Alley5
Bus and Taxi Stations
Business Equipment Sales (includes repairs)
Business Schools
Business Supply Stores
Catering Service
Religious Facilities
Clubs5
Commercial Radio or Television Stations
Without on-site antenna
Computer Sales and Repairs
Convalescent Homes/Assisted Living
Convenience Stores5
Without drive-through
With alcohol sales
Convention Hall, Trade Show, Exhibit Building with Incidental Food Services Copy Shops
Dancing, Art, Music and Similar Schools
Day Care Centers
Delicatessens1,2
Drapery Shops
Dressmaking Shops
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Driving School
Drug Stores5
Dry Cleaning or Laundry
Emergency Shelters
Fire and Police Stations
Floor Covering Stores (may include incidental repairs with installation service) Gasoline Dispensing—Non-Retail Accessory to an Auto-Related use Glass Shops and Glass Studios—Stained, etc.

Hotels (with or without kitchens)
Ice Cream Stores—Including Yogurt Sales
Jewelry Stores
Laboratories (medical and dental)
Libraries
Liquor Stores5
Live-Work Unit3
Locksmith Shops
Lodge Halls and Similar Facilities
Urgent care
Medical device services and sales (retail), including, but not limited to, fittings for and sale of prosthetic and orthotic devices
Medical equipment supply, including retail sales for in-home medical care, such as wheelchairs, walkers, and respiratory equipment
Museums
Newspaper and Printing Shops
Nightclubs5
Offices (administrative and professional)
Open Air Theaters
Parking Lot
Parks and Recreation Facilities (public)
Personal Services (e.g., nail salons, spa facilities, barber and beauty shops, and tattoo parlors) 4 Pharmacy5
Photo Studios
Pool Hall6
Postal Services
Pottery Sales with Outdoor Sales
Public Administration, Buildings and Civic Centers
Record Store
Recording Studio
Recreational Facilities (private) such as Tennis Club, Polo Club, with Limited Associated Incidental Uses6 ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Recycling, Small Collection Facility
Research and Development
Single-family3,6
Multiple-family3,6
Affordable Housing in Commercial Zones3,6
Residential Care Facility
For Six or Less Persons
For Seven or More Persons
Restaurants (eating and drinking establishments)2,5
Without entertainment
With limited live entertainment
With alcoholic beverage sales
With outdoor seating
With drive-through
Without drive-through
Retail Sales
Sandwich Shops1
Schools, Private
Senior Housing
Shoe Shine Stands
Shoe Repair Shop
Sign Shop
Skating Rinks
Stationery Stores
Swim Schools/Center with Incidental Commercial Uses
Theaters (excludes open air)5
Trade and V ocational Schools
Transit Center
Veterinarian Facilities (All activities within an enclosed structure) Weight Reduction Center
Notes:
(1) Sandwich shops shall not have cooking hoods, nor shall they exceed five percent of the gross floor area of the complex where they are located
(2) See MVMC Section 9.09.270 (Outdoor dining).
(3) See MVMC Section 9.09.250 (Live-work development).
(4) For spa facilities refer to MVMC Title 11, Chapter 11.96. (5) This permitted use does not include permits for alcohol sales. Alcohol sales shall be under a separate permit.
(6) Residential uses within the TCMV Specific Plan are permitted by-right if in conformance with the TCMV Specific Plan.

Page 3 ends

2. Development Standards
The proposed TCMV Specific Plan development standards provide requirements for development within the TCMV Specific Plan area and apply to residential, retail, commercial, and civic uses, as shown in Table 3 -2, TCMV Specific Plan Development Standards . The development standards are designed to encourage creativity and innovative housing design as well as functional and well-planned commercial and civic uses. In any given Planning Area, a variety of lot design and product options may exist, subject to the maximum permissible density and floor area ratio or combination of footprint and building height for non-residential uses. Where a development standard pertains to a specific use (residential or nonresidential), a distinction is made in the requirement column.

The development standards are designed to encourage creativity and innovative housing design as well as other commercial and civic uses. In any given parcel, the builder has the choice of using a variety of lot design options, subject to the maximum permissible density and the maximum number of dwelling units allowed (800 units).

Table 3-2 TCMV Specific Plan Development Standards
Requirement Development Standards
Residential 800 dwelling units (maximum)
Density - Dwelling Units (Du)/Acre 30 du/ac (maximum)
Minimum Site Area As determined through site plan review Minimum site width, in feet As determined through site plan review Minimum site depth, in feet As determined through site plan review Maximum residential front building setback, in feet
(after dedications for right-of-way) ground floor use 10’ Maximum residential front-facing private access garage
(from back of sidewalk) 18’
Maximum residential side street building setback area,
in feet (after dedications for right-of- way) 10’
Maximum residential interior side yard setback in feet 10’ Maximum residential rear yard setback in feet 10’
Lot coverage, maximum (applies to residential only
planning areas) 75%
Lot coverage, maximum (applies to nonresidential
planning area) 75%
Building height, in feet, maximum (residential and/or
nonresidential uses) 75’
Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) N/A (per MVMC Section 9.07.010) Minimum Dwelling Size As determined through site plan review Parking (surface) front street setback, in feet (after
dedications for right-of-way) 5’
Parking (surface) side street setback, in feet (after
dedications for right- of-way) 5’
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Requirement Development Standards
Garage/Tuck-Under Parking Prohibited along front lot lines Garage Size (direct access residential garages)
2-car garage: 19’ x 19’ clear and 16’-wide door or two
single doors.

Tandem: 10’ x 36’
Underground/Podium Parking Allowed beneath building footprints Above Ground Parking Structure Allowed if vehicles are screened from view from public right-of-way and single-family residential zones
Setback Landscaping All setbacks exclusive of required walkways and driveways will be landscaped planting areas
Publicly Accessible Open Space (nonresidential) 15% of net lot area Combined Private and Common Open Space
(residential uses) 100 sq ft per unit
Ground floor building frontages clear glazing material
(nonresidential and mixed uses) 40%
Ground floor-to-ceiling minimum height in feet
(nonresidential and mixed uses) 12’
Fences and Walls (residential and nonresidential uses) Per MVMC Section 9.08.070 Landscape Palettes (residential and nonresidential
uses)
Landscape plans shall incorporate climate-appropriate,
water-wise landscaping features that are identified in the County of Riverside Guide to California Friendly
Landscaping (MVMC Section 9.17.030).

As discussed in Section 3.5.1 of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, t he “Residential” land use component of the Project is required to include an approximate ly 3- acre parcel (the “Affordable Housing Site”) for the development of affordable housing units . The total number of affordable housing units would be equal to the greater of 100 affordable housing units or 15% of the total number of residential units developed in the TCMV Specific Plan area, including the “Affordable Housing Site”. The developer of the Affordable Housing Site would be required to record a covenant or restriction against the Affordable Housing Site that would provide that the affordable housing units developed on the Affordable Housing Site would be sold or rented at affordable housing cost, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5, or affordable rent, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053, to lower income households, as defined in Health and Safety Code S ection 50079.5. The covenant or restriction would require that rental units remain affordable to, and occupied by, lower income households for a period of at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing. The initial occupants of all ownership units on the Affordable Housing Site would be lower income households, and the ownership units would be subject to an equity sharing agreement consistent with Government Code Section 65915, Subdivision (c)(2).

Parcels 6 and 7 have been designated as locations for multiple-family homes. As such, a site plan has been developed as part of the TCMV Specific Plan to acknowledge Parcel 6 and 7 as a multiple-family residential community location.

Page 3 ends

3. Development Assumptions for Purposes of Analysis
The proposed TCMV Specific Plan, including the associated development standards presented above, is designed to provide flexibility for development within the Specific Plan area . As t he proposed TCMV Specific Plan would establish development guidelines and standards that would be used to regulate basic planning and development concepts for future development within the Project site, the exact type and amount of uses that would be developed at buildout of the TCMV Specific Plan is unknown. Therefore, a reasonable potential buildout development scenario has been developed for purposes of analysis in this EIR. This development scenario encompasses a range of anticipated uses as allowed by the TCMV Specific Plan. It is important to note that market demand for uses may change, resulting in the ultimate development of a different mix of uses . A ctual development would be governed by the requirements of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan, which provides the regulatory framework to implement the proposed Project. If the market demand results in development proposals that differ from that described herein and/or the environmental impacts are not within the scope of the analysis presented in this EIR, additional environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA may be required prior to the approval of those developments . For purposes of analysis in this EIR, the following uses are anticipated in the respective land use areas shown in Figure 3-6, Conceptual Land Use Plan, a s analyzed in this EIR:

Residential Land Use Area
• 800 residential dwelling units

Commercial/C ivic Land Use Area
• 105,890 square feet (sf) of general retail
• 15,000 sf of business professional office uses
• 106-room hotel
• 30,000 sf civic center
• 20,160 sf eating establishment/high turnover restaurant, including a drive-thru restaurant

Open Space Land Use Area
• 4.9 acres of park area

B. Circulation and Parking
The TCMV Specific Plan Circulation Plan dictates the standards and guidelines that ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles into and through the Specific Plan area, which is designed to enhance easy vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access.

1. Vehicular Circulation
The Project site would be accessed by the following existing roads adjacent to the Project site: Nason Street to the east , Cottonwood Avenue to the north, and Alessandro Boulevard to the south. Access ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

would also be provided from Bay Avenue, which runs east -west, west of the Project site , and the proposed north-south street through the center of the Specific Plan area (referred to herein as “Street A”). In the vicinity of the Project site, Nason Street is a designated Arterial in the 2006 General Plan Circulation Element, Alessandro Boulevard is a designated Divided Major Arterial (along the length of the S pecific Plan area ), and Cottonwood Avenue is a designated Minor Arterial . Under the 2040 General Plan Circulation Element, Nason Street is a designated Divided Arterial and Bay Avenue is a designated Neighborhood Collector . Access to the Specific Plan area would be provided via the following streets (refer to Figure 3-7, Project Access):
• Cottonwood Avenue
• Bay Avenue
• Alessandro Boulevard
• Nason Street
The following street and site access improvements would be implemented as part of the Project consistent with the City’s standards:
• Cottonwood Avenue is an east -west oriented roadway located on the Project’s northern boundary. The Project would include construction of Cottonwood Avenue at its ultimate half- width as a Minor Arterial (88-foot right -of-way) from Letterman Street and the Project’s eastern boundary. A two-way left-turn median along Cottonwood Avenue would be installed along the Project site frontage.
• Bay Avenue is an east-west oriented roadway bisecting the Project. The Project would include construction of Bay Avenue at its ultimate full width as a Neighborhood Collector (66-foot right-of-way) from its existing terminus near the Project’s western boundary to Nason Street. • Alessandro Boulevard is an east -west oriented roadway located on the Project’s southern boundary. The Project would include construction of Alessandro Boulevard at its ultimate half- width as a Divided Major Arterial (134-foot right-of-way) from the Project’s western boundary to Nason Street. Alessandro Boulevard would be widened to provide sufficient pavement to include an eastbound left turn lane onto Street A.
• Nason Street is a north-south oriented roadway located along the Project’s eastern boundary and is already constructed at its ultimate full -width as a Divided Arterial (110-foot right -of- way) from the Project’s northern boundary to Alessandro Boulevard. The Project would accommodate any curb and gutter and sidewalk modifications to accommodate site access along Nason Street. In addition, the Project would implement required landscaping along its frontage on Nason Street.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- ■■ Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 3 .0 Project Description Legend
- Existing Class II (Bike Lane)
I I I I ■ Proposed Class II (Bike Lane)
- Existing Class Ill (Bike Route)
• • • Proposed Class Ill (Bike Route)
Source(s): WHA (February 202S}
mnJ Wffltw WWW
City of Moreno Valley
-( _) Potenti al Future Signalized Intersection
~ Conceptual Entry/Exit Location*
Sidewa lks wil l be included on A Street,
Bay Avenue, and Nason Street. A
crosswalk is located at the signalized
intersection of Nason St./ Bay Ave.
* Location Subject to Change at Final Design
Figure 3-7
Project Access/Circulation

Page 3 ends

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

• Street A is a proposed north-south oriented public street that would be constructed to its ultimate full-width as a Neighborhood Collector (66-foot right -of-way) from Cottonwood Avenue to Alessandro Boulevard.
• Letterman Street and Cottonwood Avenue – The following improvements would be implemented to accommodate site access:
o Restripe the west leg to accommodate a 150-foot eastbound left turn pocket and a 2nd eastbound through lane.
o Construct a westbound left turn pocket with a two-way left-turn lane. • Street A and Cottonwood Avenue – The following improvements would be implemented to accommodate site access:
o Install a stop control on the northbound approach and a northbound shared left -right turn lane (Project Driveway).
o Construct a 2nd eastbound through lane.
o Construct a westbound left turn pocket within a two-way left-turn lane. • Street A and Bay Avenue – The following improvement would be implemented to accommodate site access:
o Construct the intersection as a roundabout with a through lane in each approach. • Street A and Alessandro Boulevard – The following improvements would be implemented to accommodate site access:
o Install a traffic signal.
o Construct a southbound shared left-through-right turn lane (Project Driveway). o Construct a 200-foot eastbound left turn lane and a 100-foot westbound left turn lane. o Construct a westbound shared through right-turn lane. • Nason St reet and Bay Avenue – The following improvements would be implemented to accommodate site access:
o Modify existing traffic signal.
o Construct a 200-foot eastbound left turn lane and shared through-right turn lane. • Nason Street and Driveway 1/Larkmead C ourt – The following improvements would be implemented to accommodate site access:
o Install a traffic signal.
o Modify the existing median to provide a 250-foot northbound left -turn pocket and modify the existing southbound left-turn pocket at the adjacent intersection to the south to provide sufficient vehicular stacking area for the northbound left-turn pocket. o Construct an eastbound shared left-through-right turn lane (Project Driveway). o Construct a westbound shared left-through-right turn lane. • Nason St. & Driveway 1/Larkmead C ourt (Alternative) – The following improvements would be implemented to accommodate site access if the intersection is not signalized and ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

instead is maintained as a cross -street stop-controlled intersection with right-in/right-out/left- in access only:
o Project to install a stop sign on the eastbound approach. o Project to modify the existing median to provide a 250-foot northbound left turn pocket. The existing southbound left turn pocket should be modified at the adjacent intersection to the south to provide sufficient vehicle stacking area for the northbound left turn pocket.
o Project to construct an eastbound right turn lane (Project Driveway). o Westbound right turn lane and stop control to be maintained.

The existing intersection control and lanes at the intersection of Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard would be maintained. On-site traffic signing and striping to be defined in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site would adhere to the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Sight distance at each project access point would adhere to standard California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and City of Moreno Valley sight distance st andards in effect at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans. The proposed Specific Plan would authorize the City Engineer to approve alternative residential street sections, provided that it is substantiated that the alternate designs are functional. The proposed circulation systems would also be constructed in compliance with the Fire Department access requirements.

2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The proposed TCMV Specific Plan encourages multi-modal circulation system with an internal focus on pedestrian activity. Driveway access to parcels would provide safe vehicular movement and prevent traffic congestion by minimizing pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular conflicts and providing safe and thoughtful pedestrian paths of travel through parking lots. Where possible, curb-separated sidewalks, and off-street paseos would be implemented.

For residential areas, pedestrian/bicycle access and connections to public sidewalks and bikeways, paseos, and open space systems would be emphasized. The proposed residential uses are within walking distance to the proposed commercial uses and residents can use the commercial center for convenience and entertainment. Residents would have the ability to access proposed commercial and retail by foot, bicycle or neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV).

The proposed commercial area would have pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including bicycle parking in compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). Walkways throughout the Specific Plan’s commercial development would connect the various buildings to each other and to the sidewalks, and well -defined pedestrian connections would be provided from the parking areas to the building entrances.

Page 3 ends

There is an existing Class II Bike Lane (on-street striped) along Nason Street, an existing Class III Bike Route along Cottonwood Avenue, and a proposed Class II Bike Lane along Alessandro Boulevard, which would be constructed as part of the Project . The on-site circulation system would provide direct connections to these bikeways to encourage and facilitate bicycle travel. Proposed Street A and Bay Avenue within the Specific Plan area would have Class III Bike Routes (shared travel lanes for bikes and vehicles with no striping) which would provide connectivity to the existing and proposed bicycle facilities along site-adjacent roadways (refer to Figure 3-7, Project Access/Circulation).

3. Transit
The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) would serve the TCMV Specific Plan area. Currently, there are bus stops on Nason Street (at Cottonwood Avenue and Alessandro Boulevard) as well as a stop on Alessandro Boulevard (toward the southwestern corner of the Specific Plan area). Potential new bus routes and bus stops may be implemented within the Specific Plan area with the specific locations to be determined in coordination with RTA during the processing of site development plans. Bus stops would incorporate features to encourage transit use such as lighting, shading, ample seating spaces, and landscaping, and would be reviewed and approved by RTA and the City.

Additionally, a Metrolink station (Moreno Valley/March Field Station) is located just southwest of the Alessandro Boulevard/I-215 intersection, and TCMV Specific Plan residents and visitors would be able to travel to and from the Metrolink station via the RTA Alessandro bus route . Pedestrian access and circulation from bus stops and public sidewalks into and through the Specific Plan area would be convenient and well-marked with wayfinding signage.

4. Vehicle Parking
The TCMV Specific Plan requires parking be provided for the proposed uses . Table 3 -3, Parking Requirements, identifies the parking requirements within the TCMV Specific Plan area. As identified in Table 3 -2, TCMV Specific Plan Development Standards , parking facilities may include surface parking, garage/tuck-under parking, underground/podium parking, and aboveground parking structures. The development of parking structures would be subject to a site plan review process, and the proposed TCMV Specific Plan includes additional requirements related to the design, access, and landscaping for parking structures.
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Table 3-3 Parking Requirements
Requirement Standard
Single-Family 2.0 spaces per unit
Multiple Family*
Studio: 1.25/unit
1 bedroom: 1.5/unit
2 bedroom: 2.0/unit
3 or more bedroom: 2.3/unit
(Guest accounted for in requirement)
Covered Parking (residential uses only) 1 space per unit shall be covered (minimum) Other Uses
MVMC Section 9.11.040, Off-Street Parking Requirements, will apply or as determined by an approved parking study, indicating the proposed use would have a parking or loading space demand other than the requirements of this Section.

Shared Parking Reduction
15% parking reduction permissible when multiple uses are present on-site (i.e., civic, commercial, residential). Shared parking is pursuant to MVMC Section 9.11.070.
* For purposes of the TCMV Specific Plan and development of the Project, the terms “multiple-family” and “attached” shall refer to configurations of residential units consisting of two (2) or more units sharing at least one (1) common wall.

C. Park and Recreation Facilities
As shown on Figure 3-6, Conceptual Land Use Plan, the proposed TCMV Specific Plan includes approximately 4.9 acres of open space area, including an approximately 3.5-acre area to be centrally located and open to the public, and an approximately 1.4-acre linear park. The open space areas would provide passive and recreational opportunities for the community. The location of parks near the commercial/civic uses would add an enhanced visitor and resident experience to the community as people could conveniently spend time in both the commercial and the park spaces . The parks would be constructed by the developer and operated/maintained by the City of Moreno Valley.

Park plans have not been developed; however, for purposes of analysis in this EIR it is anticipated that the park amenities and activities in the central park area could include, but not be limited to , the following: public space for events, festivals, and informal gatherings; turf area and landscaping; shade structures; and decorative hardscape. The linear park would be an extension of the gathering space in the commercial area; would have pathways for pedestrian travel; and would offer the ability to recreate, picnic, and socialize in the open air.

D. Design Guidelines
Chapter 5 of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan includes Design Guidelines, which serve as the design basis for future neighborhood development . The community character would be captured through carefully integrating architecture and landscape. The Design Guidelines are intended to help ensure a high level of design quality while providing the flexibility necessary to encourage creativity. The Design Guidelines are also meant to promote development which is pedestrian -oriented, interconnected, and encourages sustainable neighborhood design principles . Detailed information ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

about the Design Guidelines is provided in Chapter 5 of the proposed TCMV Specific Plan. A summary of key design elements is provided below.

1. Residential and Non-residential Uses
The proposed TCMV Specific Plan provides design and architectural guidelines for residential buildings, attached neighborhoods, and commercial uses to achieve the intended community character, as summarized below. Additionally, the proposed TCMV Specific Plan outlines design guidelines for colors and materials to be used.
• Residential Uses. The design guidelines describe architectural styles, building form and massing, colors and materials, roofs, parking and garages, alley treatments, and space for refuse storage bins for residential buildings. Homes would be broken down into smaller components to reduce the massing volume. This would be achieved through a variety of architectural techniques and treatments such as: varied roof forms and heights, changes in materials and color, architectural articulation, and clearly defined entry features. Architectural screens, fences, and accessory structures would be compatible in material, color, and texture to the main buildings.

Each multi-family (attached) neighborhood would be designed for compatibility within itself, using a blend of compatible architectural styles and a balanced palette of colors and materials.

However, these neighborhoods would also share a cohesive aesthetic with the rest of the community. The following general concepts would be considered when planning for and designing multi-family housing: design and site buildings with a strong physical relationship to common areas of the community; and emphasize pedestrian access and connections to public sidewalks, paseos, and open space systems. The design guidelines outline site planning criteria, parking, and garage placement, solid waste enclosures for attached neighborhoods.

The design guidelines also provide general design criteria and guidance for residential architectural styles, addressing the design philosophy, authentic adaptations, streetscape diversity, and enhancements.

• Commercial/Civic U ses. Throughout the commercial and civic areas , landscaping, site planning, and architectural design would create friendly and welcoming places to shop, work, and gather. These non-residential uses would continue the vision established in the residential community, including integrated pedestrian-friendly design, recreation, and an active environment. T he design guidelines establish guiding principles; site planning for amenities/gathering places, access and site circulation, parking/parking structures, signage, and utilities, services, and refuse collection; architectural guidelines; and guidelines for furniture and landscaping. Commercial areas would be visually attractive and cohesive with the surrounding residential and natural environment, which would be accomplished through the following:
■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

o Be scaled appropriately and authentic to the location and use of the building. o Present a unified development character without creating repetitious or redundant forms or design.
o Be complementary to the color of architectural features of the community. o Avoid singular building forms through the use of architectural elements, offset wall planes or changes in building massing/height.
o Highlight and accentuate entries through architectural elements or details such as materials, color, massing or similar.
o Finish metal panels, elements or wall systems to reduce reflection and glare. o Orient loading and storage areas away from major roadways or residential edge conditions. Where this is not feasible, appropriate shielding should be used to blend with site design vocabulary.

2. Streetscape Design
The thoroughfares, streets, and walkways would include a planting design that reinforces the community’s character and create s a strong neighborhood identity utilizing such design features as theme trees and places of respite. Curb-separated sidewalks, on-street bicycle lanes, and off-street paseos would be implemented to provide for a pleasant and safe pedestrian and bicycling environment.

The following methods are suggestions to enhance the community design:
• Orient residences toward the street with clearly defined entries . When using motor court configurations, the end unit adjacent to the street would locate the front door along the street frontage, where feasible.
• Provide a direct pedestrian path between the home and the sidewalk. • Use low courtyard walls or fences to delineate between the public and private realm. • Use landscape plantings to enhance the street scene and soften the built environment. • Landscape shall entail low water use features and be native when possible. • Building elevations should reflect variety to enhance the overall community aesthetic but also feel cohesive.

3. Monuments, Entry Features, and Signage
The following types of monuments, entry features, and signage would be provided within the TCMV Specific Plan area.
• Community Entry Monuments would serve as the community identifier, would facilitate wayfinding, and would be placed at major and secondary points of entry. ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

• Neighborhood Pilasters would be placed at the entry of each neighborhood and would be of pedestrian scale.
• Park Monuments would be placed in the open space areas to identify park names and would have similar aesthetic characteristics to enhance community visual cohesion. • Nonresidential Land Use Monuments would be placed at or near the entries and/or major street intersections and would feature the names of stores easily identifiable by motorists. • Private Entry Gates are permitted for individual planning a reas and the wall/gate/fence and would match the visual character of the community by using similar materials and styles.

4. Walls and Fences
Community walls and fences would be implemented to define and enhance the visual character of the community, but would be designed to provide aesthetic variety, maximize view opportunities , and enable privacy. Where common or private areas interface with perimeter streets, public open space , and/or residential lots, a solid decorative theme wall, a tubular steel view fence with matching themed pilasters, and/or a combo wall would be constructed. P rivacy fences are permitted in residential conditions where they create a delineation between the public and private realm. They are also permitted between homes to create individual outdoor spaces.

5. Lighting and Mechanical Equipment
Lighting would be utilized along streets, within the public realm (commercial center and public open space areas) and in residential areas for security and aesthetics . To reduce light pollution, exterior lighting would be unobtrusive, reduce off-site glare, and light only the intended area . Lighting would be subject to compliance with the proposed TCMV Specific Plan requirements and MVMC Section

9.08.100, Lighting.

Mechanical equipment (i.e., HVAC equipment, electric and gas meters, electrical transformers, pool and spa equipment, and exterior landscape/lighting equipment) would be screened from public view to the extent feasible. Screening methods would include, but not be limited to, landscaping and/or low walls and parapets.

E. Sustainable Features
The TCMV Specific Plan would be implemented in conformance with building regulations included in CalGreen . CalGreen is a comprehensive set of regulations which mandate environmentally- advanced building practices and regulations designed to conserve natural resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and water use.

F. Utility Infrastructure Improvements
The municipal an d private utility infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed development are currently available within or adjacent to the Project site. On-site utility infrastructure necessary to serve ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

the proposed development, including domestic water, sanitary sewer, drainage, water quality treatment, and dry utilities (e.g., electricity, natural gas, cable, telephone), would be installed with the proposed development and would connect to the existing utility lines adjacent to the Project site. The final sizing and design of on-site facilities would occur during final design. Following is a description of existing and proposed infrastructure.

1. Water
EMWD provides potable and non-potable water facilities for the region. The Project is not a candidate for reclaimed water due to the lack of existing or planned reclaimed water lines in the area. As shown on Figure 3-8, Conceptual Utility Plan, there are existing water lines located in the roadways adjacent to the Project site (Nason Street, Alessandro Boulevard, Bay Avenue, and Cottonwood Avenue). The Project’s water service would be connected to the existing 8-inch water line in Bay Avenue, 12 -inch water line in Alessandro Boulevard and Nason Street, and the 24-inch watermain along Cottonwood Avenue, which then continue north along Nason Street and ultimately connect to the Moreno Beach

3.38- MG Tank located east on Fir Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue.

2. Sewer and Wastewater
EMWD also provides sanitary sewer and wastewater services to the Project site . As shown on Figure 3-8, Conceptual Utility Plan, there is an existing 8-inch sewer line located in Bay Avenue (west of the Project site) and an 18-inch sewer line in Nason St reet. The Project would involve the installation of 8-inch sewer lines along the proposed north-south public street and Bay Avenue. The proposed sewer line in Bay Avenue would connect to the existing sewer line in Bay Avenue west of the Project site.

The proposed sewer line in the proposed north-south public street would connect to a new 10- inch sewer line to be installed in Alessandro Boulevard, which would extend to the east to its point of connection with the existing sewer line in Nason Street. The primary trunk sewer line serving the Project site is located in Iris Avenue south of the Project site, which continues in a southerly direction at La Fortuna Lane, then southwest across El Potrero Park, and crossing Mariposa Avenue to convey wastewater to the Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (MVRWRF) located in the southwestern portion of the City near Kitching Street and Mariposa Avenue . Wastewater generated from the TCMV Specific Plan area would be treated at the MVRWRF, which has the capacity to treat 16 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater.

■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- ■■ Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report
~ ~. 1/1/ ~=2- .
/- .
<i> I : . I
- ;---=:---=====-=!-.at
:ti~~~~~~;, == ~=; :;_~ - ~ =-:z oM
"
- ~- --~--=----
- ---~l~,~= PQ TIP
TER'-llNATE PROP

SANITARY SE
EX. MVU ELEC
,,.

CONNECT TO EX. ORA!N
J!
11 I
Lll1U!!t)JJJJL,,~~~~~:3lfil~lJIL]~~illE~~ ~ ~
Source(s): Connon (February 2025)
ffl!TI Wffltw ll:ii
City of Moreno Valley
LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

EASEMENT /SETBACK

STREET CENTERLINE
CURB

CURB & GUTTER

WATER MAIN

SANITARY SEWER LINE

STORM DRAIN LINE

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

EXISTING PROPOSED
/l
- - - - ---- I I
------- -------
-- - -- -- - --
-- ---- --
-- --
--X"W-- --x·w-
--X"S-- --K"SS-
--SD-- --so--
CONNECT TO EX. WATER
EX. TELEPHONE
EX. OIL
EX. SCE ELECTRIC
EX. MVU ELEC
I ~I
3 .0 Project Description

CONSIRUCDON NOIES
0 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
0 PROPOSED EMl'ltl WATER MAIN
0 PROPOSED EMV.V SEWER MAIN
0 PROPOSED INLET
© PROPOSED CURB
0 PROPOSED MEDIAN LANDSCAPING
0 PROPOSED SIDEWALK

I CONTINUATION
SEE BELOW LEfT
I ■■ I
I
I
I
I
i l,
: ,I
I •
I -
Figure 3-8
Conceptual Utility Plan

Page 3 ends

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

3. Storm Drain and Water Quality Features
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) is the governing agency for the regional flood control system serving the Project. The Project site is within the Moreno Master Drainage Plan (MDP) area. Stormwater flows from the eastern portion of the Project site drain to an existing storm drain in Nason Street; there are several storm drain stubs to the Project site. At the northwest corner of Alessandro Boulevard and Nason Street is a field inlet and 36-inch drain, which drains the entirety of the Project site’s eastern are a that currently drains to Nason Street. This line discharges into the 78-inch and 84-inch reinforced concrete pipes (RCP) within Nason Street. There is an existing 36-inch storm drain line in Alessandro Boulevard west of the Project site, which accepts flow from the western portion of the Project site. There is an existing storm drain in Bay Avenue that accepts drainage from the northern portion of the Project site. The Project would maintain the existing drainage patterns and would involve the installation of on-site storm drains that would connect to existing storm drains along Alessandro Boulevard, Nason Street, and Bay Avenue. Additionally, a 36- inch storm drain would be installed along Alessandro Boulevard extending from Street A to the east (approximately 650 feet west of the Project site’s westerly boundary).

With respect to water quality protection, as shown on Figure 3-9, Conceptual Water Quality Exhibit, temporary sedimentation ba sins would be install ed on-site after grading is complete to capture sediment. During the processing of future plot plans, required site-specific Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) would be prepared and would identify structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) that would be installed with each development project implementing the proposed TCMV Specific Plan. The type and size of BMPs would be dependent on the feasibility of infiltration.

If infiltration is feasible, BMPs would include but not be limited to infiltration trenches, infiltration basins, permeable pavement, etc. If infiltration is not feasible, the BMPs would include, but not be limited to , harvest and reuse and bioretention facilities . Non-structural BMPs would also be implemented.

4. Dry Utilities
MoVal Electric is the electricity provider for the Project site and has an existing system of underground electrical facilities along Alessandro Avenue, Nason Street, and Cottonwood Avenue. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the natural gas provider for the Project site, and both Frontier Communications and Charter Communications provide telecommunications and cable. Dry utility infrastructure would be installed on-site and would connect to existing utilities in the roadways adjacent to the Project site. All dry utilities would be installed underground.

■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- ■■
■ □
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
~--+~===~~
(),.I'- -
c,~~- : .. "= -
·~ - ~
Source(s): Cannon (2022)
mnJ Wffltw WWW
City of Moreno Valley
3 .0 Project Description
Figure 3-9
Conceptual Water Quality Exhibit

Page 3 ends

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

3.4.4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM NO. 38421)
The Project site currently consists of two lots (69.6 gross acres ) on the north and south side s of the currently dedicated Bay Avenue. Proposed TTM No. 38421 would subdivide the Project site into six (6) residential-use lots, one (1) commercial-use lot, two (2) open space lots, and associated dedicated areas for necessary infrastructure (refer to Figure 3-10a and b, Proposed Tentative Tract Map 38421).

Proposed Street A and the east-west extension of Bay Avenue would divide the Project site into four quadrants. The existing alignment of Bay Avenue would be vacated and existing road easements along Alessandro Boulevard, Cottonwood Avenue, and Nason Street would be dedicated to the City.

3.5 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS
Development pursuant to the TCMV Specific Plan would occur in phases based on market demands .

The estimated Project construction schedule, organized by construction stage, is summarized in Table 3-4, Estimated Construction Schedule . For purposes of analysis in this EIR, it is estimated that construction would begin in November 2025 and be complete by November 2028.

Construction generates on-road vehicle emissions from vehicle usage for workers and vendors commuting to and from the site. The estimated number of worker and vendor trips for purposes of analysis are presented below in Table 3-5, Construction Trip Assumptions.

Table 3-4 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Days
Site Preparation 11/5/2025 11/26/2025 40
Grading 11/26/2025 03/23/2026 110
Building Construction 03/23/2026 11/6/2028 550
Paving 07/23/2026 11/6/2026 75
Architectural Coating 08/23/2028 11/6/2028 75
Source: (Urban Crossroads 2025a)

Table 3-5 Construction Trip Assumptions
Construction Activity Worker Trips Per Day Vendor Trips Per Day Site Preparation 18 15
Grading 20 13
Building Construction 372 107
Paving 15 0
Architectural Coating 74 0
Source: (Urban Crossroads 2025a)

LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS
Source(s): Cannon (2022)
ZONE X - AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE T11E 0.2~

ANNUAL CH ANCE FLOOD PLAIN

EASEMENT/SETBACK

STREET CENTERLINE

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

WATER MAIN

SANITARY SEWER LINE

STORM DRAIN LINE

CENTERLINE
CURB

EXISTING

FLOW LINE

CITY PEN NUMBERS,

UNLESSNOTEDOIBERWISE

NOT A PART OF IBIS PLAN
(PEN22-0077)

LOT AREAS
EXISTING R/W rnsTING DEDICATION/ COMMENTS
LOT OR LOT EASEMENT SUBDl~SION (AC)
COTTONWOOD AVENUE D 0.610 0.061 0.708 (RE)DEDICATE
NASON STREET E 1.434 2.319 3.938 VACATE.REDEDICATE
ALESSANDRO AVENUE F 1.662 0.110 1.891 VACATE.REDEDICATE BAY AVENUE A 2.426 1.846 VACATE.REDEDICATE
"A"STREET B,C 3.902 DEDICATE
'"WD MAINTAIN
LOT1 I 26.292 6.197 RESIDENTIAL
LOT2 2 34.460 6.293 RESIDENTIAL
LOT3 3 5.723 RESDENTIAL
LOT4 4 3.497 OPEN SPACE
LOTS 5 7.449 RESDENTIAL
LOT6 6 7,838 RESDENTIAL
LOT? 7 15.932 COM MERICAL
LOTS 8 1.373 OPEN SPACE
LOT9 9 3.031 RESOENTIAL
SUM AREAS 66.884 2.741 69.618
TOTA.L AREAS 69.624AC(EX) 69.618AC.PR
PORTIONS OF BAY. ALESSANDRO, AND NASC(\j THAT ABUT THE PRO.A:CT EXIST AS RIGHT OF WAY AND WILL EASEMENT TABLE "' ec-cmwrn ""'" cc rnc '"'
AFFECTS PURPOSE REFERENCE BENEFlCIARY PR. COMMENT DOC/LDC DISPOSITION

EXISTING
Kl) PUBLIC UTIUTIES & DOC / 1977-43349 OF SCEC IJJITCLAIM INOOENTA.L PURPOSE OFFICIAL RECORDS
Kn BOUNDARY BOOK 80, PAGE 53 OF COUNTY OF IJJITCLAIM

RECORDS OF SURVEY RIVERSIDE
K3> ROAD & UTILITlES DOC #1993-211297 OF aTY OF MORENO CONVERT TO

OFFICIAL RECORDS VALLEY RIGHT OF WAY
w PIPELINE DOC #2012-0177957 OF E,WD IJJITCLAIM

OFFICIAL RECORDS
Ks) ROAD & UTIUTlES DOC #2D13-463248 OF QTY OF MORENO CONVERT TO

OFFICIAL RECORDS VALLEY RIGHT OF WAY
KD DRAINAGE DOC #2013-484376 OF OTY OF MORENO MAINTAIN

OFFICIAL RECORDS VALLEY
PRCf'OSED
'@ DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED ~ n-, MAP PROPOSED
<3§) MUVELEClRIC DEDICATED PER PROPOSED

SEPARATE DOCUMENT
ff9 ""'

DEDICATED PER PROPOSED

SEPARATE DOCUMENT
mnJ Wffltw WWW
City of Moreno Valley
--,·w--
--X"S--
--sc--
--,·c--
--sec--
--,--
--rnc--
--,w--
--w--
SC
CL/ It_
CB
(C)
FL/ f[_
"" PL/ fr_
R/W or RW
-----
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38421
Sheet List Table
NAME
llTLESHEET
2 SECTIONS
3 lRACT AREA MAP

SURVEY NOTE

SURVEY PROVIDED BY DEVELOPER, AND SUPPLEMENTED
BY CANNON CORP., FIELD DATA 3/18/22
MORENO VALLEY FRWY. 60
t; lfJ
t
~I I,
1 1
EMY AV.,
ALLESSANDRO BL 1/D.

CACTUS AV.

VICINilY MAP
3 .0 Project Description
"' BAY AV. a
Parcel Line and Curve Table Parcel Line and Curve Table !iiiiii----iiii
Line #/Curve # Length Bearing/Delta Radius Line #/Curve # Length Bearing/Delta Radius N0'25'55.56" E
N0"25'55.56" E
S89"34'04.44"E
N0'25'55.56" E
N46" 57' 58.44" W

33.99 S46"57'51.60" E
so· 25· 52.56" W
S89'34'04.44" E
S14' 23' 49.21"W
so· 26' 0J.2s ·w
N89' 33' 38.44"W
N0"25'55.56" E
578.19 S89"33'27.39" E
so· 2s· 49.56"W
N89' 33' 45.25" W
N0"26'01.30"E
100.52 NH ' 23' 49.21"E
S89"33'27.48" E
so· 25' 49.56" W
S40" 14' 38.72 "W
S89'33'38.44" E
N0°26'22.03" E
N89' 33' ~.44"W
N0'26'01.30 "E
N89" 33' 47.95"W
N89' 34' 59.51"W
N0'26'21.06" E
120.04 N14' 10' 29.90"W
N0"25'51.43" E
N45"30'22.34"E
N44' 29' 37.66"W
N14° 10' 29.90" W
SO' 25' 49.56" W
N0'29'05.24" E
N0"28' 45.33"E
N14' 10' 29.90" W
N0'19'23.74" E

23.98 N89' 33' 57.4 4"W
N89" 33' 57.44 "W
539·33'57.44 "E
N38'28'H.56"E
281.51 SO" 25' 49.56" W
55· 20' 47.56" W
NO' 08' 32.H"W
SO' 25' 49.56 "W

31.2 5 S39"23'40.76 "E
S89'33'38.44" E
SO' 26' 04.49" W
S89"33'57.44 "E
N0"26'36.56"E
N89' 34' 10.44" W
S89'3 3'23.44" E

44.00 SO' 26' 32.83" W
N89° 33' 23.44 "W
N0'26'36.56" E
SO" 25' 52.56"W

66.00 so· 2s· ss.12" w
N84"43'24.56"E
N89' 34' 04.4 4"W
SO" 25' 52.56"W
Figure 3- l Oa
Proposed Tentative Tract Map 38421

Page 3 ends

■■
■ □
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
TTl.-1 38421
I
NORTH
R/W
2' VARIES - 67 (TYP)
MIN. 12' VARIES - 55 tTYPJ
~
6' B'
MIN. BIKE PATH 12' 12' 14'
12' EAST OF "A"
STREET

PROPOSED
134' '<
I

WIDTH VARIES IMPROVEMENTS
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONDITlONt.U
9' TYP 9' TYP RAISED
VARIES
ti!!' v/
MEDIAN
g~ F\Jl\JRE

IMPROVEMENTS
FUTURE
67'
55'
B'
12' 12' BIKE PATH
12'
6'
MIN.
sou TH
w R/
I I 1.5% (T'IP) I I I

1.5% I ~ -=• % 2% MAX ,B" CURB ~ MAX 2%
"'- ' ... "'" '::. '::. '::. '::. = = = ~ _;;~:= 2: 1
Ii... SLOPE
MAX
TTM 38421
Source(s): Cannon (2022)
mnJ Wffltw WWW
City of Moreno Valley
~
WEST
R/W
1~;oJll;=lll=IIRIFffi.!::.u!fil!!ii' w1 ffllwi ml pl
I
(13')
(7')
(B')

BIKE PATH
CLASS 5 DIVIDED ARTERIAL (ALESSANDRO BLVD)

TYPICAL SECTION
MVSl-101A-1
(79')
VARIES 112'-140'
VARIES (53.5') TYP STA: 6+72 - 19+80
VARIES ( 40.5') TYP
VARIES (34') T'/P

22.13'

CONSTRUCTION
'<
RECORD
'<
N.T.S. A
(55')
(43')
(12')
(2")
---===-~------- ________ _:2_:)c::;_
VARIES 57 -96
STA: 0+00 - 6+ 72

MEDIAN WIDTH

VARIES WITH TURN
LANES Cl.ARKMEAD
& ALESSANDRO
4 LANE DIVIDED ARTERIAL (NASON ST) - EXISTING B
TYPICAL SECTION N. T.S.

MVSl-103A-1
SEE ALSO RECORD DRAWING, PROJECT No. 801 0001 70 77
i,;;,~w1iii1.!ff'..!.fil:.:,W=,1F11~~~=~
EAST
R/W
(12') (2')
MIN.
(B')

BIKE PATH
(2,1)
~
SLOPE
MAX 2") 2 ,.-MAlL
(2,1)
SLOPE
MAX
2'
MIN.
~
2:1
SLOPE
MAX
2:1
SLOPE
MAX
(2')
MIN.

NORTH
R/W
(12')
(6.5')
MIN.

WEST
R/W
(B')
(44')
(32')
(12')
(2%)
--~-
EXIST.
(12') (12')

CITY MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL

TESTING TO VERIFY PAVEMENT CONDITION

AND MAY REQUIRE REPAVING

MINOR ARTERIAL (COTTONWOOD AVE)

TYPICAL SECTION
MVSl-105A-2
14'
N.T.S.
32'
12'
C
B'

PROPOSED
44'
B'
(TYP)
8" CURB

6.5'
MIN.
11'

1.5%
MAX
~~Sl=ilfill ~
LOCAL COLLECTOR (BAY AVE. & A ST.)

TYPICAL SECTION
NVSl-106B-0

PROPOSED
N.T.S. D

6.5'
MIN.

EAST
R/W
3 .0 Project Description
12'
SOUTH
R/W
TIM 38421
Figure 3- l Ob
Proposed Tentative Tract Map 38421

Page 3 ends

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Construction activities would require the use of common equipment and construction equipment is conservatively expected to operate on the Project site up to eight hours per day, six days per week .

Even though construction activities are permitted to occur between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays, and 8:00 a.m . to 4:00 p.m . on Saturdays pursuant to MVMC Section 8.14.040(e), construction equipment is not in continuous use and some pieces of equipment are used only periodically throughout a typical day of construction. Thus, eight hours of daily use per piece of equipment is a conservative and reasonable assumption. The City of Moreno Valley allows nighttime construction activities only upon special authorization from City staff, as specified in MVMC Sections

8.14.040(e) and 11.80.030(D)(7). The composition of the construction equipment fleet that the Project Applicant intends to use to construct the Project, which also is used for purposes of analysis is in this EIR, is summarized in Table 3-6, Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet. No blasting, rock crushing, or pile driving would be required.

Table 3-6 Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet
Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 4 8 87 0.43
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.40
Grading
Crawler Tractors 2 8 87 0.43
Excavators 2 8 36 0.38
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40
Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48
Building Construction
Cranes 2 8 367 0.29
Forklifts 5 8 82 0.20
Generator Sets 2 8 14 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 5 8 84 0.37
Welders 2 8 46 0.45
Paving
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48
Source: (Urban Crossroads 2025a)

As shown on Figure 3-11, Conceptual Grading Plan, the Project would result in approximately 92,380 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 82,480 cy of fill, with approximately 9,900 cy of shrinkage anticipated.

Therefore, the earthwork would balance on-site and there would be no need for import or export of soils.

The on-site utilities would be trenched and installed within the Project site and would connect to the existing utilities within the site adjacent roadways. As previously identified, a new storm drain would also be installed along Alessandro Boulevard between proposed Street A and the existing storm drain located approximately 650 feet to the west of the Project site westerly boundary. Off-site impacts along ■■
■□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Moreno Valley

Page 3 ends

Moreno Valley City CouncilJune 3, 2025

Moreno Valley City Council
June 3, 2025